4.5 Article

Improved instance generation for kidney exchange programmes

期刊

COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 141, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2022.105707

关键词

kidney exchange; Saidman generator; Matheuristic

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, United Kingdom [EP/P028306/1, EP/P029825/1, EP/R513222/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kidney exchange programmes rely on operations research techniques to increase the rate of living donor kidney transplants. However, the random instances created by current generators differ from real-world instances, leading to the development of new techniques for generating more accurate random instances. These new instances provide a better basis for algorithm and model comparisons, as well as improved policy decision-making.
Kidney exchange programmes increase the rate of living donor kidney transplants, and operations research techniques are vital to such programmes. These techniques, as well as changes to policy regarding kidney exchange programmes, are often tested using random instances created by a Saidman generator. We show that instances produced by such a generator differ from real-world instances across a number of important parameters, including the average number of recipients that are compatible with a certain donor. We exploit these differences to devise powerful upper and lower bounds and we demonstrate their effectiveness by optimally solving a benchmark set of Saidman instances in seconds; this set could not be solved in under thirty minutes with previous algorithms. We then present new techniques for generating random kidney exchange instances that are far more consistent with real-world instances from the UK kidney exchange programme. This new process for generating random instances provides a more accurate base for comparisons of algorithms and models, and gives policy-makers a better understanding of potential changes to policy leading to an improved decision-making process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据