skip to main content
research-article

Strategyproof Matching with Minimum Quotas

Published: 05 January 2016 Publication History

Abstract

We study matching markets in which institutions may have minimum and maximum quotas. Minimum quotas are important in many settings, such as hospital residency matching, military cadet matching, and school choice, but current mechanisms are unable to accommodate them, leading to the use of ad hoc solutions. We introduce two new classes of strategyproof mechanisms that allow for minimum quotas as an explicit input and show that our mechanisms improve welfare relative to existing approaches. Because minimum quotas cause a theoretical incompatibility between standard fairness and nonwastefulness properties, we introduce new second-best axioms and show that they are satisfied by our mechanisms. Last, we use simulations to quantify (1) the magnitude of the potential efficiency gains from our mechanisms and (2) how far the resulting assignments are from the first-best definitions of fairness and nonwastefulness. Combining both the theoretical and simulation results, we argue that our mechanisms will improve the performance of matching markets with minimum quota constraints in practice.

References

[1]
Atila Abdulkadiroğlu and Tayfun Sönmez. 1998. Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica 66, 3 (1998), 689--701.
[2]
Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Yeo-Koo Che, and Yosuke Yasuda. 2011. Resolving conflicting preferences in school choice: The “Boston” mechanism reconsidered. American Economic Review 101 (2011), 399--410.
[3]
Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth. 2005. The New York city high school match. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 95 (2005), 364--367.
[4]
Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth. 2009. Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the NYC high school match. American Economic Review 99 (2009), 1954--1978.
[5]
Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Parag A. Pathak, Alvin E. Roth, and Tayfun Sönmez. 2005. The Boston public school match. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 95, 2 (2005), 364--367.
[6]
Atila Abdulkadiroğlu and Tayfun Sönmez. 2003. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review 93, 3 (2003), 729--747.
[7]
Azar Abizada and Siwei Chen. 2014. Stability and strategy-proofness for college admissions with an eligibility criterion. Review of Economic Design 19, 1 (2014), 1--20.
[8]
Jose Alcalde and Antonio Romero-Medina. 2014. Strategy-Proof Fair School Placement. Technical Report. Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Teoría Económica.
[9]
Orhan Aygün and Tayfun Sönmez. 2012. The importance of irrelevance of rejected contracts under weakened substitutes conditions. (2012). Working paper, Boston College.
[10]
Orhan Aygün and Tayfun Sönmez. 2013. Matching with contracts: Comment. American Economic Review 103, 5 (2013), 2050--2051.
[11]
Michel Balinski and Tayfun Sönmez. 1999. A tale of two mechanisms: Student placement. Journal of Economic Theory 84, 1 (1999), 73--94.
[12]
Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. 2005. Robust mechanism design. Econometrica 73, 6 (2005), 1771--1813.
[13]
Péter Biró, Tamás Fleiner, Robert W. Irving, and David F. Manlove. 2010. The college admissions problem with lower and common quotas. Theoretical Computer Science 411, 34--36 (2010), 3136--3153.
[14]
Sebastian Braun, Nadja Dwenger, Dorothea Kübler, and Alexander Westkamp. 2014. Implementing quotas in university admissions: An experimental analysis. Games and Economic Behavior 85 (2014), 232--251.
[15]
Yan Chen and Tayfun Sönmez. 2006. School choice: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Theory 127, 1 (2006), 202--231.
[16]
Umut Dur, Scott Duke Kominers, Parag A. Pathak, and Tayfun Sönmez. 2013. The demise of walk zones in Boston: Priorities vs. precedence in school choice. (2013). Working paper, Boston College.
[17]
Federico Echenique and M. Bumin Yenmez. 2013. How to control controlled school choice. (2013). Working paper, California Institute of Technology.
[18]
Lars Ehlers, Isa E. Hafalir, M. Bumin Yenmez, and Muhammed A. Yildirim. 2014. School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds. Journal of Economic Theory 153 (2014), 648--683.
[19]
Aytek Erdil and Haluk Ergin. 2008. What’s the matter with tie-breaking? Improving efficiency in school choice. American Economic Review 98, 3 (2008), 669--689.
[20]
Haluk Ergin and Tayfun Sönmez. 2006. Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism. Journal of Public Economics (2006), 215--237.
[21]
Clayton Featherstone and Muriel Niederle. 2011. School choice mechanisms under incomplete information: An experimental investigation. (2011). Mimeo, Stanford University.
[22]
Tamás Fleiner. 2003. A fixed-point approach to stable matchings and some applications. Mathematics of Operations Research 28, 1 (2003), 103--126.
[23]
Daniel Fragiadakis and Peter Troyan. 2014. Market design with distributional constraints: School choice and other applications. (2014). Working paper, Stanford University.
[24]
David Gale and Lloyd Stowell Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly 69, 1 (1962), 9--15.
[25]
Isa E. Hafalir, M. Bumin Yenmez, and Muhammed A. Yildirim. 2013. Effective affirmative action in school choice. Theoretical Economics 8, 2 (2013), 325--363.
