Online Matching with Cancellation Costs
SSRN Electronic Journal
2022
- 1Citations
- 1,866Usage
- 1Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Motivated by applications in hotel upsell revenue management and selling banner ads on popular websites, we study the online resource allocation problem with overbooking and cancellation costs, also known as the "buyback" setting. To model this problem, we consider a variation of the classic edge-weighted online matching problem in which the decision maker can reclaim any fraction of an offline resource that is pre-allocated to an earlier online vertex; however, by doing so not only the decision maker loses the previously allocated edge-weight, it also has to pay a non-negative constant factor f of this edge-weight as an extra penalty. Parameterizing the problem by the buyback factor f, our main result is obtaining optimal competitive algorithms for all possible values of f through a novel primal-dual family of algorithms. Interestingly, our result shows a phase transition: for small buyback regime, i.e., f<(e-2)/2, the optimal competitive ratio is e/(e-1-f), and for large buyback regime, i.e., f>(e-2)/2, the competitive ratio is W(-1/(e(1+f))), when W is the non-principal branch of the Lambert W function. We establish the optimality of our results by obtaining separate lower-bounds for each of small and large buyback factor regimes, and showing how our primal-dual algorithm exactly matches this lower-bound by appropriately tuning a parameter as a function of f. We further study lower and upper bounds on the competitive ratio in variants of this model, e.g., single-resource with different demand sizes, or matching with deterministic integral allocations. We show how algorithms in the our family of primal-dual algorithms can obtain the exact optimal competitive ratio in all of these variants --- which in turn demonstrates the power of our algorithmic framework for online resource allocations with costly buyback.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know