4.5 Article

Cutting Plane Approaches for the Robust Kidney Exchange Problem

期刊

COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2023.106470

关键词

Kidney exchange; Robust optimization; Interdiction games

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on a robust variant of the kidney exchange program problem with recourse, and proposes a cutting plane method for solving the attacker-defender subproblem. The results show a significant improvement in running time compared to the state-of-the-art, and the method can solve previously unsolved instances. Additionally, a new practical policy for recourse is proposed and its tractability for small to mid-size kidney exchange programs is demonstrated.
Renal patients who have a willing but incompatible donor can decide to participate in a kidney exchange program (KEP). The goal of a KEP is to identify sets of incompatible pairs that can exchange donors, leading to compatible transplants for each recipient. Significant uncertainty is involved in this process, as planned transplants may be canceled for many reasons. It is therefore crucial to take into account failures while planning exchanges. In this paper, we consider a robust variant of this problem with recourse studied in the literature that takes into account failures of donors or recipients. This problem belongs to the class of defender-attacker-defender (DAD) models. We propose a cutting plane method for solving the attacker- defender subproblem based on two commonly used mixed-integer programming formulations for kidney exchange problems. Our results imply a running time improvement of one order of magnitude compared to the state-of-the-art. Moreover, our cutting plane methods can solve many previously unsolved instances. Furthermore, we propose a new practical policy for recourse in KEPs and show that the robust optimization problem concerning this policy is tractable for small to mid-size KEPs in practice.

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