Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Popularity and Perfectness in One-sided Matching Markets with Capacities

Published 1 Mar 2024 in cs.GT and cs.DM | (2403.00598v1)

Abstract: We consider many-to-one matching problems, where one side corresponds to applicants who have preferences and the other side to houses who do not have preferences. We consider two different types of this market: one, where the applicants have capacities, and one where the houses do. First, we answer an open question by Manlove and Sng (2006) (partly solved Paluch (2014) for preferences with ties), that is, we show that deciding if a popular matching exists in the house allocation problem, where agents have capacities is NP-hard for previously studied versions of popularity. Then, we consider the other version, where the houses have capacities. We study how to optimally increase the capacities of the houses to obtain a matching satisfying multiple optimality criteria, like popularity, Pareto-optimality and perfectness. We consider two common optimality criteria, one aiming to minimize the sum of capacity increases of all houses and the other aiming to minimize the maximum capacity increase of any school. We obtain a complete picture in terms of computational complexity and some algorithms.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (20)
  1. Anytime Capacity Expansion in Medical Residency Match by Monte Carlo Tree Search. In Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’22), Luc De Raedt (Ed.). 3–9.
  2. Popular matchings. SIAM J. Comput. 37, 4 (2007), 1030–1045.
  3. Capacity Planning in Stable Matching: An Application to School Choice. Technical Report. arXiv:2110.00734v2.
  4. Capacity Variation in the Many-to-one Stable Matching. Technical Report. arXiv:2205.01302v1.
  5. Florian Brandl and Telikepalli Kavitha. 2016. Popular matchings with multiple partners. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07531 (2016).
  6. Jiehua Chen and Gergely Csáji. 2023. Optimal Capacity Modification for Many-To-One Matching Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01815 (2023).
  7. Solving the Maximum Popular Matching Problem with Matroid Constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02195 (2022).
  8. Irit Dinur and David Steurer. 2014. Analytical approach to parallel repetition. In Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 624–633.
  9. Uriel Feige. 1996. A threshold of ln n for approximating set cover (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 314–318.
  10. Peter Gärdenfors. 1975. Match making: assignments based on bilateral preferences. Behavioral Science 20, 3 (1975), 166–173.
  11. Teofilo F Gonzalez. 1985. Clustering to minimize the maximum intercluster distance. Theoretical computer science 38 (1985), 293–306.
  12. Naoyuki Kamiyama. 2020. Popular matchings with two-sided preference lists and matroid constraints. Theoretical Computer Science 809 (2020), 265–276.
  13. Tamás Király and Zsuzsa Mészáros-Karkus. 2017. Finding strongly popular b-matchings in bipartite graphs. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics 61 (2017), 735–741.
  14. Girija Limaye and Meghana Nasre. 2022. Stable Matchings with Flexible Quotas. Technical Report. arXiv:2101.04425v4.
  15. David F Manlove and Colin TS Sng. 2006. Popular matchings in the capacitated house allocation problem. In Algorithms–ESA 2006: 14th Annual European Symposium, Zurich, Switzerland, September 11-13, 2006. Proceedings 14. Springer, 492–503.
  16. Ths̀nh Nguyen and Rakesh Vohra. 2018. Near-Feasible Stable Matchings with Couples. American Economic Review 108, 11 (2018), 3154–3169.
  17. Katarzyna Paluch. 2014. Popular and clan-popular b-matchings. Theoretical Computer Science 544 (2014), 3–13.
  18. College Admissions Problem with Ties and Flexible Quotas. Technical Report.
  19. Strategy-proof mechanisms for two-sided matching with minimum and maximum quotas. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ’12), Wiebe van der Hoek, Lin Padgham, Vincent Conitzer, and Michael Winikoff (Eds.). 1327–1328.
  20. Kentaro Yahiro and Makoto Yokoo. 2020. Game theoretic analysis for two-sided matching with resource allocation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. 1548–1556.
Citations (1)

Summary

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.