Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
153 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Priority-Neutral Matching Lattices Are Not Distributive (2404.02142v1)

Published 2 Apr 2024 in econ.TH and cs.GT

Abstract: Stable matchings are a cornerstone of market design, with numerous practical deployments backed by a rich, theoretically-tractable structure. However, in school-choice problems, stable matchings are not Pareto optimal for the students. Priority-neutral matchings, introduced by Reny (AER, 2022), generalizes the set of stable matchings by allowing for certain priority violations, and there is always a Pareto optimal priority-neutral matching. Moreover, like stable matchings, the set of priority-neutral matchings forms a lattice. We study the structure of the priority-neutral lattice. Unfortunately, we show that much of the simplicity of the stable matching lattice does not hold for the priority-neutral lattice. In particular, we show that the priority-neutral lattice need not be distributive. Moreover, we show that the greatest lower bound of two matchings in the priority-neutral lattice need not be their student-by-student minimum, answering an open question. This show that many widely-used properties of stable matchings fail for priority-neutral matchings; in particular, the set of priority-neutral matchings cannot be represented by via a partial ordering on a set of rotations. However, by proving a novel structural property of the set of priority-neutral matchings, we also show that not every lattice arises as a priority-neutral lattice, which suggests that the exact nature of the family of priority-neutral lattices may be subtle.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (37)
  1. Efficiency, justified envy, and incentives in priority-based matching. American Economic Review: Insights, 2(4):425–442, 2020.
  2. School choice with farsighted students. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07108, 2022.
  3. Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the nyc high school match. American Economic Review, 99(5):1954–1978, 2009.
  4. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review, 93(3):729–747, 2003.
  5. Garrett Birkhoff. Rings of sets. Duke Math. J, 3(3):443–454, 1937.
  6. Garrett Birkhoff. Lattice theory, volume 25. American Mathematical Soc., 1940.
  7. Charles Blair. Every finite distributive lattice is a set of stable matchings. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 37(3):353–356, 1984.
  8. Regret-free truth-telling in school choice with consent. Theoretical Economics, 2023.
  9. Representing all stable matchings by walking a maximal chain. Mimeo, 2019.
  10. Existence of myopic-farsighted stable sets in matching markets. Available at SSRN 4354768, 2023.
  11. Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley algorithm. The American Mathematical Monthly, 88:485–494, 08 1981.
  12. Lars Ehlers. Von neumann–morgenstern stable sets in matching problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 134(1):537–547, 2007.
  13. Online and matching-based market design. Technical report, Cambridge University Press, 2023.
  14. (il) legal assignments in school choice. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(4):1837–1875, 2020.
  15. Legal assignments and fast eadam with consent via classic theory of stable matchings. Oper. Res., 70(3):1873–1890, may 2022.
  16. The stable marriage problem: structure and algorithms. MIT Press, 1989.
  17. George Grätzer. General lattice theory, volume 52. Birkhäuser, 2012.
  18. College admissions and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly, 69:9–14, 1962.
  19. Ms. machiavelli and the stable matching problem. The American Mathematical Monthly, 92(4):261–268, 1985.
  20. Some remarks on the stable matching problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 11(3):223–232, 1985.
  21. Walrasian equilibrium with gross substitutes. Journal of Economic theory, 87(1):95–124, 1999.
  22. The complexity of counting stable marriages. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15(3):655–667, 1986.
  23. Onur Kesten. School choice with consent. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3):1297–1348, 2010.
  24. Donald E Knuth. The asymptotic number of geometries. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 16(3):398–400, 1974.
  25. Justified-envy-minimal efficient mechanisms for priority-based matching. Available at SSRN 3495266, 2020.
  26. David Manlove. Algorithmics of matching under preferences, volume 2. World Scientific, 2013.
  27. Von neumann–morgenstern farsightedly stable sets in two-sided matching. Theoretical Economics, 6(3):499–521, 2011.
  28. The stable marriage problem. Communications of the ACM, 14(7), 1971.
  29. John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, 1944.
  30. Philip J Reny. Efficient matching in the school choice problem. American Economic Review, 112(6):2025–2043, 2022.
  31. Alvin E. Roth. The economics of matching: stability and incentives. Mathematics of Operations Research, 7(4):617–628, 1982.
  32. Alvin E. Roth. The evolution of the labor market for medical interns and residents: A case study in game theory. Journal of Political Economy, 92:991–1016, 1984.
  33. The core of school choice problems. Economic Theory, pages 1–18, 2023.
  34. On cores and indivisibility. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1(1):23–37, 1974.
  35. Essentially stable matchings. Games and Economic Behavior, 120:370–390, 2020.
  36. A new perspective on kesten’s school choice with consent idea. Journal of Economic Theory, 154:543–561, 2014.
  37. Weak stability and pareto efficiency in school choice. Economic Theory, 71:533–552, 2021.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com