Dynamic Type Matching

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu, A, Sönmez T (2013) Matching markets: Theory and practice. Acemoglu D, Arellano M, Dekel E, eds. Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Tenth World Congress (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 3–47.Google Scholar
• Adan I, Weiss G (2012) Exact FCFS matching rates for two infinite multitype sequences. Oper. Res. 60(2):475–489.Link, Google Scholar
• Afèche P, Diamant A, Milner J (2014) Double-sided batch queues with abandonment: Modeling crossing networks. Oper. Res. 62(5):1179–1201.Link, Google Scholar
• Akan M, Alagoz O, Ata B, Erenay FS, Said A (2012) A broader view of designing the liver allocation system. Oper. Res. 60(4):757–770.Link, Google Scholar
• Arnosti N, Johari R, Kanoria Y (2021) Managing congestion in dynamic matching markets. Manafacturing Service Oper. Management. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Shi P (2016) Optimal allocation without money: An engineering approach. Management Sci. 62(4):1078–1097.Link, Google Scholar
• Baccara M, Lee S, Yariv Y (2020) Optimal dynamic matching. Theoret. Econom. 15:1221–1278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjaafar S, Hu M (2020) Operations management in the age of the sharing economy: What is old and what is new? Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 22(1):93–101.Link, Google Scholar
• Bernstein F, DeCroix G, Keskin NB (2020) Competition between two-sided platforms under demand and supply congestion effects. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management, ePub ahead of print October 1, https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0866.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertsekas DP (2013) Rollout algorithms for discrete optimization: A survey. Pardalos P, Du DZ, Graham R, eds. Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization (Springer, New York), 2989–3013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burkard RE (2007) Monge properties, discrete convexity and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 176 (1):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, Simchi-Levi D (2012) Pricing and inventory management. Özer Ö, Phillips R, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Estes A, Ball M (2020) Monge properties, optimal greedy policies, and policy improvement for the dynamic stochastic transportation problem. INFORMS J. Comput., ePub ahead of print October 13, https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2020.0990.Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Ward A (2014) On the dynamic control of matching queues. Stochastic Systems 4(2):479–523.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoffman AJ (1963) On simple linear programming problems. Klee V, ed. Convexity: Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 7 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI), 317–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu M, Zhou Y (2020) Dynamic type matching. Preprint, submitted September 9, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2592622.Google Scholar
• Kanoria Y, Saban D (2017) Facilitating the search for partners on matching platforms. Preprint, submitted July 22, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3004814.Google Scholar
• Karp RM, Vazirani UV, Vazirani VV (1990) An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching. Proc. 22nd Annual ACM Sympos. Theory Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, Baltimore, Maryland), 352–358.Google Scholar
• Ke J, Zhang D, Zheng H (2019) An approximate dynamic programming approach to dynamic pricing for network revenue management. Production Oper. Management 28(11):2719–2737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keskin NB, Birge JR (2019) Dynamic selling mechanisms for product differentiation and learning. Oper. Res. 67(4):1069–1089.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Manshadi VH, Gharan SO, Saberi A (2012) Online stochastic matching: Online actions based on offline statistics. Math. Oper. Res. 37(4):559–573.Link, Google Scholar
• Monge G (1781) Délai et remblai (Mémoire de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris).Google Scholar
• Powell WB (2016) Perspectives of approximate dynamic programming. Ann. Oper. Res. 241:319–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Queyranne M, Spieksma F, Tardella F (1998) A general class of greedily solvable linear programs. Math. Oper. Res. 23(4):892–908.Link, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sotomayor M (1990) Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2004) Kidney exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):457–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2007) Efficient kidney exchange: Coincident of wants in market with compatibility-based preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):828–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shumsky RA, Zhang F (2009) Dynamic capacity management with substitution. Oper. Res. 57(3):671–684.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2004) Patient choice in kidney allocation: The role of the queueing discipline. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 6(4):280–301.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
• Talluri KT, van Ryzin GJ (2006) The Theory and Practice of Revenue Management (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Ünver MU (2010) Dynamic kidney exchange. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(1):372–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu Y, Chen X, Zhang F (2015) Dynamic capacity management with general upgrading. Oper. Res. 63(6):1372–1389.Link, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA (1999) Modeling the transplant waiting list: A queueing model with reneging. Queueing Systems 31(3):239–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Chertow GM, Wein LM (2000) Dynamic allocation of kidneys to candidates on the transplant waiting list. Oper. Res. 48(4):549–569.Link, Google Scholar
• Zipkin PH (2000) Foundations of Inventory Management (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar