Online Appendix to Strategy-proof tie-breaking in matching with priorities
|
|
- Elmer Carson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Online Appendix to Strategy-proof tie-breaking in matching with priorities Lars Ehlers Alexander Westkamp December 12, 2017 Section 1 contains the omitted proofs of Lemma 5, Lemma 6 and Lemma 7 Subsection 11 shows that neither (A) nor (B) of Assumption 1 can be dispensed of in Theorem 1 Subsection 12 shows that all priority structures having at most a two-way tie at the top (and being otherwise strict) is solvable 1 Omitted proofs Lemma 5 Fix a weak priority structure (1) Let i, j, k I be three distinct agents and o, p O be two distinct objects such that i o j o k and i p k p j Let R be a preference profile such that R i R j R k o o p, and such that for all z I \ {i, j, k} and all õ {o, p} for which z õ ĩ for some ĩ {i, j, k}, zp z õ If f is constrained efficient and strategy-proof, then f i (R) = o Département de Sciences Économiues and CIREQ, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada; larsehlers@umontrealca Department of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne; westkamp@wisouni-koelnde 1
2 (2) Let i, j, k, l I be four distinct agents and o, p, O be three distinct objects such that i o j o k o l, {i, j} p k p l, and i l j Let R be a preference profile such that R i R j R k R l o o p, and such that for all z I \ {i, j, k, l} and all õ {o, p, } for which z õ ĩ for some ĩ {i, j, k, l}, zp z õ If f is constrained efficient and strategy-proof, then f i (R) = o (3) Let i, j, k, l I be four distinct agents and o, p, O be three distinct objects such that i o j o k, i p l p k, and k l j Let R be a preference profile such that R i R j R k R l o o p, and such that for all z I \ {i, j, k, l} and all õ {o, p, } for which z õ ĩ for some ĩ {i, j, k, l}, zp z õ If f is constrained efficient and strategy-proof, then f i (R) = o Proof (1) By definition of R and stability, object o is assigned to agent i or agent j at R Assume to the contrary that f i (R) o and f j (R) = o The following diagram shows how we derive a contradiction: R R i R j R k o o p R 1 Ri 1 R j R k o o p p R 3 Ri 1 R j Rk 2 o o o p p R 2 Ri 1 R j Rk 1 o o p p o In moving from R to R 1, we have used strategy-proofness for agent i to infer f i (R 1 ) o Since i p k, stability then implies f k (R 1 ) = k In moving from R 1 to R 2, we have used strategy-proofness for agent k to infer f k (R 2 ) p This is compatible with stability only when f i (R 2 ) = p But then constrained efficiency reuires that f k (R 2 ) o, since i and j would otherwise form a stable improvement cycle of f(r 2 ) at R 2 Finally, in moving from R 2 to R 3 we have used strategy-proofness for k one more time to infer f k (R 3 ) = k This is compatible with constrained efficiency only when f i (R 3 ) = p and f j (R 3 ) = o However, this assignment at R 3 contradicts Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) given that {i, k} p j 2
3 so that i p j is an (i, j; o, p)-path which is compatible with the (k, j; o, p)-path k p j and i o j o k Hence, f j (R) = o is impossible for any constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism f (2) By definition of R and stability, object o is assigned at R to agent i or agent j Assume to the contrary that f i (R) o and f j (R) = o If i l j, we obtain an immediate contradiction to the first part of Lemma 5 Hence, we must have i l j Now consider the profile R 1 that is obtained from R by letting i add as her second most preferred object: R 1 R 1 i R j R k R l o o p By strategy-proofness, f i (R 1 ) o By individual rationality, we are left to consider two possible cases Case 1: f i (R 1 ) = The following diagram shows how to derive a contradiction to the assumed properties of f: R 1 R 1 i R j R k R l R 2 R 1 i R j R k R 1 l R 3 R 1 i R j R k R 2 l o o p o o p o o p o o In moving from R 1 to R 2, we have used strategy-proofness for agent l to infer f l (R 2 ) By definition of R and R 2, this is compatible with stability only when f i (R 2 ) = But then, we must have f l (R 2 ) o, as otherwise i and l would form a stable improvement cycle of f(r 2 ) at R 2 In moving from R 2 to R 3, we have again used strategy-proofness for agent l to infer f l (R 3 ) = l This is compatible with constrained efficiency only when f i (R 3 ) = and f j (R 3 ) = o But the latter is a contradiction to Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) given that {i, l} j so that i j is a (i, j; o, )-path which is compatible with the (l, j; o, )-path l j Hence, f i (R 1 ) = is impossible for any constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism f Case 2: f i (R 1 ) = i 3
4 By the definition of R 1 and stability, f i (R 1 ) = i implies f l (R 1 ) = The following diagram shows how to derive a contradiction: R 1 R 1 i R j R k R l R 4 R 2 i R j R k R l R 5 R 2 i R j R k R 2 l o o p o p o p o In moving from R 1 to R 4, we have used strategy-proofness for agent i to infer f i (R 4 ) = i This is compatible with stability only when f l (R 4 ) = By strategy-proofness for agent l, f l (R 4 ) = implies f l (R 5 ) {o, } Suppose first that f l (R 5 ) = In this case, strategy-proofness for agent i would imply that, for R defined by R R i R j R k R 2 l o p o, o we must have f i ( R) Furthermore, if f i ( R) = o, stability would reuire that f l ( R) = But then i and l would form a stable improvement cycle of f( R) at R, contradicting constrained efficiency of f Since f i ( R) / {, o}, we must have f i ( R) = i But then strategy-proofness for agent i implies that, for ˆR defined by ˆR R 1 i R j R k R 2 l o o p o, we must have f i ( ˆR) = i This is compatible with constrained efficiency only if f l ( ˆR) = and f j ( ˆR) = o But f j ( ˆR) = o is a contradiction to Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) given that {i, l} j so that i j is an (i, j; o, )-path which is compatible with the (l, j; o, )-path l j (and i o j o l) Since f l (R 5 ) = necessarily leads to a contradiction, we must have f l (R 5 ) = o Strategy-proofness for agent l then reuires that, for R 6 defined by R 6 R 2 i R j R k R 3 l o p o, 4
5 we must have f l (R 6 ) = o But since j o k o l and j p k p l, f l (R 6 ) = o is a contradiction to the first part of Lemma 5 This completes the proof (3) By the definition of R and non-wastefulness, object o is assigned to agent i or agent j at the preference profile R Assume that, contrary to what we want to show, f i (R) o and f j (R) = o Given that i p l p k and k l, it is easy to see that strategy-proofness and constrained efficiency imply R 1 R 1 i R j R k R l o o p p R 2 Ri 1 R j Rk 1 R l o o p p o R 3 Ri 1 R j Rk 1 Rl 1 o o p p o p Next, consider R 4 R 1 i R j R 1 k R 2 l o o p p p o Strategy-proofness for agent l implies f l (R 4 ) = l This is compatible with constrained efficiency only if f i (R 4 ) = p, f j (R 4 ) = o, and f k (R 4 ) = Strategy-proofness for k implies that R 5 Ri 1 R j Rk 2 Rl 2 o o o p p p By constrained efficiency, f i (R 5 ) = o or f j (R 5 ) = o We argue first that f j (R 5 ) = o is impossible Suppose the contrary Note that i p l j is an (i, j; o, )-path which is compatible with the (k, j; o, )-path k j Furthermore, note that the fact that k ranks p as her second most preferred object is irrelevant since l ranks p first and has strictly higher priority for it than k Given these observations, it is straightforward to modify the arguments in the proof of Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) to show that f j (R 5 ) = o implies that f cannot be strategy-proof and constrained efficient Hence, f j (R 5 ) o as was claimed above 5
6 Since f j (R 5 ) o, we must have f i (R 5 ) = o By constrained efficiency, this implies f l (R 5 ) = p Then R 5 R 1 i R j R 2 k R 2 l R 6 R 1 i R j R 2 k R 1 l R 7 R 1 i R j R 2 k R l o o o p p p o o o p p p o o o p p In moving from R 5 to R 6 we have used strategy-proofness for l to infer f l (R 6 ) l If f l (R 6 ) = p, then stability implies f i (R 6 ) = o and f k (R 6 ) = But then l and k would form a stable improvement cycle, thus contradicting constrained efficiency Hence, we must have f l (R 6 ) = By strategy-proofness, f l (R 7 ) = Since k l, f l (R 7 ) = is compatible with stability only if f k (R 7 ) {o, p} But given that f k (R 2 ) = and k can unilaterally deviate from R 2 to obtain R 7, f k (R 7 ) {o, p} implies that f cannot be strategy-proof Hence, is unsolvable and this completes the proof Lemma 6 Fix a weak priority structure (1) Let i, j I be two distinct agents and o O be an object such that i o j If there is an (i, j; o)-path i p 1 i 1 p M i M o j which is compatible with a (j, i; o)-path j 1 j 1 N j N o i, then is unsolvable (2) Let i, j, k, l I be four distinct agents and o O be an object such that i o j o k o l If there exist two objects p, O such that i p k p j and j l i, then is unsolvable Proof (1) Suppose to the contrary that there exists a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism f Consider the following preference profile: R R i R j R i m R j n o o p m n p 1 1 p m+1 n+1 Lemma 3 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) implies f i (R) = p 1 and f j (R) = 1 Now assume that i deviates to R i : o By strategy-proofness, we must have f i (R i, R i ) = i We claim f j (R i, R i ) = o Otherwise, the construction of R would imply that, for all 6
7 n {0,, N}, f j n(r i, R i ) = n+1 But then j = j 0, j 1,, j N would form a stable improvement cycle of f(r i, R i ) at (R i, R i ) Hence, we must have f j (R i, R i ) = o Next, assume that, starting from R, j deviates to R j : o A completely symmetric argument to the one used to establish that f j (R i, R i ) = o shows that we must have f i (R j, R j ) = o Finally, consider R (R i, R j, R i,j ) Coming from the profile (R j, R j ), strategyproofness for i implies f i (R ) = o Coming from (R i, R i ), strategy-proofness for j implies f j (R ) = o Since o cannot be allocated to more than one agent and i j, we obtain a contradiction Hence, there cannot be a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism (2) This follows immediately from the first part of Lemma 5, since it implies that at the preference profile R R i R j R k R l o o p, a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism would have to (A) assign o to i given that i o j o k and i p k p j, and (B) assign o to j given that i o j o l and j l i Since there is only one copy of o and i j, (A) and (B) imply that there is no constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism Lemma 7 Let i 1, i 2, i 3, i 4, i 5 be five distinct agents and o 1, o 2, o 3, o 4, o 5 be five distinct objects Each of the following priority structures is unsolvable: i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3 o1 i 4 {i 1, i 2 } o2 i 3 o2 i 4 {i 1, i 2 } o3 i 3 (1) i 2 o4 i 4 o4 i 1 i 1 o5 i 4 o5 i 2 i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3 o1 i 4 {i 1, i 2 } o2 i 3 o2 i 4 i 4 o3 {i 2, i 5 } (2) i 2 o4 i 5 o4 i 1 7
8 i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3 i 1 o2 i 4 o2 i 5 o2 i 2 o2 i 3 i 4 o3 i 5 o3 i 1 (3) {i 2, i 3 } o4 i 4 i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3 {i 2, i 3 } o2 i 4 i 4 o3 i 1 o3 {i 2, i 3 } (4) i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3 i 1 o2 i 4 i 2 o3 i 5 (5) {i 2, i 4 } o4 i 3 o4 i 1 {i 1, i 5 } o5 i 3 o5 i 2 i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3 {i 1, i 2 } o2 i 5 o2 i 3 i 2 o3 i 4 (6) i 3 o4 i 5 o4 i 1 {i 3, i 4 } o5 i 5 o5 i 2 Proof For each of the six priority structures defined in Lemma 7, we will use a proof by contradiction Throughout the proof, let f be an arbitrary constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism 1 The priority structure in E (1) is unsolvable The proof revolves around the following preference profile: R R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 o 1 o 1 o 3 o 2 Claim 1: f i2 (R) = o 1 We start by considering the following preference profile 8
9 R R i1 R i2 Ri3 Ri4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 4 Since {i 1, i 2 } o2 i 3 o2 i 4 and i 2 o4 i 4 o4 i 1, the second part of Lemma 5 implies that we must have f i2 ( R) = o 1 Next, note that strategy-proofness for agent i 2 implies that i 2 must still obtain object o 1 at the following profile: 1 R 1 R i1 R 1 i 2 Ri3 Ri4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 4 o 4 Since i 2 obtains o 1 at R 1, constrained efficiency reuires f i4 (R 1 ) = o 4 Next, consider the preference profile R 2 R i1 R 1 i 2 Ri3 R 1 i 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 2 o 4 o 4 By strategy-proofness for agent i 4, we must have f i4 (R 2 ) {o 2, o 4 } Since i 3 ranks o 2 first and i 3 o2 i 4, stability implies f i4 (R 2 ) o 2 Hence, we must have f i4 (R 2 ) = o 4 We will now show that f i4 (R 2 ) = o 4 is only possible when f i2 (R 2 ) = o 1 If i 2 o4 i 4, then f i2 (R 2 ) = o 1 follows immediately from stability of f(r 2 ) So suppose that i 2 o4 i 4 and that, contrary to what we want to show, f i1 (R 2 ) = o 1 Since f i4 (R 2 ) = o 4 and f i1 (R 2 ) = o 1, we must have f i2 (R 2 ) = i 2 We derive a contradiction to the assumed properties of f using the following seuence of preference profiles: 1 Recall that boxes indicate assigned objects 9
10 R 2,1 R i1 R 2 i 2 Ri3 R 1 i 4 o 1 o 4 o 2 o 2 R 2,2 R i1 R 2 i 2 Ri3 R 2 i 4 o 1 o 4 o 2 o 1 o 4 o 4 R 2,4 R i1 Ri 1 2 Ri3 Ri 2 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 4 o 4 R 2,3 R i1 R 3 i 2 Ri3 R 2 i 4 o 1 o 4 o 2 o 1 o 1 o 4 Given that f i2 (R 2 ) = i 2, the indicated assignment at R 2,1 follows immediately from strategy-proofness and stability Strategy-proofness implies that f i4 (R 2,2 ) {o 1, o 4 } since f i4 (R 2,1 ) = o 4 If f i4 (R 2,2 ) = o 1, then i 4 would still have to obtain o 1 when she unilaterally deviates to R 3 i 4 = o 1 However, since i 1 o2 i 3 o2 i 4 and i 1 o1 i 3 o1 i 4, f i4 (R 3 i 4, R 2,2 i 4 ) = o 1 is incompatible with the tie-breaking rule in the first part of Lemma 5 Hence, we must have f i4 (R 2,2 ) = o 4 and f i1 (R 2,2 ) = o 1 Strategy-proofness and nonwastefulness imply f i2 (R 2,3 ) o 4 and f i4 (R 2,3 ) = o 4 If f i2 (R 2,3 ) = o 1, then i 2 and i 4 would form a stable improvement cycle of f(r 2,3 ) at R 2,3, a contradiction Hence, we must have f i2 (R 2,3 ) = i 2 By strategy-proofness, we must also have f i2 (R 2,4 ) = i 2 Nonwastefulness then implies that f i4 (R 2,4 ) = o 4 and f i1 (R 2,4 ) = o 1 Given that {i 2, i 4 } o4 i 1, i 2 o4 i 1 is an (i 2, i 1 ; o 1, o 4 )-path which is compatible with the (i 4, i 1 ; o 1, o 4 )-path i 4 o4 i 1 Since i 2 o1 i 4 o1 i 1, f i1 (R 2,4 ) = o 1 contradicts the tie-breaking rule in Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) Hence, f i1 (R 2 ) = o 1 also leads to a contradiction when i 2 o4 i 4 and we must have f i2 (R 2 ) = o 1 The following diagram summarizes the remainder of the proof of Claim 1: R 2 R i1 Ri 1 2 Ri3 Ri 1 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 2 o 4 o 4 R 7 R 1 i 1 R 4 i 2 R i3 R i4 o 1 o 1 o 3 o 2 o 2 o 3 R 3 Ri 1 1 Ri 1 2 Ri3 Ri 1 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 4 o 4 R 6 Ri 1 1 Ri 4 2 R i3 Ri 1 4 o 1 o 1 o 3 o 2 o 2 o 3 o 4 R 4 Ri 1 1 Ri 1 2 Ri 1 3 Ri 1 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 4 o 3 o 4 R 5 Ri 1 1 Ri 4 2 Ri 1 3 Ri 1 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 3 o 3 o 4 By strategy-proofness, we must have f i1 (R 3 ) o 1 given that f i1 (R 2 ) = i 1 Since 10
11 i 1 o2 {i 3, i 4 }, stability reuires f i1 (R 3 ) = o 2 and f i3 (R 3 ) = i 3 Strategy-proofness and stability then imply f i3 (R 4 ) = o 3 and f i1 (R 4 ) = o 2 Hence, f i2 (R 4 ) = o 1 and another application of strategy-proofness yields f i2 (R 5 ) = o 1 Since f i3 (R 5 ) = o 3 if f i2 (R 5 ) = o 1, strategy-proofness reuires that f i3 (R 6 ) = o 3 as well Given that i 2 o3 i 3, f i3 (R 6 ) = o 3 implies f i2 (R 6 ) = o 1 Finally, f i2 (R 6 ) = o 1 and i 1 o2 i 4 imply f i1 (R 6 ) = o 2 and f i4 (R 6 ) o 2 Strategy-proofness allows us to infer f i4 (R 7 ) = i 4, which is compatible with constrained efficiency only if f i1 (R 7 ) = o 2 and f i2 (R 7 ) = o 1 It is now straightforward to see that two more applications of strategy-proofness from R 7 yield the desired statement that f i2 (R) = o 1 This completes the proof of Claim 1 Claim 2: f i1 (R) = o 1 Consider the following preference profile ˆR R i1 R i2 R i3 R i 4 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 5 Since {i 1, i 2 } o2 i 3 o2 i 4 and i 1 o5 i 4 o5 i 2, the second part of Lemma 5 implies that we must have f i1 ( ˆR) = o 1 A completely analogous argument to that used in the proof of Claim 1 shows that f i1 ( ˆR) = o 1 implies f i1 (R) = o 1 2 Combining Claims 1 and 2, we find that a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism for has to satisfy f i1 (R) = f i2 (R) = o 1 Since there is only one copy of o 1, this is a contradiction Hence, there exists no constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism for priority structure in E (1) 2 The priority structure in E (2) is unsolvable As usual, arrows indicate how we move between profiles and boxes indicate object assignments 2 In the arguments so far, we have used that i 2 o4 i 4 o4 i 1, i 1 o2 i 3 o2 i 4, and i 2 o3 i 3 Since i 1 o5 i 4 o5 i 2, i 2 o2 i 3 o2 i 4, and i 1 o3 i 3, one just has to switch the roles of i 1 and i 2 and the roles of o 4 and o 5 in the proof of Claim 1 to establish that f i1 ( ˆR) = o 1 implies f i1 (R) = o 1 We omit the details 11
