IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orijoc/v33y2021i3p861-881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust Models for the Kidney Exchange Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Margarida Carvalho

    (CIRRELT and Département d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1J4, Canada)

  • Xenia Klimentova

    (INESC TEC, Porto 4200-465, Portugal)

  • Kristiaan Glorie

    (Erasmus Q-Intelligence, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands)

  • Ana Viana

    (INESC TEC, Porto 4200-465, Portugal; School of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, Porto 4249-015, Portugal)

  • Miguel Constantino

    (CMAFCIO and Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa 1749-016, Portugal)

Abstract

Kidney exchange programs aim at matching end-stage renal disease patients who have a willing but incompatible kidney donor with another donor. The programs comprise a pool of such incompatible patient-donor pairs and, whenever a donor from one pair is compatible with the patient of another pair, and vice versa, the pairs may be matched and exchange kidneys. This is typically a two-step process in which, first, a set of pairs is matched based on preliminary compatibility tests and, second, the matched pairs are notified and more accurate compatibility tests are performed to verify that actual transplantation can take place. These additional tests may reveal incompatibilities not previously detected. When that happens, the planned exchange will not proceed. Furthermore, pairs may drop out before the transplant, and thus the planned exchange is canceled. In this paper, we study the case in which a new set of pairs may be matched if incompatibilities are discovered or a pair withdraws from the program. The new set should be as close as possible to the initial set in order to minimize the material and emotional costs of the changes. Various recourse policies that determine the admissible second-stage actions are investigated. For each recourse policy, we propose a novel adjustable robust integer programming model. We also propose solution approaches to solve this model exactly. The approaches are validated through thorough computational experiments. Summary of Contribution : In the paper, we present an original work related to the modeling and optimization approaches for Kidney Exchange Programs (KEPs). Currently, KEPs represent an alternative way for patients suffering from renal failure to find a compatible (living) donor. The problem of determining an assignment of patients to (compatible) donors that maximizes the number of transplants in a KEP can be seen as a vertex-disjoint cycle packing problem. Thus, KEPs have been extensively studied in the literature of integer programming. In practice, the assignment determined to a KEP might not be implemented due to withdraws from the program (e.g., a more accurate compatible test shows a new incompatibility or a patient health condition unable him/her to participate on the KEP). In our paper, we model the problem of determining a robust solution to the KEP, i.e., a solution that minimizes the material and emotional costs of changing an assignment. In this way, we propose and design solution approaches for three recourse policies that anticipate withdraws. Through computational experiments we compare the three recourse policies and validate the practical interest of robust solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Margarida Carvalho & Xenia Klimentova & Kristiaan Glorie & Ana Viana & Miguel Constantino, 2021. "Robust Models for the Kidney Exchange Problem," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 861-881, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orijoc:v:33:y:2021:i:3:p:861-881
    DOI: 10.1287/ijoc.2020.0986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2020.0986
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/ijoc.2020.0986?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itai Ashlagi & David Gamarnik & Michael A. Rees & Alvin E. Roth, 2012. "The Need for (long) Chains in Kidney Exchange," NBER Working Papers 18202, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. A. L. Soyster, 1973. "Technical Note—Convex Programming with Set-Inclusive Constraints and Applications to Inexact Linear Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1154-1157, October.
    3. Alper Atamtürk & Muhong Zhang, 2007. "Two-Stage Robust Network Flow and Design Under Demand Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 662-673, August.
    4. John P. Dickerson & Ariel D. Procaccia & Tuomas Sandholm, 2019. "Failure-Aware Kidney Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1768-1791, April.
    5. Michael S. Casey & Suvrajeet Sen, 2005. "The Scenario Generation Algorithm for Multistage Stochastic Linear Programming," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 615-631, August.
    6. Xin Chen & Melvyn Sim & Peng Sun, 2007. "A Robust Optimization Perspective on Stochastic Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1058-1071, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sun, Hao & Yang, Jun & Yang, Chao, 2019. "A robust optimization approach to multi-interval location-inventory and recharging planning for electric vehicles," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 59-75.
    2. Xin Chen & Yuhan Zhang, 2009. "Uncertain Linear Programs: Extended Affinely Adjustable Robust Counterparts," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1469-1482, December.
    3. Xin Chen & Melvyn Sim & Peng Sun & Jiawei Zhang, 2008. "A Linear Decision-Based Approximation Approach to Stochastic Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 344-357, April.
    4. Jia Shu & Miao Song, 2014. "Dynamic Container Deployment: Two-Stage Robust Model, Complexity, and Computational Results," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 135-149, February.
    5. Wenqing Chen & Melvyn Sim & Jie Sun & Chung-Piaw Teo, 2010. "From CVaR to Uncertainty Set: Implications in Joint Chance-Constrained Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 470-485, April.
    6. Zhi Chen & Melvyn Sim & Huan Xu, 2019. "Distributionally Robust Optimization with Infinitely Constrained Ambiguity Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1328-1344, September.
    7. Antonio G. Martín & Manuel Díaz-Madroñero & Josefa Mula, 2020. "Master production schedule using robust optimization approaches in an automobile second-tier supplier," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(1), pages 143-166, March.
    8. Oğuz Solyalı & Jean-François Cordeau & Gilbert Laporte, 2016. "The Impact of Modeling on Robust Inventory Management Under Demand Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1188-1201, April.
    9. Christoph Buchheim & Jannis Kurtz, 2018. "Robust combinatorial optimization under convex and discrete cost uncertainty," EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(3), pages 211-238, September.
    10. Seong-Cheol Kang & Theodora Brisimi & Ioannis Paschalidis, 2015. "Distribution-dependent robust linear optimization with applications to inventory control," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 231(1), pages 229-263, August.
    11. Rocha, Paula & Kuhn, Daniel, 2012. "Multistage stochastic portfolio optimisation in deregulated electricity markets using linear decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 397-408.
    12. Xiangyi Fan & Grani A. Hanasusanto, 2024. "A Decision Rule Approach for Two-Stage Data-Driven Distributionally Robust Optimization Problems with Random Recourse," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 526-542, March.
    13. Joel Goh & Melvyn Sim, 2011. "Robust Optimization Made Easy with ROME," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 973-985, August.
    14. Hassan Hijazi & Pierre Bonami & Adam Ouorou, 2013. "Robust delay-constrained routing in telecommunications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 163-181, July.
    15. Jang Ho Kim & Woo Chang Kim & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2014. "Recent Developments in Robust Portfolios with a Worst-Case Approach," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 103-121, April.
    16. Nicolas Kämmerling & Jannis Kurtz, 2020. "Oracle-based algorithms for binary two-stage robust optimization," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 539-569, November.
    17. Alan L. Erera & Juan C. Morales & Martin Savelsbergh, 2009. "Robust Optimization for Empty Repositioning Problems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 468-483, April.
    18. Tuan Le & Jon M. Stauffer & Bala Shetty & Chelliah Sriskandarajah, 2023. "An optimization framework for analyzing dual‐donor organ exchange," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 740-761, March.
    19. Mengshi Lu & Zuo‐Jun Max Shen, 2021. "A Review of Robust Operations Management under Model Uncertainty," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1927-1943, June.
    20. Wang, Xinfang (Jocelyn) & Paul, Jomon A., 2020. "Robust optimization for hurricane preparedness," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orijoc:v:33:y:2021:i:3:p:861-881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.