skip to main content
10.1145/2001858.2002043acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
tutorial

Road traffic optimisation using an evolutionary game

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 July 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

In a commuting scenario, drivers expect to arrive at their destinations on time. Drivers have an expectation as to how long it will take to reach the destination. To this end, drivers make independent decisions regarding the routes they take. Independent decision-making is uncoordinated and unlikely to lead to a balanced usage of the road network. However, a well-balanced traffic situation is in the best interest of all drivers, as it minimises their travel times on average over time. This study investigates the possibility of using an Evolutionary Game, Minority Game (MG), to achieve a balanced usage of a road network through independent decisions made by drivers assisted by the MG algorithm. The experimental results show that this simple game-theoretic approach can achieve a near-optimal distribution of traffic in a network. An optimal distribution can be assumed to lead to equitable travel times which are close to the possible minimum considering the number of cars in the network.

References

  1. Arnott, R., de Palma, A., Lindsay, R. Does providing information to drivers reduce traffic congestion? Transportation Research Part A: General 25(5): 309--318, 1991Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Arthur, W. B. Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings) 84(2): 6, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzan, A. L. and Klugl, F. Re-routing Agents in an Abstract Traffic Scenario. 19th Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Salvador, Brazil, Springer-Verlag 10, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ben-Akiva, M., De Palma, A., Isam, K. Dynamic network models and driver information systems. Transportation Research Part A: General 25(5): 251--266, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Braess, D., Nagurney, A., Wakolbinger, T., On a Paradox of Traffic Planning, Transportation Science, 39(4): 446--450, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Challet, D. and Zhang, Y. C., Emergence of cooperation and organization in an evolutionary game. Physica A 246(3-4): 12, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Chen, O. and Ben-Akiva, M., Game-Theoretic Formulations of Interaction Between Dynamic Traffic Control and Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1617(-1): 179--188, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiu, Y.-C., Bottom, J., Mahut, M., Paz, A., Balakrishna, R., Waller, T., Hicks, J. A Primer for DTA, ADB30 Transportation Network Modeling Committee, Transportation Research Board, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chmura, T. and Pitz, T. Successful strategies in repeated minority games. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 363(2): 477--480, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Iida, Y., Akiyama, T., Uchida, T. Experimental analysis of dynamic route choice behavior. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 26(1): 17--32, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Kitamura, R. and Nakayama, S., Can travel time information influence network flow? - Implications of the minority game. Transportation Research Record (2010): 14--20, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ortuzar, J. de D. and Willumsen, L. G. Modelling Transport, John Willey & Sons, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Roughgarden, T., On the Severity of Braess' Paradox: Designing Networks for the Selfish Users is Hard, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 72(5): 922--953, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Roughgarden, T., Routing Games, Chapter 18 in Algorithmic Game Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 0-521-87282-0, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., How Bad is Selfish Routing, Journal of the ACM, 49(2): 236--259, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Selten, R., Chmura T., Pitz, T., Kube, S., Schrekenberg, M. Commuters route choice behaviour. Games and Economic Behavior 58(2): 394--406, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Wardrop, J. Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part II, 1952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Zhu, S., Levinson, D., Zhang, L. An Agent-based Route Choice Model. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Road traffic optimisation using an evolutionary game

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      GECCO '11: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation
      July 2011
      1548 pages
      ISBN:9781450306904
      DOI:10.1145/2001858

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 July 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • tutorial

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

      Upcoming Conference

      GECCO '24
      Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
      July 14 - 18, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader