Advertisement

Abstract

We study social welfare in one-sided matching markets where the goal is to efficiently allocate n items to n agents that each have a complete, private preference list and a unit demand over the items. Our focus is on allocation mechanisms that do not involve any monetary payments. We consider two natural measures of social welfare: the ordinal welfare factor which measures the number of agents that are at least as happy as in some unknown, arbitrary benchmark allocation, and the linear welfare factor which assumes an agent’s utility linearly decreases down his preference lists, and measures the total utility to that achieved by an optimal allocation.

We analyze two matching mechanisms which have been extensively studied by economists. The first mechanism is the random serial dictatorship (RSD) where agents are ordered in accordance with a randomly chosen permutation, and are successively allocated their best choice among the unallocated items. The second mechanism is the probabilistic serial (PS) mechanism of Bogomolnaia and Moulin [8], which computes a fractional allocation that can be expressed as a convex combination of integral allocations. The welfare factor of a mechanism is the infimum over all instances. For RSD, we show that the ordinal welfare factor is asymptotically 1/2, while the linear welfare factor lies in the interval [.526,2/3]. For PS, we show that the ordinal welfare factor is also 1/2 while the linear welfare factor is roughly 2/3. To our knowledge, these results are the first non-trivial performance guarantees for these natural mechanisms.

Keywords

Social Welfare Stochastic Dominance Total Utility Preference List Probabilistic Serial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulkadiroglu, A., Sönmez, T.: Ordinal efficiency and dominated sets of assignments. Journal of Economic Theory 112, 157–172 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdulkadiroglu, A., Sönmez, T.: Matching markets: Theory and practice. Prepared for the Econometric Society World Congress, China (2010), available at first author’s websiteGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abraham, D., Irving, R., Kavitha, T., Melhorn, K.: Popular matchings. SIAM Journ. of Computing 37, 1030–1045 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aggarwal, G., Goel, G., Karande, C., Mehta, A.: Online vertex-weighted bipartite matching and single-bid budgeted allocations. In: SODA (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashlagi, I., Fischer, F., Kash, I., Procaccia, A.D.: Mix and Match. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhalgat, A., Chakrabarty, D., Khanna, S.: Social welfare in one-sided matching markets without money. Technical report, http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2964
  7. 7.
    Birnbaum, B., Mathieu, C.: On-line bipartite matching made simple. ACM SIGACT News 39 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bogomolnaia, A., Moulin, H.: A new solution to the random assignment problem. Journal of Economic Theory 100, 295–328 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bogomolnaia, A., Moulin, H.: A simple random assignment problem with a unique solution. Economic Theory 19, 623–635 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Budish, E., Che, Y.K., Kojima, F., Milgrom, P.: Designing random allocation mechanisms: Theory and applications. Unpublished Manuscript available at first author’s personal webpage (October 2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cres, H., Moulin, H.: Scheduling with opting out: Improving upon random priority. Operations Research 49, 565–577 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dughmi, S., Ghosh, A.: Truthful assignment without money. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gale, D., Shapley, L.: College admissions and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly 69, 9–15 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gardenfors, P.: Match making: assignments based on bilateral preferences. Behavorial Sciences 20, 166–173 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goel, G., Mehta, A.: Online budgeted matching in random input models with applications to adwords. In: Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guo, M., Conitzer, V.: Strategy-proof allocation of multiple items between two agents without payments or priors. In: 9th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang, C.-C., Kavitha, T., Michail, D., Nasre, M.: Bounded unpopularity matchings. In: Proceedings of the 11th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hylland, A., Zeckhauser, R.: The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. American Mathematical Monthly 69, 9–15 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karp, R., Vazirani, U., Vazirani, V.: An optimal algorithm for online bipartite matching. In: 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katta, A.K., Sethurman, J.: A solution to the random assignment problem on the full preference domain. Journal of Economic Theory 131, 231–250 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kavitha, T., Mestre, J., Nasre, M.: Popular mixed matchings. Theoretical Computer Science, Article in Press (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCutchen, R.M.: The least-unpopularity-factor and least-unpopularity-margin criteria for matching problems with one-sided preferences. In: Laber, E.S., Bornstein, C., Nogueira, L.T., Faria, L. (eds.) LATIN 2008. LNCS, vol. 4957, pp. 593–604. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Procaccia, A.D., Tennenholtz, M.: Approximate mechanism design without money. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roth, A.E., Sotomayor, M.: Two-Sided Matching: A Study on Game- Theoretic Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sönmez, T., Ünver, U.: Matching, allocation, and exchange of discrete resources. In: Handbook of Social Economics, forthcoming, available at second author’s websiteGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svensson, L.: Strategyproof allocation of indivisible goods. Social Choice and Welfare 16, 557–567 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou, L.: On a conjecture by gale about one-sided matching problems. Journal of Economic Theory 52, 123–135 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anand Bhalgat
    • 1
  • Deeparnab Chakrabarty
    • 1
  • Sanjeev Khanna
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations