arxiv: v1 [cs.si] 1 Apr 2011

Transcription

1 Peer Effects and Stability in Matching Markets Elizabeth Bodine-Baron Christina Lee Anthony Chong Babak Hassibi Ada Wieran California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 925 arxiv:040052v [cssi] Apr 20 ABSTRACT Many-to-one atching arkets exist in nuerous different fors, such as college adissions, atching edical interns to hospitals for residencies, assigning housing to college students, and the classic firs and workers arket In all these arkets, externalities such as copleentarities and peer effects severely coplicate the preference ordering of each agent Further, research has shown that externalities lead to serious probles for arket stability and for developing efficient algoriths to find stable atchings In this paper we ake the observation that peer effects are often the result of underlying social connections, and we explore a forulation of the any-to-one atching arket where peer effects are derived fro an underlying social network The key feature of our odel is that it captures peer effects and copleentarities using utility functions, rather than traditional preference ordering With this odel and considering pairwise stability, we prove that stable atchings always exist and characterize the set of stable atchings in ters of social welfare We also give distributed algoriths that are guaranteed to converge to a stable atching To assess the copetitive ratio of these algoriths and to ore generally characterize the efficiency of atching arkets with externalities, we prove general bounds on how far the welfare of the worst-case stable atching can be fro the welfare of the optial atching, and find that the structure of the social network (eg how well clustered the network is plays a large role INTRODUCTION Many-to-one atching arkets exist in nuerous fors, such as college adissions, the national edical residency progra, freshan housing assignent, as well as the classic firs-and-workers arket These arkets are widely studied in acadeia and also widely deployed in practice, and have been applied to other areas, such as FCC spectru allocation and supply chain networks [3, 22] In the conventional forulation, atching arkets consist of two sets of agents, such as edical interns and hospitals, each of which have preferences over the agents to which they are atched In such settings it is iportant that atchings are stable in the sense that agents do not have incentive to change assignents after being atched The seinal paper on atching arkets was by Gale and Shapley [3], and following this work an enorous literature has grown, eg, [2, 28, 29, 30] and the references therein Further, variations This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants CCF , CNS and CCF-08927, by the Office of Naval Research under the MURI grant N , and by Caltech s Lee Center for Advanced Networking on Gale and Shapley s original algorith for finding a stable atching are in use by the National Resident Matching Progra (NRMP, which atches edical school graduates to residency positions at hospitals [27] However, there are probles with any of the applications of atching arkets in practice For exaple, couples participating in the NRMP often reject their atches and search outside the syste In housing assignent arkets where college students are asked to list their preferences over housing options, there is often collusion aong friends to list the sae preference order for houses These two exaples highlight that peer effects, whether just couples or a ore general set of friends, often play a significant role in anyto-one atchings That is, agents care not only where they are atched, but also which other agents are atched to the sae place Siilarly, copleentarities often play a role on the other side of the arket For exaple, hospitals and colleges care not only about which individual students are assigned to the, but also that the group has a certain diversity, eg, of different specializations As a result of the issues highlighted above, there is a growing literature studying any-to-one atchings with externalities (ie, peer effects and copleentarities [9, 4, 9, 20, 23, 25, 2, 0, 3] and the research has found that designing atching echaniss is significantly ore challenging when externalities are considered In fact, even deterining the existence of stable atchings in the presence of externalities has been difficult The reason for the difficulty is that there is no longer a guarantee that a stable any-to-one atching will exist when agents care about ore than their own atching [27, 29], and, if a stable atching does exist, it can be coputationally difficult to find [26] Consequently, ost research has focused on identifying when stable atchings do and do not exist Papers have proceeded by constraining the atching proble through restrictions of the possible preference orderings, [9, 4, 9, 20, 23, 25], and by considered variations on the standard notion of stability [2, 0, 3] Our paper also considers a restriction of the odel, described in the following The key idea of this paper is that peer effects are often the result of an underlying social network That is, when agents care about where other agents are atched, it is often because they are friends With this in ind, we construct a odel in Section 2 that includes a weighted, undirected social network graph and allows agents to have utilities (which iplicitly defines their preference ordering that depend on where neighbors in the graph are assigned The odel is otivated by [2], which also considers peer effects defined by a social network but focuses on one-sided atching arkets rather than two-sided atching arkets As in [2, 3, 2], we focus on pairwise-stable atchings, where a atching is stable if there do not exist agents that can (and want to switch

