Efficient Dynamic Barter Exchange

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (1998) Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica 66(3):689–701.Crossref, 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
• Akbarpour M, Li S, Oveis Gharan S (2017) Thickness and information in dynamic matching markets. Available at SSRN: http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394319.Google Scholar
• Anderson R, Ashlagi I, Gamarnik D, Rees M, Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2015) Kidney exchange and the alliance for paired donation: Operations research changes the way kidneys are transplanted. Interfaces 45(1):26–42.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Roth AE (2014) Free riding and participation in large scale, multi-hospital kidney exchange. Theoret. Econom. 9(3):817–863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Jaillet P, Manshadi V (2013) Kidney exchange in dynamic sparse heterogenous pools. Preprint arXiv:1301.3509.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Gamarnik D, Rees M, Roth A (2012) The need for (long) chains in kidney exchange. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Asmussen S (2003) Applied Probability and Queues (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Baccara M, Lee S, Yariv L (2015) Optimal dynamic matching. SSRN 2641670.Google Scholar
• Bollobás B (2001) Random Graphs, Vol. 73 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budish EB, Cramton P, Shim JJ (2015) The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. Quart. J. Econom. 130(4):1547–1621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caldentey R, Kaplan E, Weiss G (2009) FCFS infinite bipartite matching of servers and customers. Adv. Appl. Probab. 41(3):695–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dickerson JP, Procaccia AD, Sandholm T (2012) Optimizing kidney exchange with transplant chains: Theory and reality. van der Hoek W, Padgham L, Conitzer V, Winikoff M, eds. Proc. Internat. Conf. Autonomous Agents Multiagent Systems, AAMAS ’12, Vol. 2 (IFAAMA, Richland, SC), 711–718.Google Scholar
• Dur UM, Ünver MU (2012) Tuition exchange. Proc. 2nd Internat. Workshop Matching Under Preferences, MATCH-UP, 127.Google Scholar
• Feldman J, Mehta A, Mirrokni VS, Muthukrishnan S (2009) Online stochastic matching: Beating 1-1/e. Proc. 50th Annual IEEE Sympos. Foundations Comput. Sci. FOCS ’09 (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 117–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goel G, Mehta A (2008) Online budgeted matching in random input models with applications to adwords. Teng S-H, ed. Proc. Nineteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms SODA ’08 (SIAM, Phildaelphia), 982–991.Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Ward A (2014) On the dynamic control of matching queues. Stochastic Systems 4(2):479–523.Link, Google Scholar
• Jaillet P, Lu X (2013) Online stochastic matching: New algorithms with better bounds. Math. Oper. Res. 39(3):624–646.Link, Google Scholar
• Janson S, Luczak T, Rucinski A (2011) Random Graphs, Vol. 45 (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Jevons W (1876) Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (D. Appleton and Co., New York).Google Scholar
• Karp RM, Vazirani UV, Vazirani VV (1990) An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching. Proc. 22nd Annual ACM Sympos. Theory Comput., STOC ’90 (ACM, New York), 352–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinrock L (1975) Theory, Queueing Systems, Vol. 1 (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Little J (1961) A proof for the queuing formula: L = λ w. Oper. Res. 9(3):383–387.Link, Google Scholar
• Manshadi V, Gharan S, Saberi A (2012) Online stochastic matching: Online actions based on offline statistics. Math. Oper. Res. 37(4):559–573.Link, Google Scholar
• Mendelson H (1982) Market behavior in a clearing house. Econometrica 50(6):1505–1524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pycia M, Ünver U (2017) Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources. Theoret. Econom. 12(1):287–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth A, Postlewaite A (1977) Weak versus strong dominantion in a market with indivisible goods. J. Math. Econom. 4(2):131–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1982) Incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods. Econom. Lett. 9(2):127–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2005) Pairwise kidney exchange. J. Econom. Theory 125(2):151–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2007) Efficient kidney exchange: Coincidence of wants in markets with compatibility-based preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):828–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On the core and indivisibility. J. Math. Econom. 1(1):23–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ünver MU (2010) Dynamic kidney exchange. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(1):372–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Krishna A (2006) Timeshare exchange mechanisms. Management Sci. 52(8):1223–1237.Link, Google Scholar