GenMatch: An End-to-End Generative Matching Framework for Micro-View Order-Dispatching in Ride-Hailing
Authors: Chuang Liu, Yuxueqing Zhang, Tengfei Lyu, Zirui Yuan, Weiqi Hu, Yanghan Cheng, Ming Wang, Li Ma, Zihao Lu
Organizations: Didi Chuxing Hangzhou, China · Didi Chuxing Beijing, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China
Micro-View Order-Dispatching assigns available drivers to passenger orders within each dispatch batch and is critical to the service quality and operational efficiency of ride-hailing platforms. Mainstream industrial solutions follow a multi-stage paradigm of model prediction, value calculation, and dispatch matching. Although dispatch quality is determined by the final batch-level assignment, these stages optimize different intermediate objectives. This cross-stage objective inconsistency means that improving a single stage does not necessarily improve the overall dispatch result. We therefore formulate Micro-View Order-Dispatching as a generative matching problem and propose GenMatch, an end-to-end Generative Matching framework and the first such framework deployed in a real-world production environment. Applying generative modeling to this problem introduces three challenges. First, each dispatch batch forms a dynamic sparse bipartite graph, requiring efficient structured batch-level encoding. Second, replacing the hand-crafted value function requires learning unified business utility from heterogeneous feedback. Third, directly generating an assignment requires tracking the evolving matching state because each selected order-driver pair changes the remaining feasible candidates. GenMatch addresses these challenges with a Context-Aware Bipartite Encoder, a Business-Aware Utility Learner, and a State-Aware Pointer Decoder. Extensive offline evaluations and online A/B tests in five cities across DiDi's international ride-hailing markets show consistent improvements over competitive baselines, confirming the effectiveness and practicality of GenMatch for industrial order-dispatching.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Comparison of (a) the end-to-end generative paradigm and (b) the conventional multi-stage paradigm for Micro-View Order-Dispatching. (a) The proposed end-to-end generative dispatch framework, which models each dispatch batch as a whole and directly generates the dispatch result in an autoregressive manner. (b) The conventional multi-stage dispatch paradigm, which performs pair-level prediction, value calculation, and dispatch matching in separate stages.
Figure 2. GenMatch architecture: (a) Context-Aware Bipartite Encoder, (b) Business-Aware Utility Learner, and (c) State-Aware Pointer Decoder. The GenMatch architecture consists of a Context-Aware Bipartite Encoder, a Business-Aware Utility Learner, and a State-Aware Pointer Decoder. The decoder updates the selected and residual matching states after generating each OD pair.
Variant
City I
City II
City III
AR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
APT (%) ↓
GMV (%) ↑
AR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
APT (%) ↓
GMV (%) ↑
AR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
APT (%) ↓
GMV (%) ↑
PDP KM
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
PDP Greedy
− 1.86 ± 0.05
− 1.69 ± 0.09
− 0.24 ± 0.02
− 0.14 ± 0.01
− 0.97 ± 0.06
− 1.26 ± 0.04
− 0.25 ± 0.01
− 1.16 ± 0.06
− 1.92 ± 0.15
− 2.35 ± 0.18
− 0.31 ± 0.02
− 0.19 ± 0.02
PDP GS
− 0.42 ± 0.02
− 0.30 ± 0.03
− 0.06 ± 0.01
− 0.04 ± 0.00
− 0.38 ± 0.02
− 0.54 ± 0.02
+ 0.10 ± 0.01
− 0.47 ± 0.04
− 0.79 ± 0.06
− 0.76 ± 0.07
+ 0.14 ± 0.01
− 0.27 ± 0.02
D2SN
− 0.09 ± 0.03
+ 0.18 ± 0.07
− 0.36 ± 0.02
− 0.05 ± 0.00
− 0.03 ± 0.09
− 0.19 ± 0.11
− 0.12 ± 0.01
− 0.47 ± 0.06
− 0.37 ± 0.12
− 0.44 ± 0.07
− 0.03 ± 0.01
− 0.24 ± 0.04
RLW
− 0.78 ± 0.04
− 0.50 ± 0.05
+ 0.42 ± 0.02
− 0.02 ± 0.00
− 0.24 ± 0.03
− 0.48 ± 0.02
+ 0.34 ± 0.03
− 0.27 ± 0.03
− 0.68 ± 0.08
− 0.71 ± 0.08
+ 0.22 ± 0.03
− 0.16 ± 0.02
Table 1. Offline performance relative to PDP KM . Values are the mean ± standard deviation of percentage changes over five runs; bold and underline denote the best and second-best results.
Module
Variant
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
GenMatch
Full
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
Encoder
A1
− 2.55 ± 0.12
− 3.07 ± 0.07
+ 1.16 ± 0.02
− 2.28 ± 0.15
A2
− 2.43 ± 0.06
− 2.69 ± 0.03
+ 1.14 ± 0.01
− 2.15 ± 0.06
A3
− 0.39 ± 0.06
− 0.25 ± 0.03
+ 0.18 ± 0.02
− 0.40 ± 0.07
Learner
A4
− 2.76 ± 0.16
− 3.15 ± 0.08
+ 1.17 ± 0.03
− 2.32 ± 0.18
A5
− 2.02 ± 0.08
− 2.34 ± 0.04
+ 1.53 ± 0.02
− 1.88 ± 0.09
Table 2. Core City III ablations relative to GenMatch (Full), reported as the mean ± standard deviation of percentage changes over five runs. Bold denotes the best result in each column.
Variant
City III
City IV
City V
Overall
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
GenMatchValue
0.88%
2.31% ∗
− 7.08% ∗
2.35% ∗
0.59%
3.06% ∗
− 4.55% ∗
2.43% ∗
0.75% ∗
1.67% ∗
− 4.05% ∗
1.04%
0.77% ∗
1.93% ∗
− 4.85% ∗
1.49% ∗
GenMatch
3.18% ∗
5.37% ∗
− 2.20% ∗
4.89% ∗
1.72% ∗
4.51% ∗
− 1.68% ∗
3.93% ∗
2.01% ∗
3.26% ∗
− 1.76% ∗
2.16% ∗
2.26% ∗
3.86% ∗
− 1.84% ∗
2.97% ∗
Table 3. Online A/B test improvements over PDP KM (T − C). Overall averages the three cities; ∗ indicates p<0.05 .
Metric
Delta (T − C)
Dispatch Effectiveness Measures
Broadcast Count
− 0.17% ∗
Answer Count ( ↑ )
2.16% ∗
Completion Count ( ↑ )
3.84% ∗
Passenger Experience Measures
Passenger Bad Experience Ratio (PBE) ( ↓ )
− 15.17% ∗
Table 4. Online changes in dispatch effectiveness and experience relative to PDP KM (T − C); ∗ indicates p<0.05 .
Figure 3. Online gains of GenMatch across supply–demand periods (T − C vs. PDP KM ). A grouped bar chart comparing low-, moderate-, and peak-demand periods. Completion-ratio gains increase from 3.24 percent to 3.96 percent and 4.12 percent. Passenger cancellation-after-answer ratio decreases by 1.76 percent, 7.71 percent, and 8.26 percent. Driver cancellation-after-answer ratio decreases by 3.48 percent, 4.31 percent, and 7.96 percent.
Figure 4. Production architecture of the Batch-Level Generative Dispatch Engine. The production architecture contains a control plane that collects requests, coordinates distributed shards, and assembles dispatch batches, and a compute plane that performs distributed feature extraction, candidate retrieval, and GenMatch inference.
Split
City
Daily Completed Orders
Daily Online Drivers
Avg. Trip Distance (m)
Offline
City I
3.04e+03
0.18e+03
3.47e+03
City II
1.12e+04
0.55e+03
4.41e+03
Offline & Online
City III
5.91e+03
0.43e+03
3.99e+03
Online
City IV
1.73e+03
0.31e+03
4.29e+03
City V
1.38e+04
0.68e+03
4.71e+03
Table 5. Scale statistics of the five experimental cities.
Module
Variant
City I
City II
City III
AR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
APT (%) ↓
GMV (%) ↑
AR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
APT (%) ↓
GMV (%) ↑
AR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
APT (%) ↓
GMV (%) ↑
GenMatch
Full
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
Encoder
A1
− 2.32 ± 0.04
− 2.61 ± 0.05
+ 1.74 ± 0.02
− 0.57 ± 0.04
− 2.14 ± 0.07
− 2.55 ± 0.04
+ 1.23 ± 0.04
− 2.07 ± 0.10
− 2.55 ± 0.12
− 3.07 ± 0.07
+ 1.16 ± 0.02
− 2.28 ± 0.15
A2
− 2.25 ± 0.02
− 2.30 ± 0.02
+ 1.61 ± 0.01
− 0.52 ± 0.02
− 1.95 ± 0.03
− 2.36 ± 0.02
+ 1.06 ± 0.02
− 1.96 ± 0.05
− 2.43 ± 0.06
− 2.69 ± 0.03
+ 1.14 ± 0.01
− 2.15 ± 0.06
A3
− 0.14 ± 0.02
− 0.12 ± 0.02
+ 0.13 ± 0.01
− 0.04 ± 0.01
− 0.66 ± 0.05
− 1.04 ± 0.04
+ 0.49 ± 0.03
− 0.72 ± 0.10
− 0.39 ± 0.06
− 0.25 ± 0.03
+ 0.18 ± 0.02
− 0.40 ± 0.07
Learner
A4
− 2.47 ± 0.05
− 2.69 ± 0.06
+ 2.03 ± 0.01
− 0.59 ± 0.05
− 2.20 ± 0.09
− 2.97 ± 0.06
+ 1.28 ± 0.05
− 2.30 ± 0.15
− 2.76 ± 0.16
− 3.15 ± 0.08
+ 1.17 ± 0.03
− 2.32 ± 0.18
Table 6. Complete ablation results relative to GenMatch (Full). Values are the mean ± standard deviation of percentage changes over five runs.
Variant
City I
City II
City III
AUCDA (%) ↑
AUCPCAA (%) ↑
AUCDCAA (%) ↑
AUCDA (%) ↑
AUCPCAA (%) ↑
AUCDCAA (%) ↑
AUCDA (%) ↑
AUCPCAA (%) ↑
AUCDCAA (%) ↑
PDP
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
GenMatchMTL
+ 1.62 ± 0.11
+ 0.84 ± 0.04
+ 0.74 ± 0.07
+ 1.79 ± 0.14
+ 0.76 ± 0.05
+ 0.45 ± 0.03
+ 1.74 ± 0.15
+ 0.82 ± 0.05
+ 0.55 ± 0.03
Table 7. Auxiliary prediction AUC relative to PDP, reported as the mean ± standard deviation of percentage changes over five runs.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5. Effect of model capacity relative to the Medium configuration. Error bars denote standard deviations over five runs. Four panels show changes in answer ratio, completion ratio, average pickup time, and gross merchandise volume relative to the Medium configuration across three cities. Six configurations vary encoder depth, decoder depth, and hidden dimension.
λmtl
City I
City II
City III
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
AR ↑
CR ↑
APT ↓
GMV ↑
0.01
− 0.29 ± 0.05
− 0.44 ± 0.06
+ 0.67 ± 0.01
− 0.19 ± 0.05
− 0.27 ± 0.05
− 0.29 ± 0.06
+ 0.43 ± 0.01
− 0.57 ± 0.05
− 0.78 ± 0.05
− 0.88 ± 0.06
+ 0.22 ± 0.01
− 0.60 ± 0.05
0.1
− 0.17 ± 0.02
− 0.39 ± 0.02
+ 0.37 ± 0.01
− 0.08 ± 0.02
− 0.19 ± 0.02
− 0.22 ± 0.02
+ 0.24 ± 0.01
− 0.24 ± 0.02
− 0.49 ± 0.02
− 0.46 ± 0.02
+ 0.16 ± 0.01
− 0.35 ± 0.02
1
− 0.11 ± 0.03
− 0.07 ± 0.03
+ 0.20 ± 0.01
− 0.02 ± 0.03
− 0.08 ± 0.03
− 0.14 ± 0.03
+ 0.12 ± 0.01
− 0.18 ± 0.03
− 0.20 ± 0.03
− 0.17 ± 0.03
+ 0.05 ± 0.01
− 0.11 ± 0.03
10
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
100
+ 0.21 ± 0.05
− 0.11 ± 0.06
+ 0.13 ± 0.01
+ 0.05 ± 0.05
− 0.07 ± 0.05
− 0.16 ± 0.06
− 0.13 ± 0.01
− 0.06 ± 0.05
+ 0.08 ± 0.05
− 0.33 ± 0.06
− 0.08 ± 0.01
− 0.28 ± 0.05
Appendix
Table 8. Sensitivity to λmtl relative to the selected value 10. Values are the mean ± standard deviation of percentage changes over five runs. Larger AR, CR, GMV, and AUC and smaller APT are preferred. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results in each column, respectively.