2 positions see Section 2 for a detailed definition of pairwisestability We note that this is not a generalization of the traditional notion of stability of [3]; rather, it is a weaker for of stability, but one that is still relevant to any situations Note that it is siilar to the notion of exchange stability in [, 6, 7, 6], which consider the stable arriage and stable rooate proble, but is defined in the context of a two-sided arket Given our odel of peer effects, the focus of the paper is then on characterizing the set of pairwise-stable atchings Our results concern (i the existence of pairwise-stable atchings, (ii algoriths for finding pairwise-stable atchings, and (iii the efficiency of pairwise-stable atchings (in ters of social welfare With respect to the existence of pairwise-stable atchings (Section 3, it is not difficult to show that in our odel pairwise-stable atchings always exist Further, the atching that axiizes social welfare is guaranteed to be pairwisestable Given the contrast to the negative results that are coon for any-to-one atchings, eg, [0, 26, 27], these results are perhaps surprising Further, the results on characterizing the existence of pairwise-stable atchings naturally suggest two siple algoriths for finding pairwisestable atchings, which we discuss in Section 4 With respect to the efficiency of pairwise-stable atchings (Section 5, results are not as easy to obtain In this context, we liit our focus to one-sided atching arkets, but as a result we are able to attain bounds on the ratio of the welfare of the optial atching to that of the worst stable atching, ie, the price of anarchy We also deonstrate cases where these bounds are tight When considering only one-sided arkets, our odel becoes siilar to hedonic coalition foration, but with several key differences, as highlighted in Section 5 Our results (Theores 3 and 4 show that the price of anarchy does not depend on the nuber of, say, interns, but does grow with the nuber of, say, hospitals though the growth is typically sublinear Further, we observe that the ipact of the structure of the social network on the price of anarchy happens only through the clustering of the network, which is well understood in the context of social networks, eg, [7, 33] Finally, it turns out that the price of anarchy has a dual interpretation in our context; in addition to providing a bound on the inefficiency caused by enforcing pairwise-stability, it turns out to also provide a bound on the loss of efficiency due to peer effects 2 MODEL AND NOTATION To begin, we define the odel we use to study any-to-one atchings with peer effects and copleentarities There are four coponents to the odel, which we describe in turn: (i basic notation for discussing atchings; (ii the odel for agent utilities, which captures both peer effects and copleentarities; (iii the notion of stability we consider; and (iv the notion of social welfare we consider To provide a consistent language for discussing any-toone atchings, throughout this paper we use the setting of atching incoing undergraduate students to residential houses, which occurs yearly at Caltech and other universities In this setting any students are atched to each house, and the students have preferences over the houses, but also have peer effects as a result of wanting to be atched to the sae house as their friends Siilarly, the houses have preferences over the students, but there are additional copleentarities due to goals such as aintaining diversity It is clear that stability is a key goal of this housing assignent proble Notation for any-to-one atchings Using the language of the housing assignent proble, we define two finite and disjoint sets, H = {h,, h } and S = {s,, s n} denoting the houses and students, respectively For each house, there exists a positive integer quota q h which indicates the nuber of positions a house has to offer The quota for each house ay be different A atching µ describes the assignent of students to houses such that students are atched to only one house, while houses are atched to ultiple students More forally: Definition A atching is a subset µ S H such that µ(s = and µ(h = q h, where µ(s = {h H : (s, h µ} and µ(h = {s S : (s, h µ} Note that we use µ 2 (s to denote the set of student s s houseates (students also in house µ(s Friendship network The friendship network aong the students is odeled by a weighted graph, G = (V, E, w where V = S and the relationships between students are represented by the weights of the edges connecting nodes The strength of a relationship between two students s and t is represented by the weight of that edge, denoted by w(s, t R + {0} We require that the graph is undirected, ie, the adjacency atrix is syetric so that w(s, t = w(t, s for all s, t Additionally, we define a few etrics quantifying the graph structure and its role in the atching Letthe total weight of the graph be denoted by E := 2 s S t S w(s, t Further, let the weight of edges connecting houses h and g under atching µ be denoted by E hg (µ := s µ(h t µ(g w(s, t Note that in the case of edges within the sae house E hh (µ := 2 s µ(h t µ(h w(s, t Finally, let the weight of edges that are within the houses of a particular atching µ be denoted by E in(µ := h H E hh(µ Agent utility functions In our odel, each agent derives soe utility fro a particular atching and an agent (student or house always strictly prefers atchings that give a strictly higher utility and is indifferent between atchings that give equal utility This setup differs fro the traditional notion of preference orderings [3, 29], but is not uncoon [, 2, 3, 5, 2] It is through the definitions of the utility functions that we odel peer effects (for students and copleentarities (for houses Under our odel, students derive benefit both fro (i the house they are assigned to and (ii their peers that are assigned to the sae house We odel each house h as having an objective desirability of D h R + {0}, independent of the student being considered This leads to a utility for student s under atching µ of U s(µ := D µ(s + w(s, t ( t µ 2 (s where w(s, t is the weight of the edge between s and t in the friendship graph and D h is utility derived by student s for house h 2 Note that D µ(s = D µ(t if students s and t are atched to the sae house, ie, if µ(s = µ(t The If the nuber of students in µ(h, say r, is less than q h, then µ(h contains q h r copies of h 2 We note that the utility of any duy rooates (such as what happens when a house s quota is not et, is siply U s(µ = 0 if s is a copy of h Duy rooates are not real they siply represent an open spot, and thus gain no utility fro the atching

