Equity and Efficiency in Dynamic Matching: Extreme Waitlist Policies

References

• Agarwal N, Hodgson C, Somaini P (2020) Choices and outcomes in assignment mechanisms: The allocation of deceased donor kidneys. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Agarwal N, Ashlagi I, Azevedo E, Featherstone CR, Karaduman Ö (2019a) Market failure in kidney exchange. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(11):4026–4070.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal N, Ashlagi I, Rees MA, Somaini PJ, Waldinger DC (2019b) An empirical framework for sequential assignment: The allocation of deceased donor kidneys. NBER Working Paper No. 25607, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Akbarpour M, Li S, Gharan SO (2020) Thickness and information in dynamic matching markets. J. Political Econom. 128(3):783–815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Altmeyer S, Sundharam SM, Navet N (2016) The case for FIFO real-time scheduling.Google Scholar
• Aouad A, Saritaç Ö (2020) Dynamic stochastic matching under limited time. Proc. 21st ACM Conf. Econom. Comput., 789–790.Google Scholar
• Arnosti N, Shi P (2020) Design of lotteries and wait-lists for affordable housing allocation. Management Sci. 66(6):2291–2307.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Monachou F, Nikzad A (2021) Optimal dynamic allocation: Simplicity through information design. Proc. 22nd ACM Conf. Econom. Comput., 101–102.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Nikzad A, Strack P (2023) Matching in dynamic imbalanced markets. Rev. Econom. Stud. 90(3):1084–1124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J. Econom. Theory 2(3):244–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baccara M, Lee S, Yariv L (2020) Optimal dynamic matching. Theoretical Econom. 15(3):1221–1278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee S, Johari R, Riquelme C (2015) Pricing in ride-sharing platforms: A queueing-theoretic approach. Proc. 2015 ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 639.Google Scholar
• Besbes O, Castro F, Lobel I (2022) Spatial capacity planning. Oper. Res. 70(2):1271–1291.Link, Google Scholar
• Bloch F, Cantala D (2017) Dynamic assignment of objects to queuing agents. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 9(1):88–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castro F, Ma H, Nazerzadeh H, Yan C (2021) Randomized FIFO mechanisms. Preprint, submitted November 21, https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.10706.Google Scholar
• Castro F, Frazier P, Ma H, Nazerzadeh H, Yan C (2020) Matching queues, flexibility and incentives. Preprint, submitted June 16, https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08863.Google Scholar
• Che Y-K, Tercieux O (2021) Optimal queue design. Proc. 22nd ACM Conf. Econom. Comput., 312–313.Google Scholar
• Doval L, Szentes B (2019) On the efficiency of queueing in dynamic matching markets. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Durr L (1971) Priority queues with random order of service. Oper. Res. 19(2):453–460.Link, Google Scholar
• Froda A (1931) Sur la distribution des propriétés de voisinage des fonctions de variables réelles. Bulletin Mathématique de la Société Roumaine des Sciences 32(2):105–202.Google Scholar
• Gini C (1912) Variabilita e Mutuabilita: Contributo allo Studio delle Distribuzioni e delle Relazioni Statistiche (C. Cuppini, Bologna, Italy).Google Scholar
• Gini C (1936) On the measure of concentration with special reference to income and statistics. Colorado College Publication General Ser. 208(1):73–79.Google Scholar
• Hassin R (1985) On the optimality of first come last served queues. Econometrica 53(1):201–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• John TM, Millum J (2020) First come, first served? Ethics 130(2):179–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanoria Y, Qian P (2019) Blind dynamic resource allocation in closed networks via mirror backpressure. Preprint, submitted March 7, https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02764.Google Scholar
• Kerimov S, Ashlagi I, Gurvich I (2021) On the optimality of greedy policies in dynamic matching. Preprint, submitted September 10, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918497.Google Scholar
• Kingman JFC (1962) The effect of queue discipline on waiting time variance. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 58 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 163–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koole G, Mandelbaum A (2002) Queueing models of call centers: An introduction. Ann. Oper. Res. 113:41–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson RC (1987) OR forum—Perspectives on queues: Social justice and the psychology of queueing. Oper. Res. 35(6):895–905.Link, Google Scholar
• Leshno J (2019) Dynamic matching in overloaded waiting lists. Preprint, submitted May 13, 2017, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2967011.Google Scholar
• Lorenz MO (1905) Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publications Amer. Statist. Assoc. 9(70):209–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miyazaki K, Nishimura K, Tanaka J, Kotabe S (2012) First-come first-served routing for the data center network: Low latency loop-free routing. 2012 World Telecommunications Congress (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 1–6.Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013) Judging whether public health interventions offer value for money. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London.Google Scholar
• National Kidney Foundation (2023) Organ donation and transplantation statistics. National Kidney Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2014) Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policies. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2015) Ethical principles in the allocation of human organs. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2018) Manipulation of the waitlist priority of the organ allocation system through the escalation of medical therapies. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2022) OPTN policies effective as of Feb 1 2022. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Özkan E, Ward AR (2020) Dynamic matching for real-time ride sharing. Stochastic Systems 10(1):29–70.Link, Google Scholar
• Schummer J (2021) Influencing waiting lists. J. Econom. Theory 195:105263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shanthikumar JG, Sumita U (1987) Convex ordering of sojourn times in single-server queues: Extremal properties of FIFO and LIFO service disciplines. J. Appl. Probab. 24(3):737–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sieg H, Yoon C (2020) Waiting for affordable housing in New York City. Quant. Econom. 11(1):277–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sönmez T, Ünver MU, Yenmez MB (2020) Incentivized kidney exchange. Amer. Econom. Rev. 110(7):2198–2224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2005) Patient choice in kidney allocation: A sequential stochastic assignment model. Oper. Res. 53(3):443–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2006) Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Sci. 52(11):1647–1660.Link, Google Scholar
• Ünver MU (2010) Dynamic kidney exchange. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(1):372–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldinger D (2021) Targeting in-kind transfers through market design: A revealed preference analysis of public housing allocation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(8):2660–2696.Crossref, Google Scholar