2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11134-018-9593-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reward maximization in general dynamic matching systems

Abstract: We consider a matching system with random arrivals of items of different types. The items wait in queues -one per each item type -until they are "matched." Each matching requires certain quantities of items of different types; after a matching is activated, the associated items leave the system. There exists a finite set of possible matchings, each producing a certain amount of "reward". This model has a broad range of important applications, including assemble-to-order systems, Internet advertising, matching … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Applying fluid instability arguments to a continuous-time version of the GM model, [17] shows that, aside from a particular class of graphs, whenever G is not complete k -partite there always exists a policy of the strict priority type that does not have a maximal stability region, and that the ‘uniform’ random policy (natural in the case where no information is available to the entering items on the state of the system) never has a maximal stability region, thereby providing a partial converse of the result in [16]. Related models are studied in [14, 19], proposing optimization schemes for models of various matching structures (general graphs and hypergraphs), in which matchings are associated to a cost or a reward. Notice that in both references the matching policies are possibly retarded (or idling ), i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applying fluid instability arguments to a continuous-time version of the GM model, [17] shows that, aside from a particular class of graphs, whenever G is not complete k -partite there always exists a policy of the strict priority type that does not have a maximal stability region, and that the ‘uniform’ random policy (natural in the case where no information is available to the entering items on the state of the system) never has a maximal stability region, thereby providing a partial converse of the result in [16]. Related models are studied in [14, 19], proposing optimization schemes for models of various matching structures (general graphs and hypergraphs), in which matchings are associated to a cost or a reward. Notice that in both references the matching policies are possibly retarded (or idling ), i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other references address specific models for designated applications: [5] on kidney transplants, [22] on housing allocations systems, and [21] on ride-sharing models. In another line of research, such stochastic matching architectures are addressed from the point of view of stochastic optimization in [10], [13], and [20], among others.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, by adapting the dynamic reversibility argument of Adan et al (2018a) to the GM models, Moyal et al (2021) shows that the matching policy First Come, First Matched (FCFM) is also maximal, and derives the stationary probability in a product form. More recently, following the work of Nazari and Stolyar (2019), matching policies of the broader Max-Weight type (including 'Match the Longest') are shown to be maximal, and drift inequalities allow to bound the speed of convergence to the equilibrium, and the first two moments of the stationary state. Variants of the GM model to the case of (i) hypergraphical structures (i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variants of the GM model to the case of (i) hypergraphical structures (i.e. matching items by groups of two or more) and (ii) graphical systems with reneging are investigated, respectively in Gurvich and Ward (2014); Nazari and Stolyar (2019); Rahmé and Moyal (2019) and Jonckheere et al (2020) (see also Boxma et al (2011)).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%