3 students cannot value the sae house differently, since D h is the objective desirability of house h Siilarly, the utility of a house h under atching µ is odeled by U h (µ := D h µ(h, (2 where D h σ denotes the desirability of a particular set of students σ for house h (the utility house h derives fro being atched to the set of students σ Note that this definition of utility allows general phenoena such as heterogeneous house preferences over groups of students Pairwise stability The notion of stability we consider in this setting is tered pairwise stability and is siilar to that of [2, 3, 2] It can be considered to be a slightly weaker notion of stability than the traditional one used in works such as [3] To define pairwise stability, it is convenient to first define a swap atching µ t s in which students s and t switch places while keeping all other students assignents the sae Definition 2 A swap atching µ t s = {µ\{(s, h, (t, g}} {(s, g, (t, h} Note that the agents directly involved in the swap are the two students switching places and their respective houses all other atchings reain the sae This type of swap is siilar to the exchange considered in [, 6, 7, 6], but our notion of pairwise-stability is slightly different than the exchange-stability considered for the stable arriage and stable rooate probles, and, as a result, while an exchangestable atching ay not exist in either the stable arriage or stable rooate proble, we show in Section 3 that a pairwise-stable atching will always exist for the housing assignent proble Definition 3 A atching µ is pairwise-stable (PS if and only if there does not exist a pair of students (s, t such that: (i i {s, t, µ(s, µ(t}, U i(µ t s U i(µ and (ii i {s, t, µ(s, µ(t} such that U i(µ t s > U i(µ The definition of pairwise-stability iplies that a swap atching in which all agents involved are indifferent is pairwisestable This avoids looping between equivalent atchings Note that the above definition iplies that if two students want to switch between two houses, the houses involved ust approve the swap or if two houses want to switch two students, the students involved ust agree to the swap At least one agent in the quadruplet (two students, two houses ust strictly iprove; the others ust at least be indifferent This is natural for the house assignent proble and any other any-to-one atching arkets, but would be less appropriate for soe other settings, such as the college-adissions odel Social welfare One key focus of this paper is to develop an understanding of the efficiency loss that results fro enforcing stability of assignents in atching arkets We easure the efficiency loss in ters of the social welfare, which we define as follows: W (µ := s S U s(µ + h H U h (µ Using this definition of social welfare, the efficiency loss can be quantified using the Price of Anarchy (PoA and Price of Stability (PoS Specifically, the PoA (PoS is the ratio of the optial social welfare over all atchings, not necessarily stable, to the iniu (axiu social welfare over all stable atchings Understanding the PoA and PoS is the focus of Section 5 3 EXISTENCE OF STABLE MATCHINGS We begin by focusing on the existence of pairwise stable atchings In ost prior work, atching arkets with externalities do not have guaranteed existence of a stable atching For exaple, in the presence of couples on the resident side of the hospital atching arket, the NRMP algorith ay fail to have a stable outcoe [27], [29], and even if a stable atching does exist, it ay be NP-hard to find [26] In contrast to the prior literature discussed above, we prove that a pairwise stable atching always exists in the odel considered in this paper Note that a local axiu of W (µ is a atching µ for which there exists no atching µ which is obtained fro µ by swapping the assignent of exactly two students and has W (µ > W (µ Theore All local axia of W are pairwise stable Note, however, that not all pairwise-stable atchings are local axia of W (µ 3 The contrast between Theore and the results such as [27] and [29] can be explained by considering a few aspects of the odel we study In particular, the focus on pairwise stability and the assuption that the social network graph is syetric are key to guaranteeing existence We oit the exact proof of Theore here; see Appendix A for the detailed proof Basically, each swap results in a Pareto iproveent for the agents involved in the swap, as iplied by the definition of pairwise stability Specifically, Lea 2 Any swap atching µ t s for which (i i {s, t, µ(s, µ(t}, U i(µ t s U i(µ, and (ii i {s, t, µ(s, µ(t} with U i(µ t s > U i(µ has W (µ t s > W (µ For all of the other agents, a non-negative change in utility follows fro the syetry of the graph As the set of atchings is finite, the existence of a pairwise-stable atching follows directly fro Theore 4 FINDING STABLE MATCHINGS In the previous section we have shown that a pairwisestable atching will always exist and, oreover, that socially optial atchings are always pairwise-stable In this section, we turn to the task of developing algoriths for finding stable atchings In particular, two natural algoriths follow iediately fro our analysis Algorith (Greedy while i axiterations do Search for approved swap µ t s µ µ t s i i + end while Algorith proceeds by greedily considering approved swaps aong students/houses that iprove the social welfare Note that this algorith can easily be ipleented 3 Such a case arises when one student, for exaple, refuses a swap as her utility would decrease, but the other student involved stands to benefit a great deal fro such a swap If the swap were forced, the total social welfare could increase, but only at the expense of the first student

4 in a distributed anner, and loosely odels the process by which individuals adjust a atching that is not stable Lea 2 and Theore iediately give that this algorith will converge to a stable atching, since the social welfare strictly iproves with each iteration, and all local axia of W are stable atchings Note that Algorith is not guaranteed to converge to the socially optial stable atching; it will likely find just a local axia of W Also, note that each iteration of the algorith above can involve searching any pairs of students (and houses for an approved swap The second algorith we consider again seeks to optiize W, this tie using a MCMC heat bath In this algorith we start with a rando initial atching and at each iteration swap a rando pair of students with a probability that depends on the change in social welfare: a positive change yields a probability of swapping larger than /2 and vice versa Algorith 2 therefore can eerge fro a local axiu The algorith keeps track of the best atching found so far, even as it oves to worse atchings If Algorith 2 is run sufficiently long (perhaps exponential tie it can find the optial stable atching [5] However, there is no guarantee that the best atching encountered in finite tie is even stable, a situation that can be reedied by applying the greedy algorith to this atching Siulation results show the superiority of Algorith 2 to Algorith in ters of welfare, at the expense of an increase in the nuber of coputations Algorith 2 MCMC while i axiterations do Pick rando pair of students {s, t} P T = +e T (W (µt s W (µ µ µ t s with probability P T if (W (µ t s > W best then W best = W (µ t s end if i i + end while To illustrate the perforance of these two natural algoriths, we use two social network data sets The first data set is fro the Caltech Project [] This data set is an undirected graph representing the friendship links aong the undergraduates at the California Institute of Technology in 200 It includes approxiately 900 nodes and 3500 edges To illustrate the algoriths, we created 0 houses and assigned the desirability values uniforly distributed fro 0 to 0 For the other side of the arket, each student is assigned a score by each house, uniforly distributed fro 0 to 0 Each algorith is run using the sae initial values, and the results are shown in Figure The second data set we use is fro voting records for adin prootion at Wikipedia Edges in the dataset represent votes for or against a user by another user For siplicity, we treated the directed graph as undirected, resulting in approxiately 7000 nodes and edges To illustrate the algoriths, we created 7 houses and assigned the unifor rando values between 0 and 0 as before For the other side of the arket, each users is assigned a score by each house, uniforly distributed fro 0 to 0, also as before Each algorith is run using the sae initial values, and the results are shown in Figure 2 Figures and 2 illustrate that with both networks, Algorith 2 has longer running tie than Algorith, which Social Welfare (Utiles 5 x Iterations (a Algorith Social Welfare (Utiles 6 x Iterations x 0 5 (b Algorith 2 Figure : Illustration of the perforance of Algoriths and 2 on the Caltech Social Network Social Welfare (Utiles 4 x Iterations x 0 4 (a Algorith Social Welfare (Utiles 4 x Iterations x 0 6 (b Algorith 2 Figure 2: Illustration of the perforance of Algoriths and 2 on the Wikipedia Voting network converges quickly 4 The y-axis in all figures shows the social welfare of the atching at each iteration As expected, Algorith converges to a sub-optial atching for both networks, but this value is of the sae order of agnitude as that found by Algorith 2 5 EFFICIENCY OF STABLE MATCHINGS To this point, we have focused on the existence of pairwisestable atchings and how to find the In this section our focus is on the efficiency loss due to stability in a atching arket and the role peer effects play in this efficiency loss We easure the efficiency loss in a atching arket using the price of stability (PoS and the price of anarchy (PoA as defined in Section 2 Interestingly, the price of anarchy has ultiple interpretations in the context of this paper First, as is standard, it easures the worst-case loss of social welfare that results due to enforcing pairwise-stability Second, it provides a copetitive ratio for Algorith for finding a stable atching, since Algorith provides no guarantee about which pairwise-stable atching it will find Third, we show later that the price of anarchy also has an interpretation as capturing the efficiency lost due to peer effects The results in this section all require one additional siplifying assuption to our odel: copleentarities are ignored and only peer effects are considered Specifically, we assue, for all of our PoA results, U h (µ = 0, and thus W (µ = s S Us(µ Under this assuption, the arket is one-sided, with only students participating This assuption is liiting, but there are still any settings within which the odel is appropriate Two exaples are the housing assignent proble in the case when students can swap positions without needing house approval, and the assignent of faculty to offices as discussed in [2] We note that in addition, 4 We note that in the greedy algorith, an iteration can take uch ore tie to coplete than one iteration of the MCMC heat bath Even with this effect, however, the MCMC takes longer than the greedy algorith

5 D h = 0 D g = 0 k (a optial atching D h = 0 D g = 0 k (b stable atching Figure 3: Arbitrarily bad pairwise-stable atching we assue that the quotas of each house are exactly satisfied; ie, there are no epty positions in any of the houses 5 Related odels When the housing assignent proble is restricted to a one-sided arket involving only students, we note that it becoes very siilar to both (i a hedonic coalition foration gae with syetric additively separable preferences, as described in [4], and (ii a coalitional affinity gae, as described in [5] In hedonic coalition foration gaes, agents preferences for a given coalition are based on the other ebers of that coalition [8] Note that coalition gaes are necessarily onesided agents care about the coalitions but the coalitions cannot care about the agents The ost related work to ours in this area is [4], where the authors show that when agents preferences over coalition are syetric and additively separable (as the student utility functions in the housing assignent proble are, a Nash (and individually stable coalition structure will always exist This iics the existence result proved in Section 3, however our result applies for a two-sided arket Coalitional affinity gaes consider the pairwise relationships between agents, as represented by a weighted graph [5], and are a special subclass of hedonic gaes The ost related result to the current work is [5], which proves a tight upper bound on the Price of Anarchy using the notion of core stability 5 when the weighted graph is syetric While the one-sided housing assignent proble and hedonic coalition foration gaes appear to be very siilar, there are a nuber of key differences Most iportantly, the housing assignent proble considers a fixed nuber of houses with a liited nuber of spots available; students cannot break away and for a new coalition/house, nor can a house have ore students than its quota In addition, our odel considers pairwise-stability, which is closest to the Nash stability of [4], but is still significantly different in that it involves a pair of students willing and able to swap Finally, each student gains utility fro the house they are atched with, in addition to the other ebers of that house, which is different fro the original forulation of hedonic coalition gaes 52 Discussion of results To begin the discussion of our results, note that, as discussed in Section 3, the price of stability is for our odel because any social welfare optiizing atching is stable However, the price of anarchy can be uch larger than In fact, depending on the social network, the price of anarchy can be unboundedly large, as illustrated in the following exaple Exaple (Unbounded price of anarchy Consider a atching arket with 4 students and 2 houses, each with a quota of 2, and two possible atchings illustrated by Figure 3 As shown in Figure 3 (a and (b, respectively, in 5 A coalition structure is core stable if no set of agents can break away and for a new coalition to iprove their own utility the optial atching µ, W (µ = k; whereas there exists a pairwise-stable atching with W (µ = 2 Thus, as k increases, the price of anarchy grows linearly in k Despite the fact that, in general, there is a large efficiency loss that results fro enforcing stability, in any realistic cases the efficiency loss is actually quite sall The following two theores provide insight into such cases A key paraeter in these theores is γ which captures how well the social network can be clustered into a fixed nuber of groups and is defined as follows γ (µ := Ein(µ E (3 γ := ax γ(µ (4 µ Thus, γ represents the axiu edges that can be captured by a partition satisfying the house quotas Note that γ is highly related to other clustering etrics, such as the conductance [8], [32] and expansion [24] Our first theore regarding efficiency is for the siple case of unweighted social networks with equal house quotas and/or equivalently valued houses Theore 3 Let w(s, t {0, } for all students s, t and let q h 2, D h Z + {0} for all houses h If q h = q for all h and/or D h = D for all h, then axµ W (µ in W (µ stable µ + 2( γ We note that the requireent q h = q for all h and/or D h = D for all h is key to the proof of Theore 3 and in obtaining such a siple upper bound; otherwise, Theore 4 applies Our second theore reoves the restrictions in the theore above, at the expense of a slightly weaker bound Define q ax = ax h H q h, w ax = ax s,t S w(s, t and D = in h,g H (D h D g, assuing that the houses are ordered in increasing values of D h Theore 4 Let w(s, t R + {0} for all students s, t and D h R + {0}, q h Z + for all houses h, then in W (µ ( stable µ + 2( γ + qaxwax D We oit the proofs of these theores here for brevity; see Appendix B for the details A first observation one can ake about these theores is that the price of anarchy has no direct dependence on the nuber of students This is an iportant practical observation since the nuber of houses is typically sall, while the nuber of students can be quite large (siilar phenoena hold in any other any-to-one atching arkets In contrast, the theores highlight that the degree of heterogeneity in quotas, network edge weights, and house valuations all significantly ipact inefficiency A second reark about the theores is that the only dependence on the social network is through γ, which easures how well the graph can be clustered into groups An iportant note about γ is that it is highly dependent on, and tends to shrink quickly as grows We give an illustration of this effect in Figures 4a and 4b using the two social network data sets described in Section 4 A consequence of this behavior is that the price of anarchy is not actually linear in in Theores 3 and 4, as it ay first appear, it turns out to be sublinear This is illustrated in the context of real social network data in Figures 4c and 4d

6 * * PoA PoA Houses ( Houses ( Houses ( Houses ( (a Caltech γ (b Wikipedia γ (c Caltech PoA (d Wikipedia PoA Figure 4: Illustration of γ and price of anarchy bounds in Theore 3 for Caltech and Wikipedia networks Next, let us consider the ipact of peer effects on the price of anarchy Considering the siple setting of Theore 3, we see that if there were no peer effects, this would be equivalent to setting w(s, t = 0 for all s, t This would iply that γ = 0, and so the price of anarchy is one Thus, another interpretation of the price of anarchy in Theore 3 is the efficiency lost as a result of peer effects One final reark about Theore 3 is that the bound provided is tight, as illustrated by the following exaple D i = 0 D h = k + D g = 0 D i = 0 D h = k + D g = 0 Figure 5: Network that achieves PoA bound Exaple 2 (Tightness of Theore 3 Consider a setting with houses and q h = k for all h H Students are grouped into clusters of size k > 2, as shown for = 3 in Figure 5 The houses have D h = k + and D g = D i = 0 Each student in the iddle cluster in each row has to the other students outside of their cluster (but none within, as shown The worst-case stable atching is represented by the vertical red lines Note that since D h = k+, this atching is stable, even though all edges are cut Thus in µ stable γ (µ = 0 The optial atching is represented by the horizontal blue lines in the figure; note that γ = To calculate the price of anarchy, we start fro equations (6 and (7 and calculate h H Q = q hd h k(k + = 2E 2k( k = k + 2( k, which gives, in stable µ W (µ = Q + γ Q + in µ stable γ (µ ( k = + 2( k + Notice that as k becoes large, this approaches the bound of + 2( γ Though Theore 3 is tight, it is unclear at this point whether Theore 4 is also tight However, a slight odification of the above exaple does show that it has the correct asyptotics, ie, there exists a faily of exaples that have price of anarchy Θ(γq axw axd 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS In this paper we have focused on any-to-one atchings with peer