Ride-hailing and autonomous mobility-on-demand operators reposition idle supply before future demand is fully observed. We study a retrieval-calibrated predict-then-optimize approach for this problem: historical demand regimes are matched to the current query block, combined into a calibrated demand prior, and passed to a fleet-balancing controller. The paper makes three contributions. First, we train a leakage-safe similarity gate whose objective penalizes demand error, pickup spatial mismatch, and queue shortage risk rather than retrieval rank alone. Second, we develop a spatial queue-regret decomposition for a stable queueing surrogate, linking demand-field error to wait through queueing sensitivity, allocator sensitivity, and Wasserstein pickup mismatch. Third, we evaluate learned retrieval and external-style rebalancing baselines in a common simulator. In the calibrated-demand gate experiment, across eight New York City scenarios and ten seeds, the spatial gate reduces mean wait to 82.3s, compared with 85.3s for hand-tuned similarity and 85.8s for a distributional-only baseline. In a separate replay-demand controller comparison, a scenario chance-MPC analog and a share-target transportation LP improve on Wen-style rebalancing (92.2s/92.2s vs. 100.1s), a reduced GPR chance-MPC comparator is intermediate at 94.4s, and an oracle MPC diagnostic is 91.3s.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Method overview: learned regime retrieval constructs a calibrated spatial prior that drives a share-target transportation LP.
Figure 2: Numerical diagnostic for the theory section. Pickup spatial mismatch is an operational error term, not just a distributional statistic.
Scenario
Calendar type
Time block
jan_nye_am
holiday
morning
jan_nye_pm
holiday
evening
jan_weekday_am
weekday
morning
jan_weekday_pm
weekday
evening
jan_weekend_mid
weekend
midday
jun_late_night
summer weekday
late night
Table 1: Evaluation scenarios.
Method
Wait (s)
Completion
Vs. replay (%)
Spatial learned gate
82.3
0.957
32.3
Hand-tuned similarity
85.3
0.959
31.2
Distributional-only
85.8
0.960
30.5
Random simplex
86.1
0.959
30.8
Uniform weights
86.6
0.961
30.0
Replay demand
123.0
0.957
–
Table 2: Learned gate validation over 8 scenarios and 10 seeds.
Method
Wait (s)
Completion
Vs. replay (%)
Oracle MPC
91.3
0.960
26.3
Scenario chance MPC
92.2
0.960
25.6
Share-target LP
92.2
0.960
25.5
Spatial-gate share LP
92.5
0.960
25.3
GPR chance MPC-lite
94.4
0.959
24.2
Wen-style rebalancing
100.1
0.959
18.7
Table 3: External baselines re-run in the simulator on replay demand.
Config
Weights
Demand ρ
Operational ρ
no_queue
0.30/0.70/0.00
0.938
0.469
spatial_heavy
0.15/0.70/0.15
0.936
0.451
current
0.25/0.55/0.20
0.935
0.448
demand_heavy
0.50/0.35/0.15
0.932
0.446
queue_heavy
0.20/0.40/0.40
0.939
0.443
balanced
0.34/0.33/0.33
0.935
0.443
Table 4: Objective-weight sweep. Weights are demand/spatial/queue.
Figure 3: Main learned-gate comparison over eight scenarios and ten seeds.
Figure 4: Replay-demand external baseline comparison. Oracle MPC peeks at future requests and is included as an upper-bound diagnostic.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Scenario
Replay
Learned
Hand
Dist.
Random
jan_nye_am
187.5
145.0
156.7
163.3
157.0
jan_nye_pm
152.4
72.5
91.5
89.3
102.9
jan_weekday_am
106.2
70.6
73.4
74.1
74.3
jan_weekday_pm
106.9
75.5
80.9
66.4
74.9
jan_weekend_mid
96.2
81.2
63.6
83.0
68.4
jun_late_night
127.9
64.3
69.7
63.4
69.1
Appendix
Table 5: Per-scenario learned-gate wait times over 10 seeds.
Scenario
Replay
Wen
Chance
LP
Spatial LP
Oracle
jan_nye_am
187.5
156.0
153.3
153.4
153.7
153.0
jan_nye_pm
152.4
122.3
109.8
109.8
110.4
107.9
jan_weekday_am
106.2
85.9
81.3
80.9
81.0
79.0
jan_weekday_pm
106.9
86.7
78.2
78.1
78.4
77.3
jan_weekend_mid
96.2
79.7
71.4
71.8
71.7
71.3
jun_late_night
127.9
103.9
94.1
94.7
94.5
92.9
Appendix
Table 6: Per-scenario replay-demand external-baseline wait times over 10 seeds.