4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Maximizing the expected number of transplants in kidney exchange programs with branch-and-price

期刊

ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 272, 期 1-2, 页码 429-444

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-017-2647-4

关键词

Kidney exchange problem; Expected number of transplants; Integer programming; Branch-and-price

资金

  1. ERDF-European Regional Development Fund through the Operational, Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalization-COMPETE 2020, Programme
  2. Portuguese funding agency, FCT-Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia within project mKEP-Models and optimization algorithms for multi-country kidney exchange programs [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016677]
  3. FCT [UID/CEC/00319/2013, SFRH/BPD/101134/2014]
  4. [COMPETE: POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we propose a branch-and-price approach for solving the problem of maximizing the expected number of transplants in Kidney Exchange Programs (KEPs). In these programs, the decision on which transplants will be conducted is usually made with the support of optimization models with the assumption that all operations will take place. However, after a plan of transplants is defined, a pair may leave the KEP or a more accurate compatibility evaluation exam may invalidate a transplant. To model these possible events we consider probabilities of failure of vertices and of arcs and the objective of maximizing the expected number of transplants. The proposed approach is based on the so-called cycle formulation, where decision variables are associated with cycles. Built on the concept of type of cycle a branch-and-price algorithm is conceived. One subproblem is defined for each type of cycle. We present computational results of the proposed branch-and-price algorithm and compare them with solving directly the cycle formulation (with a general purpose mixed integer programming solverCPLEX) showing that the proposed approach is the only one suitable for larger instances.

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

4.6
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