effects and copleentarities Typically, results on this topic tend to be negative, either proving that stable atchings ay not exist, eg, [27, 29], or that stable atchings are coputationally difficult to find, eg, [26] In this paper, our goal has been to provide positive results To this end, we focus on the case when peer effects are the result of an underlying social network, and this restriction on the for of the peer effects allows us to prove that a pairwise-stable atching always exists and that socially optial atchings are always stable Further, we provide bounds on the axial inefficiency (price of anarchy of any pairwise-stable atching and show how this inefficiency depends on the clustering properties of the social network graph Interestingly, in our context the price of anarchy has a dual interpretation as characterizing the degree of inefficiency caused by peer effects There are nuerous exaples of any-to-one atchings where the results in this paper can provide insight; one of particular interest to us is the atching of incoing undergraduates to residential houses which happens yearly at Caltech Currently incoing students only report a preference order for houses, and so are incentivized to collude with friends and not reveal their true preferences For such settings, the results in this paper highlight the iportance of having students report not only their preference order on houses, but also a list of friends with who they would like to be atched Using a cobination of these factors the algoriths and efficiency bounds presented in this paper provide a proising approach, for this specific arket as well as any general arket where peer effects change the space of stable atchings The results in the current paper represent only a starting point for research into the interaction of social networks and any-to-one atchings There are a nuber of siplifying assuptions in this work which would be interesting to relax For exaple, the efficiency bounds we have proven consider only a one-sided arket, where houses do not have preferences over students Further, all the results in the paper assue that all students have the sae preference order for the houses These assuptions are key to the analysis in this paper, and they certainly are valid in soe atching arkets; however relaxing these assuptions would broaden the applicability of the work greatly

7 7 REFERENCES [] J Alcalde Exchange-proofness or divorce-proofness? stability in one-sided atching arkets Review of Econoic Design, : , 994 [2] M Baccara, A Irohoroglu, A Wilson, and L Yariv A field study on atching with network externalities 2009 Working paper [3] P Bajari and J Fox Measuring the efficiency of an fcc spectru auction 2009 Mieo [4] A Bogoolnaia and M Jackson The stability of hedonic coalition structures Gaes and Econoic Behavior, 38(2:20 230, 2002 [5] S Brânzei and K Larson Coalitional affinity gaes AAMAS 09, pages , 2009 [6] K Cechlarova and D Manlove On the coplexity of exchange-stable rooates Discrete Applied Matheatics, 6(3: , 2002 [7] K Cechlarova and D Manlove The exchange-stable arriage proble Discrete Applied Matheatics, 52(-3:09 22, 2005 [8] J H Dreze and J Greenberg Hedonic coalitions: Optiality and stability Econoetrica, 48(4: , 980 [9] B Dutta and J Masso Stability of atchings when individuals have preferences over colleagues Journal of Econoic Theory, 75(2: , 997 [0] F Echenique and M Yenez A solution to atching with preferences over colleagues Gaes and Econoic Behavior, 59(:46 7, 2007 [] J Ensinger The caltech project 200 Unpublished dataset [2] J Fox Estiating atching gaes with transfers 200 Working paper [3] D Gale and L Shapley College adissions and the stability of arriage The Aerican Matheatical Monthly, 69(:9 5, January 962 [4] I Hafalir Stability of arriage with externalities International Journal of Gae Theory, 37: , 2008 [5] O Häggströ Finite Markov Chains and Algorithic Applications Cabridge University Press, 200 [6] R Irving Stable atching probles with exchange restrictions Journal of Cobinatorial Optiization, 6: , 2008 [7] M Jackson Social and Econoic Networks Princeton University Press, 2008 [8] R Kannan, S Vepala, and A Vetta On clusterings: Good, bad and spectral Journal of the ACM, 5(3:497 55, 2004 [9] B Klaus and F Klijn Stable atchings and preferences of couples Journal of Econoic Theory, 2:75 06, 2005 [20] B Klaus and F Klijn Paths to stability for atching arkets with couples Gaes and Econoic Behavior, 58:54 7, 2007 [2] F Kojia and P Pathak Incentives and stability in large two-sided atching arkets Aerican Econoic Review, 99(3: , 2009 [22] M Ostrovsky Stability in supply chain networks The Aerican Econoic Review, 98(3: , 2008 [23] M Pycia Many-to-one atching with copleentarities and peer effects 2007 Working paper [24] F Radicchi, C Castellano, F Cecconi, V Loreto, and D Parisi Defining and identifying counities in networks Proc National Acadey of Sciences USA, 0(9: , 2004 [25] P Revilla Many-to-one atching when colleagues atter 2004 Working paper [26] E Ronn Np-coplete stable atching probles Journal of Algoriths, : , 990 [27] A Roth The evolution of the labor arket for edical interns and residents: A case study in gae theory Journal of Political Econoics, 92:99 06, 984 [28] A Roth, U Rothblu, and J V Vate Stable atchings, optial assignents and linear prograing Matheatics of Operations Research, 8(4: , 993 [29] A Roth and M Sotoayor Two-sided atching: A study in gae-theoretic odeling and analysis Cabridge University Press, 990 [30] A Roth and J V Vate Rando paths to stability in two-sided atching Econoetrica, 58: , 990 [3] H Sasaki and M Toda Two-sided atching probles with externalities Journal of Econoic Theory, 70(:93 08, 996 [32] J Shi and J Malik Noralized cuts and iage segentation IEEE Trans of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(8: , 2000 [33] S Wasseran and K Faust Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications Cabridge University Press, 994 APPENDIX A EXISTENCE PROOF To prove Theore, we first prove a technical lea, fro which the theore follows iediately The analysis is straightforward and draws its key ideas fro the work of [2], which considers only a one-sided arket rather than the two-sided arket considered here Lea 5 Any swap atching µ t s for which (i i {s, t, µ(s, µ(t}, U i(µ t s U i(µ, and (ii i {s, t, µ(s, µ(t} with U i(µ t s > U i(µ has W (µ t s > W (µ Proof Consider a atching µ and a swap atching µ t s that satisfies (i and (ii fro the lea stateent Without loss of generality, assue that student s strictly iproves The other cases are syetric Define µ(s = h, and µ(t = g The change in utility for student s is then 0 < U s(µ t s U s(µ = D g D h w(s, x + Siilarly, for student t, we have 0 U t(µ t s U t(µ = D h D g w(t, x + w(s, x w(s, t, w(t, x w(s, t Adding the above inequalities, we obtain the following: 0 < (w(s, x w(t, x + (w(t, x w(s, x 2w(s, t := δ s,t Continuing, the total change in utility for all students is: S := U x(µ t s U x(µ x S x S = δ s,t + w(x, s w(s, t } {{ } gain fro s joining g + w(x, t w(s, t } {{ } gain fro t joining h w(x, s }{{} loss fro s leaving h w(x, t }{{} loss fro t leaving g = 2δ s,t (5 > 0 where line (5 coes fro the fact that we assue the social network graph is syetric On the house side of the arket, we have 0 U h (µ t s U h (µ + U g(µ t s U g(µ := H

8 as only houses h and g are affected by the swap and the change in their utilities is non-negative by assuption Thus, the total social welfare strictly increases: W (µ t s W (µ = S + H > 0 Using Lea 5 it is now easy to coplete the proof of Theore Proof of Theore Let atching µ be a local axiu of W (µ Lea 5 shows that any swap atching that is acceptable to all parties (ie satisfies conditions (i and (ii strictly increases the total social welfare But this contradicts the assuption that µ is a local axiu Thus, µ ust be stable B PROOFS OF POA THEOREMS We note that these proofs hold for the one-sided arket; ie, when U h (µ = 0 h H Also note that for ease of notation, we use E instead of E to represent the total edge weight of the graph in this appendix B Proof of Theore 3 Throughout the proof we assue that the houses are ordered: ie, if g < h then D g < D h We begin by noting that due to the assuption that h H U h(µ = 0, W (µ = U s(µ = D h + w(s, t s S h H Thus, s µ(h = h H(q h D h + 2E hh = 2E in(µ + h H q h D h t µ(h in µ is stable W (µ = Q + axµ γ(µ Q + in stable µ γ (µ where h H Q := q hd h (7 2E Note that the paraeter Q is independent of the particular atching µ An iportant tool that we use throughout the proof is a rephrasing of the definition of pairwise stability in the onesided arket case in ters of a function α as follows Definition 4 Let α µ(s, g be a function representing the benefit a student s gains by oving to house g under atching µ: α µ(s, g = D g D µ(s + w(s, x w(s, x (8 x µ 2 (s Notice that using the definition above, given a specific swap atching µ t s where t µ(g, we can calculate the difference in utility for the involved student s as U s(µ t s U s(µ = α µ(s, g w(s, t because x µ t s (g w(s, x = w(s, x w(s, t The definition of α also provides a useful new phrasing of the definition of pairwise stability, which is equivalent to that of Definition 3 when the arket is one-sided, ie, when U h (µ = 0 h H Note that we are only considering the Price of Anarchy for the one-sided arket here we plan to generalize these results for the two-sided case in future work (6 Definition 5 A atching µ is pairwise stable (PS in the one-sided (students-only housing assignent arket if and only if for all pairs of students s µ(h and t µ(g, at least one of the following conditions holds: Condition : s doesn t want to swap, ie, α µ(s, g < w(s, t Condition 2: t doesn t want to swap, ie, α µ(t, h < w(s, t Condition 3: s and t are indifferent, ie, α µ(s, g = α µ(t, h = w(s, t Using the above rephrasing of the definition of pairwise stability, we now continue with the proof of Theore 3 In order to prove an upper bound on the price of anarchy, we prove a lower bound on γ (µ when µ is stable To prove this lower bound, we first prove an upper bound on the nuber of cross edges (E hg = E gh in the following lea Lea 6 Let w(s, t {0, } for all students s, t and let q h 2, D h Z for all h Let q h = q for all h and/or D h = D for all h If a atching µ is stable, then for all houses h and g, E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg (9 Proof Using the conditions of stability fro Definition 5 and Leas 0 and as suarized below and proved in Appendix C, we have Case : If there exists s µ(h such that α µ(s, g > then, by Lea 0, if µ is stable it follows that E gh q g(d g D h + 2E gg Case 2: If there exists t µ(g such that α µ(t, h > then, by Lea 0, if µ is stable it follows that E hg q h (D h D g + 2E hh Case 3: If there does not exist s µ(h such that α µ(s, g > and there does not exist t µ(g such that α µ(t, h > then, by Lea, if µ is stable it follows that E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg Given any atching µ in the student-only arket, it ust fall into one of the three cases above Thus, if µ is stable, it follows that one of the three bounds above holds Because the edges are undirected, E hg = E gh, we can cobine the three bounds to conclude that if µ is stable, E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg Next, we use the above to prove a lower bound on γ (µ Lea 7 Let w(s, t {0, } and let q h 2, D h Z for all h Let q h = q for all h and/or D h = D for all h If a atching µ is stable, then γ (µ ax Proof ( E E in(µ = E g<h E gh g<h q h(d h D g, 0 (2 E (0 E g<h (q h (D h D g + 2(E hh + E gg ( = E 2( E in(µ g<h (q h (D h D g where we have used the assuption that the houses are ordered in line ( Solving for E in(µ gives E in(µ E g<h q h(d h D g 2