Configuration
Symbol
Value
Encoder layers
Lenc
2
Decoder layers
Ldec
2
Hidden dimension
d
128
Matching-attention heads
–
4
Competition-attention heads
–
4
Pointer heads
Pptr
4
Appendix
Table 9. Model and training configurations of GenMatch.
Combinatorial optimization finds the best feasible choices among discrete alternatives in routing, scheduling, graph problems, and resource allocation.
In large-scale ride-hailing, hold control is a critical mechanism for improving passenger-driver experience. By selectively delaying certain driver-order pairs, the system waits for better opportunities, reduces cancellations, and mitigates wasted driver effort. However, existing industrial hold strategies often rely on heuristic thresholding over multiple predictive models, which can be brittle under non-stationary traffic and hard to optimize for multi-objective experience signals. We propose EXHOLD, a deployable two-stage framework decoupling experience-aware pair assessment from hold-time execution. In Stage I, we learn a decision model assigning each driver-order pair to discrete, interpretable experience tiers by optimizing a unified objective that aggregates satisfaction signals across the matching funnel. In Stage II, we solve for a monotone hold-time schedule via constrained optimization over empirical quantiles. This explicitly enforces service guardrails bounding the unnecessary holding of promising matches while maximizing overall experience improvement. We evaluate EXHOLD through randomized A/B experiments in DiDi's production system in Brazil. Results show consistent gains in marketplace efficiency and experience: EXHOLD increases trip completion and driver income, significantly reduces passenger cancellations, and improves funnel efficiency. Ablations and behavioral analyses confirm both stages are essential and that the policy makes calibrated decisions under spatiotemporal heterogeneity. EXHOLD is currently deployed, serving production traffic in Brazil.
In recent years, the growing complexity of last-mile pickup operations has increased the need for fast and accurate decision-making on logistics platforms. This challenge is fundamentally driven by two key and tightly coupled decision-making processes: order dispatching and routing. Solving them separately overlooks their interdependence, while fully end-to-end learning can be unstable and costly on large, variable-scale instances due to sparse rewards. To solve this problem, we propose an integrated optimization framework which couples a learned routing oracle with real-time dispatching heuristics. For the routing subproblem, we develop a Dynamic-Residual Graph Attention Network encoder with a Look-Ahead Courier-Personalized decoder. For the dispatching subproblem, we develop a routing-oracle-guided dispatching heuristic with local search, where the oracle provides near-optimal solutions to select candidate couriers while retaining real-time scalability. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets from Cainiao Logistics are used to test the performance of our approach, including an offline evaluation and an online rolling-horizon simulation. The experimental results show that our approach outperforms other benchmarks regarding solution quality and solving time, indicating it can effectively support logistics companies in solving real-time and large-scale last-mile pickup problems.
Yida Xu, Zhaofang Mao, Yuheng Miao +2
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China · Laboratory of Computation and Analytics of Complex Management Systems (CACMS), Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
Bringing Large Language Models (LLMs) into industrial ride-hailing dispatch as semantic feature extractors over platform-scale behavioral logs is a compelling but under-explored data systems problem. Production matching pipelines remain dominated by structured numerical features, yet decisive behavioral signals (e.g., a driver's habitual aversion to certain regions) are inherently contextual and naturally expressible as LLM-generated user profiles. However, scaling such profiling to a live, millisecond-latency dispatcher faces three intertwined constraints rarely addressed together: on a platform with millions of daily orders, logs exceed any LLM's context window by orders of magnitude; most users are long-tail, with too few interactions for per-user profiling; and surface-fluent profiles do not necessarily improve downstream prediction utility. We present ProfiLLM, an agentic LLM data pipeline that operationalizes utility-aligned user profiling for production matching systems through two modules. (1) Tool-Augmented Global Knowledge Mining equips an LLM agent with 27 analytical tools to mine platform-scale data, producing reusable global knowledge, adaptive user clustering rules, and region-level supply-demand priors. (2) Utility-Aligned Profile Exploration generates multiple candidate profiles per cluster, evaluates them via a lightweight downstream utility proxy, iteratively refines the best candidates and constructs preference pairs for DPO fine-tuning. Deployed on DiDi's production dispatcher, ProfiLLM achieves up to +6.14% relative AUC improvement in outcome prediction, up to +4.35% GMV gain in dispatching simulation, and consistent improvements in a 14-day online A/B test including +0.47% GMV, +0.33% Completion Rate, and -0.82% Cancel-Before-Accept rate.