12 R R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 R i5 o 4 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 R 1 R i1 R i2 R i3 R 1 i 4 R i5 o 4 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 o 3 R 3 Ri 1 1 R i2 R i3 Ri 1 4 Ri 1 5 o 4 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 o 1 o 3 o 4 R 4 Ri 1 1 Ri 1 2 R i3 Ri 1 4 Ri 1 5 o 4 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 o 1 o 4 o 3 o 4 R 2 R i1 R i2 R i3 Ri 1 4 Ri 1 5 o 4 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 o 3 o 4 R 5 Ri 2 1 Ri 1 2 R i3 Ri 1 4 Ri 1 5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 o 4 o 4 o 3 o 4 Note that f i2 (R) = o 1 follows from the first part of Lemma 5 since i 2 o2 i 3 o2 i 4 and i 2 o1 i 3 o1 i 4 By strategy-proofness for i 4, we must have f i4 (R 1 ) o 1 Since i 4 o3 i 5, stability then implies that f i4 (R 1 ) = o 3 By strategy-proofness for i 5, we must have f i5 (R 2 ) o 3 Since i 5 o4 i 1, stability then implies that f i5 (R 2 ) = o 4 By strategy-proofness for i 1, we must have f i1 (R 3 ) o 4 If f i1 (R 3 ) = o 1, then nonwastefulness would imply f i4 (R 3 ) = o 3 and f i5 (R 3 ) = o 4 But then i 1, i 4, and i 5 would form a stable improvement cycle at R 3, thus contradicting constrained efficiency of f(r 3 ) Hence, f i1 (R 3 ) = i 1 (and the indicated assignments at R 3 then follow from constrained efficiency) Strategy-proofness for i 2 implies f i2 (R 4 ) = o 1 The indicated assignments then follow immediately from stability given that i 4 o3 i 5 and i 5 o4 i 1 Strategy-proofness for i 1 implies that f i1 (R 5 ) = i 1 We will now argue that we must have f i2 (R 5 ) = o 1 : Otherwise, strategy-proofness for i 2 would imply that for the preference profile, R 5,1 Ri 2 1 R i2 R i3 Ri 1 4 Ri 2 5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 3 o 4 o 3 o 4 we must have f i2 (R 5,1 ) = i 2 Since i 1 can obtain R 5,1 from R 3 by a unilateral deviation (from R 1 i 1 to R 2 i 1 ) and since f i1 (R 3 ) = i 1, strategy-proofness for i 1 would then imply f i1 (R 5,1 ) = i 1 Now note that f i2 (R 5,1 ) = i 2 and f i1 (R 5,1 ) = i 1 could be compatible with non-wastefulness only if f i4 (R 5,1 ) = o 1 and f i5 (R 5,1 ) = o 4 But then o 3 would remain unassigned even though o 3 P i5 (R 5,1 )o 4 Hence, f(r 5,1 ) cannot be stable if f i2 (R 5 ) o 1 12
13 Next, consider R 6 R 2 i 1 R 1 i 2 R i3 R 1 i 4 R 2 i 5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 4 o 4 o 4 o 3 Strategy-proofness and f i5 (R 5 ) = o 4 imply f i5 (R 6 ) = o 4 Since i 2 o4 implies f i2 (R 6 ) = o 1 Finally, consider the profile i 5, stability R 7 Ri 2 1 Ri 2 2 R i3 Ri 1 4 Ri 2 5 o 1 o 3 o 2 o 1 o 4 o 4 o 1 o 3 By strategy-proofness for i 2, we must have f i2 (R 7 ) {o 1, o 3 } If f i2 (R 7 ) = o 1, then non-wastefulness would reuire f i4 (R 7 ) = o 3 But then i 2 and i 4 would form a stable improvement cycle, thus contradicting the constrained efficiency of f(r 7 ) Hence, we must have f i2 (R 7 ) = o 3 Since i 4 o3 i 2, this reuires f i4 (R 7 ) = o 1 It is straightforward to show that strategy-proofness implies that i 4 must still obtain o 1 when, starting from R 7, i 2 first deletes o 1 from her preferences (again since i 4 o3 i 2 ), i 1 then deletes o 4 from her preferences and, finally, i 4 deletes o 3 from her preferences Since i 1 o2 i 3 o2 i 4 and i 1 o1 i 3 o1 i 4, we obtain a contradiction to the first part of Lemma 5 3 The priority structure in E (3) is unsolvable Consider the following preference profile R R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 R i5 o 1 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 3 o 2 o 4 o 4 o 2 Since, for k {2, 3} and l {2, 3} \ {k}, i 1 o2 i k and i l o4 i 4 o2 i k are two compatible paths, Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) and constrained efficiency immediately imply f i1 (R) = o 1 We will now complete the proof by showing that f i1 (R) = o 1 is impossible as well The proof relies on the following seuence of profiles: 13
14 R 1 R 1 i 1 R i2 R i3 R i4 R i5 o 2 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 3 o 1 o 4 o 4 o 2 R 3 R 1 i 1 R 1 i 2 R i3 R i4 R i5 o 2 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 3 o 1 o 4 o 2 R 2 Ri 1 1 R i2 Ri 1 3 R i4 R i5 o 2 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 3 o 1 o 4 o 2 R 4 Ri 1 1 Ri 1 2 Ri 2 3 R i4 R i5 o 2 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 3 o 1 o 2 By strategy-proofness for i 1, we must have f i1 (R 1 ) {o 1, o 2 } Assume first that f i1 (R 1 ) = o 2 Given that {i 2, i 3 } o4 i 4, stability would then imply f i4 (R 1 ) = i 4 It is easy to see that two applications of strategy-proofness (for i 4 and then for i 1 ) yield R 1 Ri 2 1 R i2 R i3 Ri 2 4 R i5 o 2 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 4 Since i 4 o3 i 5 o3 i 1 and i 1 o2 i 4 o2 i 5, we obtain a contradiction to the first part of Lemma 5 Hence, we must have f i1 (R 1 ) = o 1 By strategy-proofness for i 3 and constrained efficiency, f i1 (R 1 ) = o 1 implies f i2 (R 2 ) = o 1 Similarly, f i3 (R 3 ) = o 1 But then strategy-proofness for i 2 and i 3 would imply that f i2 (R 4 ) = f i3 (R 4 ) = o 1, which is impossible Since every possible allocation of o 1 at R necessarily leads to a contradiction of either strategy-proofness or constrained efficiency, the priority structure in E (3) is unsolvable 4 The priority structure in E (4) is unsolvable Consider the following preference profile R R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 o 1 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 3 o 2 o 2 o 3 Note that i 2 o2 i 4 o3 i 1 is an (i 2, i 1 ; o 1, o 3 )-path which is compatible with the (i 3, i 1 ; o 1, o 3 )-path i 3 o2 i 4 o3 i 1, and Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) implies f i1 (R) o 1 Similarly, i 1 o3 i 2 and i 3 o2 i 4 o3 i 2 are compatible paths, 14
15 so that Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) implies f i2 (R) o 1, and i 1 o3 i 3 and i 2 o2 i 4 o3 i 3 are compatible paths, so that Lemma 4 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) implies f i3 (R) o 1 Thus, o 1 must remain unallocated at R, contradicting non-wastefulness of f(r) 5 The priority structure in E (5) is unsolvable Consider the following preference profile R R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 R i5 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 2 o 3 o 2 o 3 o 5 o 4 o 5 We claim that f i2 (R) = o 1 Consider first the preference profile R R i 1 R i 2 R i 3 R i 4 R i 5 o 1 o 1 o 4 o 2 o 3 Since i 2 o4 i 3 o4 i 1, the first part of Lemma 5 implies f i2 (R ) = o 1 Two applications of strategy-proofness, once for i 1 and once for i 2, imply that f i2 (R i1, R i2, R {i 1,i 2 } ) = o 1 Non-wastefulness then implies that f i5 (R i1, R i2, R {i 1,i 2 } ) = o 3 By strategy-proofness for i 5, we must have f i5 (R i1, R i2, R i5, R {i 1,i 2,i 5 } ) = o 3 Since i 2 o3 i 5 and i 1 o2 i 4, stability implies that f i1 (R i1, R i2, R i5, R {i 1,i 2,i 5 } ) = o 2, f i2 (R i1, R i2, R i5, R {i 1,i 2,i 5 } ) = o 1, and f i4 (R i1, R i2, R i5, R {i 1,i 2,i 5 } ) = i 4 By strategy-proofness for i 4, stability, and the assumption that i 4 o4 i 3, we must have f i4 (R i1, R i2, R i 3, R i4, R i5 ) = o 4 and f i3 (R i1, R i2, R i 3, R i4, R i5 ) = i 3 By strategy-proofness for i 3, we must have f i3 (R i1, R i2, R i3, R i4, R i5 ) o 4 Stability is easily seen to imply f i4 (R i1, R i2, R i3, R i4, R i5 ) = o 4, f i1 (R i1, R i2, R i3, R i4, R i5 ) = o 2, and, as we claimed above, f i2 (R i1, R i2, R i3, R i4, R i5 ) = o 1 Next, consider the following preference profile R R i1 R i2 Ri3 R i4 R i5 o 1 o 1 o 5 o 2 o 3 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 15
