4.7 Article

A theoretical and computational equilibria analysis of a multi-player kidney exchange program

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 305, 期 1, 页码 373-385

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.05.027

关键词

Game theory; Kidney exchange program; Non-cooperative; Nash equilibria; Social welfare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main aim of kidney exchange programs is to maximize the number of transplants by exchanging donors. This paper presents a decentralized non-cooperative game model and computational experiments to analyze the impact of transplant information quality on the game solutions. The results highlight the importance of using Nash equilibrium and the need for further research to assist policy makers.
A main aim of kidney exchange programs (KEPs) is to maximize the number of transplants within a pool of incompatible patient-donor pairs by exchanging donors. A KEP involving pairs from pools of several hospitals, regions, or countries has the potential to increase the number of transplants. These entities may behave strategically and strive to maximize the transplant benefit for their patients. Recently, a de-centralized non-cooperative game was formulated to model this situation, and the game solutions (equi-libria) for the 2-player case were characterized when each player's utility is the number of her patients receiving a kidney and exchanges are restricted to pairwise. In this paper, we generalize the result on the existence of social welfare equilibra for N-players and discuss the impact in the game solutions when transplant information quality is introduced, changing the players' utilities. Furthermore, the game theory model is analyzed through computational experiments on instances generated by leveraging data of the Canadian Kidney Paired Donation Program. These experiments highlight the importance of using the con-cept of Nash equilibrium, as well as, the need of further research to assist policy makers once measures on transplant quality are available.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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