[26]
Koki Hamada, Kazuo Iwama, and Shuichi Miyazaki. 2014. The hospitals/residents problem with lower quotas. Algorithmica (2014), 1--26.
[27]
John William Hatfield and Fuhito Kojima. 2009. Group incentive compatibility for matching with contracts. Games and Economic Behavior 67, 2 (2009), 745--749.
[28]
John William Hatfield and Scott Duke Kominers. 2012. Matching in networks with bilateral contracts. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4, 1 (2012), 176--208.
[29]
John William Hatfield and Paul R. Milgrom. 2005. Matching with contracts. American Economic Review 95, 4 (2005), 913--935.
[30]
Yuichiro Kamada and Fuhito Kojima. 2015. Efficient matching under distributional concerns: Theory and application. American Economic Review 105, 1 (2015), 67--99.
[31]
Hans Kellerer, Ulrich Pferschy, and David Pisinger. 2004. Knapsack Problems. Springer.
[32]
Onur Kesten. 2010. School choice with consent. Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (2010), 1297--1348.
[33]
Fuhito Kojima. 2012. School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action. Games and Economic Behavior 75, 2 (2012), 685--693.
[34]
Scott Duke Kominers and Tayfun Sönmez. 2012. Designing for diversity: Matching with slot-specific priorities. (2012). Unpublished manuscript.
[35]
Ruth Martinez, Jordi Masso, Alejandro Neme, and Jorge Oviedo. 2000. Single agents and the set of many-to-one stable matchings. Journal of Economic Theory 91, 1 (2000), 91--105.
[36]
Antonio Miralles. 2009. School choice: The case for the Boston mechanism. In Auctions, Market Mechanisms and Their Applications. Springer, 58--60.
[37]
Daniel Monte and Norovsmbuu Tumennasan. 2013. Matching with quorums. Economics Letters 120, 1 (2013), 14--17.
[38]
Parag A. Pathak and Tayfun Sönmez. 2008. Leveling the playing field: Sincere and sophisticated players in the Boston mechanism. American Economic Review 98, 4 (2008), 1636--1652.
[39]
Parag A. Pathak and Tayfun Sönmez. 2013. School admissions reform in Chicago and England: Comparing mechanisms by their vulnerability to manipulation. American Economic Review 103, 1 (2013), 80--106.
[40]
Nitsan Perach, Julia Polak, and Uriel G. Rothblum. 2007. A stable matching model with an entrance criterion applied to the assignment of students to dormitories at the Technion. International Journal of Game Theory 36 (2007), 519--535.
[41]
Nitsan Perach and Uriel G. Rothblum. 2010. Incentive compatibility for the stable matching model with an entrance criterion. International Journal of Game Theory 39 (2010), 657--667.
[42]
Alvin E. Roth. 1984. The evolution of the labor market for medical interns and residents: A case study in game theory. Journal of Political Economy 92 (1984), 991--1016.
[43]
Alvin E. Roth. 1986. On the allocation of residents to rural hospitals: A general property of two-sided matching markets. Econometrica 54, 2 (1986), 425--427.
[44]
Alvin E. Roth. 1991. A natural experiment in the organization of entry-level labor markets: Regional markets for new physicians and surgeons in the United Kingdom. American Economic Review 81 (1991), 415--440.
[45]
Alvin E. Roth and Marilda A. Oliveira Sotomayor. 1990. Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis (Econometric Society Monographs). Cambridge University Press.
[46]
Tayfun Sönmez. 2013. Bidding for army career specialties: Improving the ROTC branching mechanism. Journal of Political Economy 121, 1 (2013), 186--219.
[47]
Tayfun Sönmez and Tobias Switzer. 2013. Matching with (branch-of-choice) contracts at united states military academy. Econometrica 81, 2 (2013), 451--488.
[48]
Peter Troyan. 2012. Comparing school choice mechanisms by interim and ex-ante welfare. Games and Economic Behavior 75, 2 (2012), 936--947.
[49]
Suguru Ueda, Daniel Fragiadakis, Atsushi Iwasaki, Peter Troyan, and Makoto Yokoo. 2012. Strategyproof mechanisms for two-sided matching with minimum and maximum quotas. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Vol. 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1327--1328.
[50]
Alexander Westkamp. 2013. An analysis of the German university admissions system. Economic Theory 53 (2013), 561--589.
[51]
Robert Wilson. 1987. Game-theoretic analyses of trading processes. In Advances in Economic Theory: Fifth World Congress, Truman Bewley (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Chapter 2, 33--70.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation  Volume 4, Issue 1
December 2015
169 pages
ISSN:2167-8375
EISSN:2167-8383
DOI:10.1145/2852252
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 January 2016
Accepted: 01 February 2015
Revised: 01 December 2014
Received: 01 July 2014
Published in TEAC Volume 4, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Minimum quotas
  2. deferred acceptance
  3. envy
  4. fairness
  5. lower bounds
  6. school choice
  7. strategyproofness

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • JSPS Kakenhi
  • Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research through the B.F. Haley and E.S. Shaw Fellowship (Troyan)
  • Leonard W. Ely
  • Shirley R. Ely Fellowship (Fragiadakis)

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)100
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)38
Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media