16 We claim that f i1 ( R) = o 1 The proof of the claim proceeds from the preference profile R R i 1 R i Ri3 2 R i 4 R i 5 o 1 o 1 o 5 o 2 o 3 and is similar to the proof that f i2 (R) = o 1 Given that f i1 ( R) = o 1, i 2 o3 i 5, and i 5 o5 i 3, stability implies f i3 ( R) = i 3 Furthermore, given that f i2 (R) = o 1, i 1 o2 i 4, and i 4 o4 i 3, stability implies f i3 (R) = o 5 But then, since i 3 can obtain R from R by a unilateral deviation from R i3 to R i3, f cannot be strategy-proof 6 The priority structure in E (6) is unsolvable Consider first the following preference profile R 1 R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 R i5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 3 o 5 Because i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3, i 1 o2 i 5 o2 i 3 and i 3 o5 i 5 o5 i 2, the third part of Lemma 5 implies f i1 (R 1 ) = o 1 It is straightforward to verify that strategy-proofness and constrained efficiency imply R 1 R 1 i 1 R 1 i 2 R 1 i 3 R 1 i 4 R i5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 3 o 5 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 Next, consider first the following preference profile R 2 R i1 R i2 R i3 R i4 Ri 1 5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 Because i 1 o1 i 2 o1 i 3, i 2 o2 i 5 o2 i 3 and i 3 o4 i 5 o4 i 1, the third part of Lemma 5 implies f i2 (R 2 ) = o 1 It is straightforward to verify that strategy-proofness 16
17 and constrained efficiency imply R 2 Ri 1 1 Ri 1 2 Ri 1 3 Ri 1 4 Ri 2 5 o 1 o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 5 Since i 5 can obtain R 2 from R 1 by a unilateral deviation (from R i5 to Ri 2 5 ), we obtain that f cannot be strategy-proof This shows that f cannot be constrained efficient and strategy-proof 11 Necessity of Assumption 1 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) In this section, we present two examples: in the first example, the priority structure satisfies Assumption 1 (B) in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) but violates Assumption 1 (A) in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017); in the second example, the priority structure satisfies Assumption 1 (A) in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) but violates Assumption 1 (B) in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) For both examples, we show that a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism exists even though the priority structures are not strict, HET, or TAU This shows that both parts of Assumption 1 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) are necessary for Theorem 1 in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) to hold Example 1 Let I = {1,, 6} and O = {o, p 1, p 2 } Priorities are as follows: o p1 p2 1, 2, This priority structure violates Assumption 1 (A) (because is not strict and does not contain any four-way tie), but satisfies in Assumption 1 (B) in Ehlers and Westkamp 17
18 (2017) We will show below that is solvable by constructing a variant of the DA that yields a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism 3 Example 2 Let I = {1,, 6} and O = {o, p 1, p 2, p 3, p 4 } Priorities are as follows: o p1 p2 p3 p4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Note that this priority structure violates Assumption 1 (B) (since, eg, 6 p1 1 and 6 1 for all O) but satisfies Assumption 1 (A) in Ehlers and Westkamp (2017) (because there is a four-way tie at o ) 4,5 We will now proceed to construct a deferred acceptance algorithm with tie-breaking (DAT) that, as we will show below, is constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism for both examples Let R be an arbitrary preference profile for the six agents in one of the above examples Step 1: Exogenous tie-breaking For Example 1, define the weak priority structure by setting 1 o 3 o 2 o 4 o 5 o 6 and p= p for p {p 1, p 2 } For Example 2, define the weak priority structure by setting 6 o 5 o 4 o 2 o 1 o 3 and p= p for p {p 1, p 2, p 3, p 4 } 3 This example can be extended to an arbitrary number of agents 1,, N as follows: Let 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o o N, N p1 p1 4 p1 3 p1 2 p1 1, and N p2 p2 4 p2 1 p2 2 p2 3 It is easy to see that all arguments below continue to hold for this extended example 4 The priority structure does, however, satisfy the weaker reuirement that the priority structure is connected in the sense that there is no subset of agents J I such that J o I \ J for all o 5 In order to extend this type of example to an arbitrary number of agents 1,, N, let there be N 1 objects o, p 1,, p N 2 such that N o o 1, N p1 p1 1, N 1 p2 N p2 N 2 p2 p2 4 p2 1 p2 2 p2 3, N p3 N 2 p3 N 1 p3 N 3 p3 p3 4 p3 2 p3 1 p3 3,, N pn 2 pn 2 5 pn 2 2 pn 2 4 pn 2 1 pn 2 3 As shown in our earlier working paper, Ehlers and Westkamp (2011), the just described construction can be used to characterize all solvable priority structures within the class of priority structures where ties are restricted to occur only at the bottom of priority rankings 18
19 Step 2: DA without tie-breaking Run a DA in which rejections are determined by and let µ 1 be the temporary assignment at the end of this algorithm 6 Stop, if µ 1 is a matching and proceed to Step 3 otherwise Note that, given our construction of, the only possibility for the procedure to proceed to Step 3 is that µ 1 (1) = µ 1 (3) = o Step 3: Endogenous tie-breaking If there is an object p such that µ 1 (2) = p and 3 p 2 p 1, let o reject 1 If there is an object O that is acceptable to agent 1 and most preferred among the ones which have not received any proposals in Step 2, match 1 to and stop Otherwise, leave 1 unmatched and stop In any other case, let o reject 3 If there is an object O that is acceptable to agent 3 and most preferred among the ones which have not received any proposals in Step 2, match 3 to and stop Otherwise, leave 3 unmatched and stop Given a preference profile R, let DAT (R) denote the outcome of the above procedure Claim 1: For any R, DAT (R) is constrained efficient Fix a preference profile R and let µ DAT (R) We argue first that µ is stable Note that all rejections in Step 2 respect all strict priority rankings for the priority structures in Example 1 and Example 2 Hence, the only possibility for µ to violate the stability condition is that the algorithm reaches Step 3 and there is an object p O \ {o} and an agent j i st pp i µ(i), µ(j) = p, and i p j for some i {1, 3}, say for i = 1 But by the rules of Step 3, 1 will only be rejected by o if µ(2) = p for some p such that 3 p 2 p 1 For both examples, the last observation implies that j µ 1 (j) 1 for all j I\{1} such that µ 1 (j) j Hence, µ must be stable Next, we will show that µ is also constrained efficient Suppose to the contrary that there is a stable improvement cycle i 1,, i m Assume wlog that i 1 is among the first (in the 6 Formally, in each round, let (A) each agent apply to the most preferred object that has not rejected him yet, (B) each object p reject all but the highest priority agents according to p, and (C) stop, if there were no new proposals in (A) 19
20 course of above algorithm) agents in the stable improvement cycle to be rejected by the object he is pointing to in the cycle There has to be an agent j who causes the rejection of i 1, ie an agent j who was rejected by all objects he prefers to o 2 when he applied to o 2 in the DA with tie-breaking and for whom j o2 i 1 By our assumption that i 1 was among the first agents to be rejected by the object he is pointing to in the stable improvement cycle, we must have j i 2 and hence µ(j) o 2 Furthermore, since the welfare of agents is weakly decreasing during the course of the above algorithm, we must have o 2 P j µ(j) These arguments imply that j o2 i 1 and, conseuently, that o 2 = o: otherwise, we would have i 2 o2 j o2 i 1 and i 1 could not be among the highest priority agents who desires o 2 = p at µ, thus contradicting the definition of a stable improvement cycle Next, we will show that {i 1, i 2, j} = {1, 2, 3} For Example 1, we can immediately infer the just mentioned statement from the original priority ranking o For Example 2, it is easy to see that if {i 1, i 2, j} = {1, 2, 3}, then the form of o implies i 1 = 4, j = 5, and i 2 = 6 However, by our previous arguments, 6 was temporarily matched to an object p O \ {o} st pr 6 o 3 when 4 was rejected by o Since the only agent who can displace j at o is 6 and the only agent who can displace 6 at p is 5, 6 can t be rejected by o 3 during the DA with tie-breaking Hence, for both examples, we must have {i 1, i 2, j} = {1, 2, 3} Now assume first that i 1 = 2 This is possible only in Example 1 and we can assume wlog that j = 1 and i 2 = 3 Since each object can appear at most once in a stable improvement cycle and since no no agent in {1, 2, 3} can displace an agent in {4, 5, 6} at either p 1 or p 2 in Example 1, we must have {i 1,, i m } {1, 2, 3} This is easily seen to imply that m = 2 and 1 o1 2 o1 3 But then, the rules of Step 3 of the DA with tie-breaking immediately imply that 3 could not have displaced 1 at o 2 = o subseuently to being rejected by o 1 Hence, we must have, wlog, i 1 = 1 In Example 1, the only agent who can displace 1 at o is agent 3 Hence, it would have to be the case that j = 3 But then, 3 could not have subseuently been displaced by i 2 = 2, thus contradicting µ(i 2 ) = o 2 = o We are left to consider the case of i 1 = 1 for Example 2 Here, we must have j = 3 and i 2 = 2 given that 2 o 1 o 3 But by the rules of Step 3, 1 cannot displace 2 subseuently to losing a tie-breaking decision against 3 This completes the proof of constrained efficiency Claim 2: DAT is strategy-proof Suppose that, contrary to what we want to show, there are a preference profile R, an agent i, and a misreport ˆR i such that DAT i ( ˆR i, R i )P i DAT i (R) Let µ DAT (R) and 20
21 ˆµ DAT ( ˆR i, R i ), and let µ 1 and ˆµ 1 be the temporary assignments at the end of Step 2 of the DAT under R and ˆR ( ˆR i, R i ), respectively Note first that the DA with tie-breaking has to reach Step 3 for R and ˆR, and that the tie-breaking decision in Step 3 has to be different for R and ˆR: if, say, 1 wins the tie-breaking decision at R and ˆR, the DA with tie-breaking would be euivalent to a DA with strict priorities in which 1 has strictly higher priority for o than 3 Since the DA with strict priorities is strategy-proof, there cannot be a an agent who can profitably manipulate at R Next, we will argue that i / {2, 4, 5, 6} Note first that all agents apart from 1 and 3 receive their final allocation in the second step of DAT Now consider first Example 1 Here, the temporary assignment at the end of Step 2 of the DAT under R and ˆR is euivalent to the final outcome of a DA in which the priority-ranking of object o is given by {1, 3} o {1} o {3} o {2} o {4} o {5} o {6} and the priority ranking for all other objects is as in Since these priorities induce substitutable preferences that satisfy the law of aggregate demand, such a DA is strategy-proof (Hatfield and Milgrom, 2005) implies that no agent in {2, 4, 5, 6} can manipulate DAT for Example 1 Next, consider Example 2 By our construction of o for Example 2, we can infer that no agent in {2, 4, 5, 6} could have applied to o under R and ˆR But then the temporary assignment at the end of Step 2 of the DAT is euivalent to a DA in which the priorities of o are given by {1, 3} o {1} o {3} o {2} o {4} o {5} o {6} and the priority ranking for all other objects is as in By the same arguments as above, this implies that no agent in {2, 4, 5, 6} can profitably manipulate DAT This To complete the proof, we will now show that i = 1 is impossible (the arguments in the case of i = 3 are completely symmetric) Assume first that µ(1) = o and ˆµ(1) o For both examples, we must have ˆµ 1 (2) = p 1 by the rules of Step 3 Furthermore, since the tie-breaking decision between 1 and 3 is different at R and ˆR, we must have µ 1 (2) ˆµ 1 (2) It is easy to see that for both examples, we must have µ 1 (2) = p 2 since otherwise, 1 would either fail to win the tie-breaking decision against 3 at R (if µ 1 (2) = p 1 ) or would not be able to affect the pre tie-breaking assignment (if µ 1 (2) O \ {o, p 1, p 2 }) We immediately obtain that op 1 p 2 and p 2 ˆP1 o But then, in order for the deviation to ˆR 1 to be profitable for 1, it would have to be the case that, subseuently to displacing 2 at p 2, 1 is rejected by p 2 and 2 ends up temporarily assigned to p 1 at the end of Step 2 It is straightforward to check that the just mentioned configuration is impossible for both types of examples Next, assume that 21
22 µ(1) o and ˆµ(1) = o By the rules of Step 3, we must have µ 1 (2) = p 1 and ˆµ 1 (2) p 1 It is easy to see that in order for 1 to be able to influence the pre tie-breaking assignment, we must have ˆµ 1 (2) = p 2 But then, it has to be the case that 1 displaced 2 at p 2 during Step 2 of the DAT for profile R For Example 1, this immediately implies µ(1) = p 2 and we obtain a contradiction to the assumption that 1 and 3 compete for o in Step 3 For Example 2, 1 must have been displaced at some point of Step 2 of the DAT under profile R But this is possible only if µ 1 (2) = p 3 and µ 1 (4) = p 2, thus contradicting our assumption that µ 1 (2) = p 1 This completes the proof 12 Two-way ties at the top We say that is a two-way ties at the top (TWT) priority structure, if, for all o O, there exist i(o), j(o) I such that (A) i(o) o j(o), (B) for all k I \ {i(o), j(o)}, j(o) o k, and (C) o I\{i(o)} is strict We will now argue that if is a TWT priority structure, then the following two-step procedure induces a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism: 1 Let be a strict priority structure that respects all strict priority rankings in, ie assume that i o j whenever i o j 2 For any preference profile R, choose the outcome of the DA-algorithm with respect to R and Note that the mechanism induced by the procedure just described is strategy-proof since the DA mechanism for strict priority structures is strategy-proof and since the same strict priority ranking is used for all preference profiles To see that the outcome of above procedure is always constrained efficient, let R be a preference profile and µ be the matching chosen by the above procedure If µ is not constrained efficient, then µ contains a SIC, say i 1,, i m Note that i l desires µ(i l+1 ) and i l D µ(il+1 )(µ) for all l {1,, m} (where m + 1 := 1) Choose an agent from i 1,, i m who is among the first ones rejected in DA by the object he desires, say i 1 But then i 1 is rejected by µ(i 2 ) because some other agent j I\{i 1, i 2 } applied to µ(i 2 ) Note that µ(j) µ(i 2 ) and µ(i 2 )P j µ(j) If j µ(i2 ) i 1, then µ(i 2 )P j µ(j) implies i 1 / D µ(i2 )(µ), a contradiction Thus, we must have j µ(i2 ) i 1 and i 1 and j are tied at the top of µ(i2 ) But then j is never rejected by µ(i 2 ) and we must have µ(j) = µ(i 2 ), again a contradiction 22
23 References [1] Ehlers, Lars and Alexander Westkamp (2011), Strategy-proof tie-breaking, CIREQ Discussion Paper , Université de Montréal [2] Ehlers, Lars and Alexander Westkamp (2017), Strategy-proof tie-breaking in matching with priorities, Theoretical Economics, forthcoming [3] Hatfield, John and Paul Milgrom (2005), Matching with contracts, Amer Econ Rev 95,
Strategy-proof tie-breaking in matching with priorities
Theoretical Economics 13 (2018), 1009 1041 1555-7561/20181009 Strategy-proof tie-breaking in matching with priorities Lars Ehlers Département de Sciences Économiques and CIREQ, Université de Montréal Alexander
More informationOnline Appendix for Incentives in Landing Slot Problems
Online Appendix for Incentives in Landing Slot Problems James Schummer Azar Abizada April 14, 2017 This document contains supplementary results and proofs for Incentives in Landing Slot Problems, published
More informationOn Stable and Strategy-Proof Rules in Matching Markets with Contracts
On Stable and Strategy-Proof Rules in Matching Markets with Contracts Daisuke Hirata Hitotsubashi University Yusuke Kasuya Yokohama National University This Version: September 10, 2015 Abstract This paper
More informationSufficient Conditions for Weak Group-Strategy-Proofness
Sufficient Conditions for Weak Group-Strategy-Proofness T.C.A. Madhav Raghavan 31 July, 2014 Abstract In this note we study group-strategy-proofness, which is the extension of strategy-proofness to groups
More informationOnline Appendix for Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans OneApp
Online Appendix for Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans OneApp Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Yeon-Koo Che, Parag A Pathak, Alvin E Roth, and Olivier Tercieux December 07 S Proof
More informationResource-Monotonicity for House Allocation Problems
Resource-Monotonicity for House Allocation Problems Lars Ehlers Bettina Klaus This Version: March 2004 Abstract We study a simple model of assigning indivisible objects (e.g., houses, jobs, offices, etc.)
More informationSubstitutes and Stability for Matching with Contracts
Substitutes and Stability for Matching with Contracts John William Hatfield and Fuhito Kojima February 26, 2008 Abstract We consider the matching problem with contracts of Hatfield and Milgrom (2005),
More informationTop Trading Cycles, Consistency, and Acyclic Priorities for House Allocation with Existing Tenants
Top Trading Cycles, Consistency, and Acyclic Priorities for House Allocation with Existing Tenants Mehmet Karakaya Bettina Klaus Jan Christoph Schlegel September 19, 2017 Abstract We study the house allocation
More informationThe Blocking Lemma and Strategy-Proofness in Many-to-Many Matchings
The Blocking Lemma and Strategy-Proofness in Many-to-Many Matchings Zhenhua Jiao Institute for Advanced Research and School of Economics Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Shanghai, 200433, China
More informationA New Perspective on Kesten s School Choice with. Consent Idea
A New Perspective on Kesten s School Choice with Consent Idea Qianfeng Tang and Jingsheng Yu School of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, 200433, China October 1, 2014 Abstract
More informationA New Perspective on Kesten s School Choice with. Consent Idea
A New Perspective on Kesten s School Choice with Consent Idea Qianfeng Tang and Jingsheng Yu July 15, 2014 Abstract We revisit the school choice problem with consent proposed by Kesten (2010), which seeks
More informationImproving Fairness and Efficiency in Matching with Distributional Constraints: An Alternative Solution for the Japanese Medical Residency Match
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Improving Fairness and Efficiency in Matching with Distributional Constraints: An Alternative Solution for the Japanese Medical Residency Match Masahiro Goto and Atsushi
More informationFair and Efficient Student Placement with Couples
Fair and Efficient Student Placement with Couples Bettina Klaus Flip Klijn March 2006 Abstract We study situations of allocating positions to students based on priorities. An example is the assignment
More informationCahier ALLOCATION VIA DEFERRED-ACCEPTANCE UNDER RESPONSIVE PRIORITIES. Lars EHLERS and Bettina KLAUS
Cahier 17-2009 ALLOCATION VIA DEFERRED-ACCEPTANCE UNDER RESPONSIVE PRIORITIES Lars EHLERS and Bettina KLAUS Le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative (CIREQ) regroupe des chercheurs
More information13 Social choice B = 2 X X. is the collection of all binary relations on X. R = { X X : is complete and transitive}
13 Social choice So far, all of our models involved a single decision maker. An important, perhaps the important, question for economics is whether the desires and wants of various agents can be rationally
More informationEpsilon-Stability in School Choice
Epsilon-Stability in School Choice Chao Huang, Qianfeng Tang, and Ziwei Wang January 15, 2017 Abstract In many school choice practices, scores, instead of ordinal rankings, are used to indicate students
More informationVOL. VOL NO. ISSUE NEAR-FEASIBLE STABLE MATCHINGS WITH COUPLES 19. Online Appendix. Near-Feasible Stable Matching with Couples
VOL. VOL NO. ISSUE NEAR-FEASIBLE STABLE MATCHINGS WITH COUPLES 19 Online Appendix Near-Feasible Stable Matching with Couples Thành Nguyen and Rakesh Vohra Preferences and Stability A1. Preferences Doctor
More informationManipulability and tie-breaking in constrained school choice
Manipulability and tie-breaking in constrained school choice Benoit Decerf CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain benoit.decerf(at)uclouvain.be Martin Van der Linden Department of Economics, Vanderbilt
More informationONLINE APPENDIX TO HOW TO CONTROL CONTROLLED SCHOOL CHOICE (NOT FOR PUBLICATION)
ONLINE APPENDIX TO HOW TO CONTROL CONTROLLED SCHOOL CHOICE (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) FEDERICO ECHENIQUE AND M. BUMIN YENMEZ Appendix B. Proofs of Theorems 1-6 The following rationality axiom simply says that
More informationNear-Feasible Stable Matchings with Budget Constraints
Near-Feasible Stable Matchings with Budget Constraints arxiv:1705.07643v4 [cs.gt] 4 Dec 2017 Yasushi Kawase Tokyo Institute of Technology and RIKEN AIP Center, Tokyo, Japan. kawase.y.ab@m.titech.ac.jp
More informationParking Slot Assignment Problem
Department of Economics Boston College October 11, 2016 Motivation Research Question Literature Review What is the concern? Cruising for parking is drivers behavior that circle around an area for a parking
More informationAlternative Characterizations of Boston Mechanism
Alternative Characterizations of Boston Mechanism Mustafa Oǧuz Afacan April 15, 2013 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabancı University, 34956, İstanbul, Turkey. Abstract Kojima and Ünver (2011) are
More informationThe Blocking Lemma and Group Strategy-Proofness in Many-to-Many Matchings
The Blocking Lemma and Group Strategy-Proofness in Many-to-Many Matchings Zhenhua Jiao School of Economics Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Shanghai, 200433, China Guoqiang Tian Department
More informationCompetition and Resource Sensitivity in Marriage and Roommate Markets
Competition and Resource Sensitivity in Marriage and Roommate Markets Bettina Klaus Working Paper 09-072 Copyright 2007, 2008 by Bettina Klaus Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed
More informationStrategy-Proofness and the Core in House Allocation Problems
Strategy-Proofness and the Core in House Allocation Problems Eiichi Miyagawa Department of Economics, Columbia University 420 West 118th Street, New York, NY 10027 Email: em437@columbia.edu July 28, 1999
More informationThe Importance of Irrelevance of Rejected Contracts in Matching under Weakened Substitutes Conditions
The Importance of Irrelevance of Rejected Contracts in Matching under Weakened Substitutes Conditions Orhan Aygün and Tayfun Sönmez June 2012 Abstract We show that Hatfield and Kojima 2010) inherits a
More informationSchool Choice: Student Exchange under Partial Fairness
School Choice: Student Exchange under Partial Fairness Umut Dur A Arda Gitmez Özgür Yılmaz August 2015 Abstract Some school districts have been considering recently to allow violations of priorities at
More informationTHREE BRIEF PROOFS OF ARROW S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM JOHN GEANAKOPLOS COWLES FOUNDATION PAPER NO. 1116
THREE BRIEF PROOFS OF ARROW S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM BY JOHN GEANAKOPLOS COWLES FOUNDATION PAPER NO. 1116 COWLES FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS YALE UNIVERSITY Box 208281 New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8281
More informationA Note on Object Allocation under Lexicographic Preferences
A Note on Object Allocation under Lexicographic Preferences Daniela Saban and Jay Sethuraman March 7, 2014 Abstract We consider the problem of allocating m objects to n agents. Each agent has unit demand,
More informationMatching with Priorities and Property Rights: an Application to a Parking Space Assignment Problem
Matching with Priorities and Property Rights: an Application to a Parking Space Assignment Problem Jinyong Jeong Updated November 20, 2017 Abstract I introduce parking in urban areas as a matching problem.
