Designing Service Menus for Bipartite Queueing Systems

References

• Adan I, Weiss G (2012) Exact FCFS matching rates for two infinite multitytpe sequences. Oper. Res. 60(2):475–489.Link, Google Scholar
• Adan I, Weiss G (2014) A skill based parallel service system under FCFS-ALIS—Steady state, overloads and abandonments. Stochastic Systems 4(1):250–299.Link, Google Scholar
• Adan I, Boon M, Weiss G (2019) Design heuristic for parallel many server systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 273(1):259–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adan I, Bušić A, Mairesse J, Weiss G (2018a) Reversibility and further properties of FCFS infinite bipartite matching. Math. Oper. Res. 43(2):598–621.Link, Google Scholar
• Adan I, Kleiner I, Righter R, Weiss G (2018b) FCFS parallel service systems and matching models. Performance Evaluation 127–128:253–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Afèche P (2013) Incentive-compatible revenue management in queueing systems: Optimal strategic delay. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 15(3):423–443.Link, Google Scholar
• Afèche P, Pavlin JM (2016) Optimal price/lead-time menus for queues with customer choice: Segmentation, pooling, and strategic delay. Management Sci. 62(8):2412–2436.Link, Google Scholar
• Afèche P, Caldentey R, Gupta V (2022) On the optimal design of a bipartite matching queueing system. Oper. Res. 70(1):363–401.Link, Google Scholar
• Akbarpour M, Li S, Gharan SO (2020) Thickness and information in dynamic matching markets. J. Political Economy 128(3):783–815.Google Scholar
• Anderson R, Ashlagi I, Gamarnik D, Kanoria Y (2017) Efficient dynamic barter exchange. Oper. Res. 65(6):1446–1459.Link, Google Scholar
• Arnosti N, Shi P (2020) Design of lotteries and wait-lists for affordable housing allocation. Management Sci. 66(6):2291–2307.Google Scholar
• Arnosti N, Johari R, Kanoria Y (2021) Managing congestion in matching markets. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(3):620–636.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Monachou F, Nikzad A (2021) Optimal dynamic allocation: Simplicity through information design. Preprint, submitted February 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3610386.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Burq M, Jaillet P, Manshadi V (2019) On matching and thickness in heterogeneous dynamic markets. Oper. Res. 67(4):927–949.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Leshno J, Qian P, Saberi A (2022) Price discovery in waiting lists: A connection to stochastic gradient descent. Technical report, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Atar R (2005) Scheduling control for queueing systems with many servers: Asymptotic optimality in heavy traffic. Ann. Appl. Probab. 15(4):2606–2650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baccara M, Lee S, Yariv L (2020) Optimal dynamic matching. Theoret. Econom. 15(3):1221–1278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baccara M, Collard-Wexler A, Felli L, Yariv L (2014) Child-adoption matching: Preferences for gender and race. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 6(6):133–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bassamboo A, Randhawa RS, Van Mieghem JA (2012) A little flexibility is all you need: On the asymptotic value of flexible capacity in parallel queuing systems. Oper. Res. 60(6):1423–1435.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell SL, Williams RJ (2005) Dynamic scheduling of a parallel server system in heavy traffic with complete resource pooling: Asymptotic optimality of a threshold policy. Electronic J. Probab. 10:1044–1115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Farias VF, Trichakis N (2013) Fairness, efficiency, and flexibility in organ allocation for kidney transplantation. Oper. Res. 61(1):73–87.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
• Bušić A, Gupta V, Mairesse J (2013) Stability of the bipartite matching model. Adv. Appl. Probab. 45(2):351–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caldentey R, Kaplan EH (2002) A heavy traffic approximation for queues with restricted customer-service matchings. Working paper, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Caldentey R, Kaplan EH, Weiss G (2009) FCFS infinite bipartite matching of severs and customers. Adv. Appl. Probab. 41(3):695–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castro F, Nazerzadeh H, Yan C (2020) Matching queues with reneging: A product form solution. Queueing Systems 96(3):359–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Comte C (2019) Dynamic load balancing with tokens. Comput. Comm. 144:76–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dai JG, Tezcan T (2005) Optimal control of parallel server systems with many servers in heavy traffic. Queueing Systems 59:95–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding Y, McCormick T, Nagarajan M (2021) A fluid model for one-sided bipartite matching queues with match-dependent rewards. Oper. Res. 69(4):1256–1281.Google Scholar
