TY - JOUR
T1 - Strategyproof matching with minimum quotas
AU - Fragiadakis, Daniel
AU - Iwasaki, Atsushi
AU - Troyan, Peter
AU - Ueda, Suguru
AU - Yokoo, Makoto
N1 - Funding Information:
Fragiadakis and Troyan gratefully acknowledge support from the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research through the B.F. Haley and E.S. Shaw Fellowship (Troyan) and the Leonard W. Ely and Shirley R. Ely Fellowship (Fragiadakis). Iwasaki, Ueda, and Yokoo acknowledge financial support from JSPS Kakenhi Grant Number 24220003. Iwasaki acknowledges financial support from JSPS Kakenhi Grant Number 26280081. We are grateful to Brian Baisa, John Hatfield, Fuhito Kojima, Scott Kominers, Muriel Niederle, Al Roth, members of the Stanford market design reading group, and an editor and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. We thank Naoyuki Hashimoto and Masahiro Goto for research assistance.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2015 ACM.
PY - 2015/12/1
Y1 - 2015/12/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944693434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944693434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/2841226
DO - 10.1145/2841226
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84944693434
SN - 2167-8375
VL - 4
JO - ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
JF - ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
IS - 1
M1 - 6
ER -