9 Thus, γ (µ = Ein(µ E E g<h q h(d h D g (2 E Note that the above bound is only useful when the nuerator is positive; otherwise, the bound becoes negative However, it is iediate to see that γ (µ 0 always, as E in(µ and E are non-negative, which copletes the proof Finally, we can coplete the proof of Theore 3 using the above leas There are two cases to consider, depending on the value of E : Case : E > g>h q h(d h D g Plugging the bound fro Lea 7 into (6 gives in µ is stable W (µ = = Q + γ Q + γ (µ +γ 2E + E g<h q h(d h D g 2E (2 E (2 +2(2 Eγ (2 +2E 2 g<h q h(d h D g Using Lea 2 fro the Appendix to substitute for is then enough to coplete the proof in this case, after soe algebra using the fact that γ Case 2: E g<h q h(d h D g In this case, Lea 7 states that γ (µ 0 Using this bound and plugging into (6 gives in µ is stable W (µ = Q + γ Q + γ + γ (µ Q (2 Note that Q > 0 as long as E > 0 because we are given that E g<h q h(d h D g in this case Further, note that the case of E = 0 is trivial because all atchings have the sae welfare and so the price of anarchy is Using E g<h q h(d h D g we have h H Q q hd h 2 g<h q h(d h D (3 g Cobining (2 and (3 and again using Lea 2 fro the appendix is then enough to coplete the proof in this case, after soe algebra One final reark about this proof is that in the special case of D h = 0 a tighter bound holds Specifically, the price of anarchy is bounded by (2 γ in this case B2 Proof of Theore 4 The proof of Theore 4 follows the sae structure as the proof of Theore 3, with a few added coplexities that cause the bound to becoe weaker To begin, we again derive a bound on the cross-edges Lea 8 Let w(s, t R for all students s, t and let D h R for all houses h If a atching µ is stable, then for all houses h and g, E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg + q axw ax Proof Using the conditions of stability fro Definition 5 for the one-sided arket and Leas 3 and 4 fro Appendix C, we have three cases Case : If there exists s µ(h such that α µ(s, g > w(s, t for all t µ(g then, by Lea 3, if µ is stable, it follows that E gh q g(d g D h + 2E gg + q gw ax Case 2: If there exists t µ(g such that α µ(t, h > w(s, t for all s µ(h then, by Lea 3, if µ is stable, it follows that E hg q h (D h D g + 2E hh + q h w ax Case 3: If there does not exist s µ(h such that α µ(s, g > w(s, t and there does not exist t µ(g such that α µ(t, h > w(s, t, for all t µ(g, s µ(h respectively, then, by Lea 4, if µ is stable, it follows that E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg + q axw ax Given any atching µ, it ust fall into one of the three cases above Thus, if µ is pairwise-stable, it follows that one of the three bounds above holds Because the edges are undirected, E hg = E gh, we can cobine the three bounds to conclude that, if µ is stable, E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg + q axw ax Next, we use the above to prove a lower bound on γ (µ Lea 9 Let w(s, t R If a atching µ is stable, then ( E g<h γ (µ ax q h(d h D g ( 2 q axw ax, 0 (2 E Proof E in(µ = E g<h E gh E g<h(q h (D h D g + 2(E hh + E gg + q axw ax = E 2( E in(µ g<h (q h (D h D g ( 2 q axw ax (4 where line (4 follows fro the assuption that the houses are ordered Solving for E in(µ gives and thus E in(µ E g<h q h(d h D g ( 2 q axw ax 2, γ (µ = Ein(µ E E g<h q h(d h D g ( 2 q axw ax (2 E This bound is only relevant when E > g>h q h(d h D ( g+ 2 qaxw ax Otherwise, the bound becoes negative, in which case we use the fact that γ (µ 0 always, as E in(µ and E are non-negative Finally, we can coplete the proof of Theore 4 using the leas above There are two cases to consider, depending on the value of E Case : E > g<h q h(d h D g + ( 2 qaxw ax

10 Plugging the bound fro Lea 9 into (6 gives in µ is stable W (µ = = Q + γ Q + γ (µ +γ 2E + E g<h q h(d h D g ( 2 q axw ax 2E (2 E (2 +2(2 Eγ (2 +2E 2 g<h q h(d h D g 2( 2 q axw ax Using Lea 2 to substitute for, the bound becoes, after soe algebra, in µ is stable W (µ ( + 2( γ ( 2( E+ g<h q h(d h D g 2( E+ g<h q h(d h D g 2( ( 2 q axw ax Using E g<h q h(d h D g + ( 2 qaxw ax, we have, after soe algebra, in µ is stable W (µ ( + 2( γ ( + 2( ( 2 q axw ax (2 g<h q h(d h D g Case 2: E g<h q h(d h D g + ( 2 qaxw ax In this case, Lea 9 states that γ (µ 0 Using this bound and plugging into (6, we have in µ is stable W (µ = Q + γ Q + γ (µ + γ Q Using E g<h q(d h D g + ( 2 qaxw ax we have h H Q q hd h 2 g<h q h(d h D g + 2 ( 2 qaxw ax and so the price of anarchy becoes, again using Lea 2, + 2( in µ is stable W (µ γ + 2( 2 qaxw ax We can cobine the two cases into one (looser bound, + 2( 2( in µ is stable W (µ γ qaxwax + D C TECHNICAL LEMMAS This appendix includes the leas used in the proofs of Theores 3 and 4 Lea 0 Let w(s, t {0, } for all students s, t and let D h Z for all h Let µ be a stable atching If there exists a student s µ(h such that α µ(s, g > for soe other house g, then E gh q g(d g D h + 2E gg Proof Since µ is stable, then for all t µ(g, (s, t ust satisfy at least one of the three conditions stated in the definition of pairwise stability (Definition 5 However, for all t µ(g, α µ(s, g > w(s, t Thus, (s, t cannot satisfy conditions or 3 Therefore, it ust satisfy condition 2, which iplies that for all t µ(g α µ(t, h < w(s, t Since D h, w(s, t Z we have that α µ(t, h Z, and so α µ(t, h < = α µ(t, h 0, t µ(g Suing over all t µ(g gives α µ(t, h 0 t µ(g Using the definition of α, we have D h D g + w(t, x t µ(g Siplifying the above yields q g(d h D g + E gh 2E gg 0, fro which the desired bound follows w(t, x 0 Lea Let w(s, t {0, } for all students s, t, and let D h Z for all houses h Let µ be a stable atching and let q h = q 2 and/or D h = D Z for all h If (i there does not exist an s µ(h such that α µ(s, g > and (ii there does not exists a µ(g such that α µ(t, h >, then E hg ax(q h (D h D g, q g(d g D h + 2(E hh + E gg Proof It follows fro the assuptions in the theore stateent that the students in houses h and g can be partitioned into 6 sets based on their house and α values (either, 0, or negative, as shown in Figure 6 S S 0 S house h α = α = 0 α house g α = α = 0 α T T 0 T Figure 6: Partition of students based on α function Let S 0, S, and S denote the set of students in house h such that α µ(s, g = 0, α µ(s, g =, and α µ(s, g respectively For convenience, we use the sae notation for the set and the nuber of students in the set, eg, S = S The sae conventions apply to the T variables and students in house g Two sets are connected with a black line in Figure 6 if all students in one set ust be connected to all students in the other set These connections follow fro the conditions of stability in Definition 5 This gives us 3 constraints: if α µ(s, g = and α µ(t, h = then w(s, t = 2 if α µ(s, g = and α µ(t, h = 0 then w(s, t = 3 if α µ(s, g = 0 and α µ(t, h = then w(s, t = These constraints give us a lower bound on the edges between houses h and g w(t, x S T + S T 0 + S 0T (5 t µ(g To prove the theore, we want to find an upper bound on the cross edges, E hg, so we relate the edges in the graph to the su of the α values using the definition of the α function α µ(s, g = q h (D g D h + E hg 2E hh (6 s µ(h