• Fazel-Zarandi MM, Kaplan EH (2018) Approximating the first-come, first-served stochastic matching model with Ohm’s law. Oper. Res. 6(5):1423–1432.Link, Google Scholar
• Gardner K, Righter R (2020) Product forms for FCFS queueing models with arbitrary server-job compatibilities: An overview. Queueing Systems 96:3–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green L (1985) A queueing system with general-use and limited-use servers. Oper. Res. 33(1):168–185.Link, Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Ward A (2014) On the dynamic control of matching queues. Stochastics Systems 4(2):479–523.Link, Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Whitt W (2009) Scheduling flexible servers with convex delay costs in many-server service systems. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 11(2):237–253.Link, Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Whitt W (2010) Service-level differentiation in many-server service systems via queue-ratio routing. Oper. Res. 58(2):316–328.Link, Google Scholar
• Harrison JM (1998) Heavy traffic analysis of a system with parallel servers: Asymptotic optimality of discrete review policies. Ann. Appl. Probab. 8(3):822–848.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison JM, Lopez MJ (1999) Heavy traffic resource pooling in parallel-server systems. Queueing Systems 33:339–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillas L, Caldentey R, Gupta V (2024) Heavy traffic analysis of multi-class bipartite queueing systems under FCFS. Queueing Systems., ePub ahead of print March 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11134-024-09903-4.Google Scholar
• Jordan WC, Graves SC (1995) Principles on the benefits of manufacturing process flexibility. Management Sci. 41(4):577–594.Link, Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1984) Managing demand for public housing. ORC Technical Report No. 183, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1988) A public housing queue with reneging and task-specific servers. Decision Sci. 19(2):383–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leshno JD (2022) Dynamic matching in overloaded waiting lists. Amer. Econom. Rev. 112(12):3876–3910.Google Scholar
• Maglaras C, Zeevi A (2005) Pricing and design of differentiated services: Approximate analysis and structural insights. Oper. Res. 53(2):242–262.Link, Google Scholar
• Mandelbaum A, Stolyar S (2004) Scheduling flexible servers with convex delay costs: Heavy-traffic optimality of the generalized cμ rule. Oper. Res. 52(6):836–855.Link, Google Scholar
• Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural Multidisciplinary Optim. 26(6):369–395.Google Scholar
• Nazari M, Stolyar AL (2019) Reward maximization in general dynamic matching systems. Queueing Systems 91(1):143–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nazerzadeh H, Randhawa RS (2018) Near-optimality of coarse service grades for customer differentiation in queueing systems. Production Oper. Management 27(23):578–595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plambeck E (2004) Optimal leadtime differentiation via diffusion approximations. Oper. Res. 52(2):213–228.Link, Google Scholar
• Rogerson R, Shimer R, Wright R (2005) Search-theoretic models of the labor market: A survey. J. Econom. Literature 43(4):959–988.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roughgarden T, Tardos E (2007) Introduction to the Inefficiency of Equilibria (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 443–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz BL (2004) Queueing models with lane selection: A new class of problems. Oper. Res. 22(2):331–339.Link, Google Scholar
• Shi C, Wei Y, Zhong Y (2019) Process flexibility for multiperiod production systems. Oper. Res. 67(5):1300–1320.Link, Google Scholar
• Slaugh VM, Akan M, Kesten O, Utku Ünver M (2016) The pennsylvania adoption exchange improves its matching process. Interfaces 46(2):133–158.Link, Google Scholar
• Talreja R, Whitt W (2008) Fluid models for overloaded multi-class many-service queueing systems with FCFS routing. Management Sci. 54(1):1513–1527.Link, Google Scholar
• Tsitsiklis JN, Xu K (2012) On the power of (even a little) resource pooling. Stochastic Systems 2(1):1–66.Link, Google Scholar
• Tsitsiklis JN, Xu K (2017) Flexible queueing architectures. Oper. Res. 65(5):1398–1413.Link, Google Scholar
• Unver MU (2010) Dynamic kidney exchange. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(1):372–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Mieghem JA (2000) Price and service discrimination in queuing systems: Incentive compatibility of gcμ scheduling. Management Sci. 46(9):1249–1267.Link, Google Scholar
• Wallace RB, Whitt W (2005) A staffing algorithm for call centers with skill-based routing. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 7(4):276–294.Link, Google Scholar
• Ward AR, Armony M (2013) Blind fair routing in large-scale service systems with heterogeneous customers and servers. Oper. Res. 61(1):228–243.Link, 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