More informationStability, Strategy-Proofness, and Cumulative Offer Mechanisms
Stability, Strategy-Proofness, and Cumulative Offer Mechanisms John William Hatfield McCombs School of Business University of Texas at Austin Alexander Westkamp Department of Management, Economics, and
More informationStrategy-proof and fair assignment is wasteful
Strategy-proof and fair assignment is wasteful Giorgio Martini June 3, 2016 I prove there exists no assignment mechanism that is strategy-proof, non-wasteful and satisfies equal treatment of equals. When
More informationMatching Theory. Mihai Manea. Based on slides by Fuhito Kojima. MIT
Matching Theory Mihai Manea MIT Based on slides by Fuhito Kojima. Market Design Traditional economics focuses mostly on decentralized markets. Recently, economists are helping to design economic institutions
More informationHannu Salonen and Mikko A.A. Salonen Mutually Best Matches. Aboa Centre for Economics
Hannu Salonen and Mikko A.A. Salonen Mutually Best Matches Aboa Centre for Economics Discussion paper No. 109 Turku 2016 The Aboa Centre for Economics is a joint initiative of the economics departments
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 24: Decisions in Groups
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 24: Decisions in Groups Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT December 9, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Group and collective choices Arrow s Impossibility Theorem Gibbard-Satterthwaite
More informationThe Impossibility of Restricting Tradeable Priorities in School Assignment
The Impossibility of Restricting Tradeable Priorities in School Assignment Umut Mert Dur North Carolina State University Thayer Morrill North Carolina State University May 2017 Abstract Top Trading Cycles
More informationCahier Top Trading with Fixed Tie-Breaking in Markets with Indivisible Goods. Lars EHLERS
Cahier 03-2012 Top Trading with Fixed Tie-Breaking in Markets with Indivisible Goods Lars EHLERS Le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative (CIREQ) regroupe des chercheurs dans
More informationPositively responsive collective choice rules and majority rule: a generalization of May s theorem to many alternatives
Positively responsive collective choice rules and majority rule: a generalization of May s theorem to many alternatives Sean Horan, Martin J. Osborne, and M. Remzi Sanver December 24, 2018 Abstract May
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO STABLE MATCHING WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION : ONLINE APPENDIX (Econometrica, Vol. 82, No. 2, March 2014, )
Econometrica Supplementary Material SUPPLEMENT TO STABLE MATCHING WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION : ONLINE APPENDIX Econometrica, Vol. 82, No. 2, March 2014, 541 587) BY QINGMIN LIU, GEORGEJ. MAILATH, ANDREW
More informationCompetition and Resource Sensitivity in Marriage and Roommate Markets
Competition and Resource Sensitivity in Marriage and Roommate Markets Bettina Klaus This Version: April 2010 Previous Versions: November 2007 and December 2008 Abstract We consider one-to-one matching
More informationRandom paths to stability in the roommate problem
Games and Economic Behavior 48 (2004) 18 28 www.elsevier.com/locate/geb Random paths to stability in the roommate problem Effrosyni Diamantoudi, a Eiichi Miyagawa, b, and Licun Xue c a Concordia University,
More informationLexicographic Choice under Variable Capacity Constraints
Lexicographic Choice under Variable Capacity Constraints Battal Doğan Serhat Doğan Kemal Yıldız May 14, 2017 Abstract In several matching markets, in order to achieve diversity, agents priorities are allowed
More informationSocial Choice. Jan-Michael van Linthoudt
Social Choice Jan-Michael van Linthoudt Summer term 2017 Version: March 15, 2018 CONTENTS Remarks 1 0 Introduction 2 1 The Case of 2 Alternatives 3 1.1 Examples for social choice rules............................
More informationSchool Choice under Partial Fairness
School Choice under Partial Fairness Umut Dur A. Arda Gitmez Özgür Yılmaz August 4, 2015 Abstract Some school districts have been considering to allow violations of priorities at certain schools to improve
More informationPetty Envy When Assigning Objects
Petty Envy When Assigning Objects Thayer Morrill September 15, 2017 Abstract Envy of another person s assignment is justified if you deserve the object and it is possible to assign you to the object. Currently,
More informationThe Bargaining Set of an Exchange Economy with Discrete. Resources
The Bargaining Set of an Exchange Economy with Discrete Resources Murat Yılmaz and Özgür Yılmaz November 17, 2016 Abstract A central notion for allocation problems when there are private endowments is
More informationArrow s Paradox. Prerna Nadathur. January 1, 2010
Arrow s Paradox Prerna Nadathur January 1, 2010 Abstract In this paper, we examine the problem of a ranked voting system and introduce Kenneth Arrow s impossibility theorem (1951). We provide a proof sketch
More informationCoalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternatives.
Coalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternatives. H. Reiju Mihara reiju@ec.kagawa-u.ac.jp Economics, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, 760-8523, Japan April, 1999 [Social
More informationMonotonicity and Nash Implementation in Matching Markets with Contracts
Monotonicity and Nash Implementation in Matching Markets with Contracts Claus-Jochen Haake Bettina Klaus March 2006 Abstract We consider general two-sided matching markets, so-called matching with contracts
More informationAPPLIED MECHANISM DESIGN FOR SOCIAL GOOD
APPLIED MECHANISM DESIGN FOR SOCIAL GOOD JOHN P DICKERSON Lecture #21 11/8/2016 CMSC828M Tuesdays & Thursdays 12:30pm 1:45pm IMPOSSIBILITY RESULTS IN VOTING THEORY / SOCIAL CHOICE Thanks to: Tuomas Sandholm
More informationWorst-case mechanism design with undominated strategies
Worst-case mechanism design with undominated strategies Takuro Yamashita April 26, 2009 Abstract We consider a way to evaluate mechanisms without assuming mutual knowledge of rationality among the agents.
More informationComment on The Veil of Public Ignorance
Comment on The Veil of Public Ignorance Geoffroy de Clippel February 2010 Nehring (2004) proposes an interesting methodology to extend the utilitarian criterion defined under complete information to an
More informationPareto optimal, strategy proof, and non-bossy matching mechanisms
Pareto optimal, strategy proof, and non-bossy matching mechanisms Sophie Bade November 14, 2014 Abstract The set of all Pareto optimal, strategy proof and non-bossy mechanisms is characterized as the set
More informationWhat You Don t Know Can Help You in School Assignment
What You Don t Know Can Help You in School Assignment Umut Mert Dur North Carolina State University Thayer Morrill North Carolina State University March 2018 Abstract No strategy-proof mechanism Pareto
More informationParking Space Assignment Problem: A Matching Mechanism Design Approach
Parking Space Assignment Problem: A Matching Mechanism Design Approach Jinyong Jeong Boston College ITEA 2017, Barcelona June 23, 2017 Jinyong Jeong (Boston College ITEA 2017, Barcelona) Parking Space
More informationThe Gibbard random dictatorship theorem: a generalization and a new proof
SERIEs (2011) 2:515 527 DOI 101007/s13209-011-0041-z ORIGINAL ARTICLE The Gibbard random dictatorship theorem: a generalization and a new proof Arunava Sen Received: 24 November 2010 / Accepted: 10 January
More informationThe Impossibility of Restricting Tradeable Priorities in School Assignment
The Impossibility of Restricting Tradeable Priorities in School Assignment Umut Mert Dur North Carolina State University Thayer Morrill North Carolina State University February 2016 Abstract Ecient school
More informationCadet-Branch Matching
Cadet-Branch Matching TAYFUN SÖNMEZ Boston College Prior to 2006, the United States Military Academy (USMA) matched cadets to military specialties (branches) using a single category ranking system to determine
More informationWeak Dominance and Never Best Responses
Chapter 4 Weak Dominance and Never Best Responses Let us return now to our analysis of an arbitrary strategic game G := (S 1,...,S n, p 1,...,p n ). Let s i, s i be strategies of player i. We say that
More informationA New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem with Private Endowment
A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem with Private Endowment Jun Zhang September 11, 2016 Abstract This paper proposes a new mechanism to solve random assignment problems in which some agents
More informationSingle-plateaued choice
Single-plateaued choice Walter Bossert Department of Economics and CIREQ, University of Montreal P.O. Box 6128, Station Downtown Montreal QC H3C 3J7, Canada walter.bossert@umontreal.ca and Hans Peters
More informationThe Axiomatic Method in Social Choice Theory:
The Axiomatic Method in Social Choice Theory: Preference Aggregation, Judgment Aggregation, Graph Aggregation Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss
More informationA (ln 4)-Approximation Algorithm for Maximum Stable Matching with One-Sided Ties and Incomplete Lists
A ln 4)-Approximation Algorithm for Maximum Stable Matching with One-Sided Ties and Incomplete Lists Chi-Kit Lam C. Gregory Plaxton April 2018 Abstract We study the problem of finding large weakly stable
More informationMAXIMAL POSSIBILITY AND MINIMAL DICTATORIAL COVERS OF DOMAINS
MAXIMAL POSSIBILITY AND MINIMAL DICTATORIAL COVERS OF DOMAINS Gopakumar Achuthankutty 1 and Souvik Roy 1 1 Economic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata Abstract In line with the works
More informationMultiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy.
Multiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy. Amrita Dhillon and Ben Lockwood This version: March 2001 Abstract De Sinopoli and Turrini (1999) present an example to show
More informationCS 598RM: Algorithmic Game Theory, Spring Practice Exam Solutions
CS 598RM: Algorithmic Game Theory, Spring 2017 1. Answer the following. Practice Exam Solutions Agents 1 and 2 are bargaining over how to split a dollar. Each agent simultaneously demands share he would
More informationAn Equivalence result in School Choice
An Equivalence result in School Choice Jay Sethuraman May 2009 Abstract The main result of the paper is a proof of the equivalence of single and multiple lottery mechanisms for the problem of allocating
More informationTwo Case Studies for Trading Multiple Indivisible Goods with Indifferences
Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Two Case Studies for Trading Multiple Indivisible Goods with Indifferences Akihisa Sonoda, Etsushi Fujita, Taiki Todo, Makoto
More informationDefinitions and Proofs
Giving Advice vs. Making Decisions: Transparency, Information, and Delegation Online Appendix A Definitions and Proofs A. The Informational Environment The set of states of nature is denoted by = [, ],
More informationTHREE ESSAYS ON GAME THEORY. Demet Yilmazkuday. Dissertation. Submitted to the Faculty of the. Graduate School of Vanderbilt University
THREE ESSAYS ON GAME THEORY By Demet Yilmazkuday Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial ful llment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR
More informationTwo-Player Kidney Exchange Game
Two-Player Kidney Exchange Game Margarida Carvalho INESC TEC and Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Portugal margarida.carvalho@dcc.fc.up.pt Andrea Lodi DEI, University of Bologna, Italy andrea.lodi@unibo.it
More informationRedistribution Mechanisms for Assignment of Heterogeneous Objects
Redistribution Mechanisms for Assignment of Heterogeneous Objects Sujit Gujar Dept of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India sujit@csa.iisc.ernet.in Y Narahari Dept
More informationONLINE APPENDIX. Upping the Ante: The Equilibrium Effects of Unconditional Grants to Private Schools
ONLINE APPENDIX Upping the Ante: The Equilibrium Effects of Unconditional Grants to Private Schools T. Andrabi, J. Das, A.I. Khwaja, S. Ozyurt, and N. Singh Contents A Theory A.1 Homogeneous Demand.................................
More informationMinimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans OneApp
Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans OneApp Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Yeon-Koo Che, Parag A. Pathak, Alvin E. Roth, and Olivier Tercieux December 2017 Abstract In 2012, New
More informationImplementation of the Ordinal Shapley Value for a three-agent economy 1
Implementation of the Ordinal Shapley Value for a three-agent economy 1 David Pérez-Castrillo 2 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona David Wettstein 3 Ben-Gurion University of the Negev April 2005 1 We gratefully
More informationStrategic Properties of Heterogeneous Serial Cost Sharing
Strategic Properties of Heterogeneous Serial Cost Sharing Eric J. Friedman Department of Economics, Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08903. January 27, 2000 Abstract We show that serial cost sharing
More informationSequential versus Simultaneous Assignment Problems and Two Applications
Sequential versus Simultaneous Assignment Problems and Two Applications Umut Dur y Onur Kesten z January 2014 Abstract We study matching markets from practice, where a set of objects are assigned to a
More informationThe Simple Theory of Temptation and Self-Control
The Simple Theory of Temptation and Self-Control Faruk Gul and Wolfgang Pesendorfer Princeton University January 2006 Abstract We analyze a two period model of temptation in a finite choice setting. We
More informationA Systematic Approach to the Construction of Non-empty Choice Sets
A Systematic Approach to the Construction of Non-empty Choice Sets John Duggan Department of Political Science and Department of Economics University of Rochester May 17, 2004 Abstract Suppose a strict
More informationSubstitutes and stability for matching with contracts
JID:YJETH AID:3794 /FLA [m1+; v 1.118; Prn:29/01/2010; 21:14] P.1 (1-20) Journal of Economic Theory ( ) www.elsevier.com/locate/jet Substitutes and stability for matching with contracts John William Hatfield
More informationMatching with Contracts: The Critical Role of Irrelevance of Rejected Contracts
Matching with Contracts: The Critical Role of Irrelevance of Rejected Contracts Orhan Aygün and Tayfun Sönmez May 2012 Abstract We show that an ambiguity in setting the primitives of the matching with
More informationIntroduction. 1 University of Pennsylvania, Wharton Finance Department, Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, 3620
May 16, 2006 Philip Bond 1 Are cheap talk and hard evidence both needed in the courtroom? Abstract: In a recent paper, Bull and Watson (2004) present a formal model of verifiability in which cheap messages
More informationPriority-Based Affirmative Action in School Choice
Priority-Based Affirmative Action in School Choice Zhenhua Jiao and Guoqiang Tian * July, 2017 Abstract This paper investigates the affirmative action in school choice problems. We show that the student-proposing
More informationGame Theory: Spring 2017
Game Theory: Spring 2017 Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss 1 Plan for Today In this second lecture on mechanism design we are going to generalise
More informationOn the Maximal Domain Theorem
On the Maximal Domain Theorem Yi-You Yang April 28, 2016 Abstract The maximal domain theorem by Gul and Stacchetti (J. Econ. Theory 87 (1999), 95-124) shows that for markets with indivisible objects and
More informationNon-Existence of Equilibrium in Vickrey, Second-Price, and English Auctions
Non-Existence of Equilibrium in Vickrey, Second-Price, and English Auctions Matthew O. Jackson September 21, 2005 Forthcoming: Review of Economic Design Abstract A simple example shows that equilibria
More informationResource Allocation via the Median Rule: Theory and Simulations in the Discrete Case
Resource Allocation via the Median Rule: Theory and Simulations in the Discrete Case Klaus Nehring Clemens Puppe January 2017 **** Preliminary Version ***** Not to be quoted without permission from the
More informationThe Boston School-Choice Mechanism
The Boston School-Choice Mechanism Fuhito Kojima Stanford University M. Utku Ünver Boston College February 26, 2010 Abstract The Boston mechanism is a popular student-placement mechanism in school-choice
More informationApproximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting Ioannis Caragiannis RACTI & Department of Computer Engineering and Informatics University of Patras, Greece caragian@ceid.upatras.gr
More informationNon-Manipulable Domains for the Borda Count
Non-Manipulable Domains for the Borda Count Martin Barbie, Clemens Puppe * Department of Economics, University of Karlsruhe D 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany and Attila Tasnádi ** Department of Mathematics, Budapest
More informationSocial Choice and Mechanism Design - Part I.2. Part I.2: Social Choice Theory Summer Term 2011
Social Choice and Mechanism Design Part I.2: Social Choice Theory Summer Term 2011 Alexander Westkamp April 2011 Introduction Two concerns regarding our previous approach to collective decision making:
More informationFAIR REALLOCATION IN ECONOMIES WITH SINGLE-PEAKED PREFERENCES
Discussion Paper No. 947 FAIR REALLOCATION IN ECONOMIES WITH SINGLE-PEAKED PREFERENCES Kazuhiko Hashimoto Takuma Wakayama September 2015 The Institute of Social and Economic Research Osaka University 6-1
More informationKun Chen. Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe. requirements for the degree of. Doctor of Philosophy. Mathematics.
On Stability and Doctor-optimality of Cumulative O er Process by Kun Chen Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics in the Graduate
More informationHow to control controlled school choice. WZB Matching Workshop Aug 29, 2014
How to control controlled school choice Federico Echenique Caltech M. Bumin Yenmez Carnegie Mellon WZB Matching Workshop Aug 29, 2014 School choice Example Two schools/colleges: c 1, c 2 Two students:
More informationShift Exchange problems
Shift Exchange problems Sophie Bade June 8, 2017 Abstract Consider a matching problem where agents and objects arrive over time. Assume matchmaking has to start before all agents preferences become known:
More informationRecognizing single-peaked preferences on aggregated choice data
Recognizing single-peaked preferences on aggregated choice data Smeulders B. KBI_1427 Recognizing Single-Peaked Preferences on Aggregated Choice Data Smeulders, B. Abstract Single-Peaked preferences play
More informationPrice of Stability in Survivable Network Design
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Price of Stability in Survivable Network Design Elliot Anshelevich Bugra Caskurlu Received: January 2010 / Accepted: Abstract We study the survivable
More informationOn Relationships Between Substitutes Conditions
On Relationships Between Substitutes Conditions Mustafa Oǧuz Afacan and Bertan Turhan August 10, 2014 Abstract In the matching with contract literature, three well-known conditions (from stronger to weaker):
More informationMatching with Short Preference Lists
Matching with Short Preference Lists Guillaume Haeringer 1 1 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Barcelona GSE Visiting Stanford Astylizedfact:inmatchingmarketsparticipantsusuallysubmit short preference
More informationMatching with Couples: Semi-Stability and Algorithm
Matching with Couples: Semi-Stability and Algorithm Zhishan Jiang School of Economics Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Shanghai 200433, China Guoqiang Tian Department of Economics Texas A&M
More information