On the Social Welfare of Mechanisms for Repeated Batch Matching

We study hybrid online-batch matching problems, where agents arrive continuously, but are only matched in periodic rounds, when many of them can be considered simultaneously. Agents not getting matched in a given round remain in the market for the next round. This setting models several scenarios of interest, including many job markets as well as kidney exchange mechanisms. We consider the social utility of two commonly used mechanisms for such markets: one that aims for stability in each round (greedy), and one that attempts to maximize social utility in each round (max-weight). Surprisingly, we find that in the long term, the social utility of the greedy mechanism can be higher than that of the max-weight mechanism. We hypothesize that this is because the greedy mechanism behaves similarly to a soft threshold mechanism, where all connections below a certain threshold are rejected by the participants in favor of waiting until the next round. Motivated by this observation, we propose a method to approximately calculate the optimal threshold for an individual agent, based on characteristics of the other agents, and demonstrate empirically that social utility is high when all agents use this strategy.

[1]  Leah Epstein,et al.  Improved Approximation Guarantees for Weighted Matching in the Semi-streaming Model , 2009, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[2]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Anarchy, stability, and utopia: creating better matchings , 2009, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[3]  A. Roth,et al.  The Redesign of the Matching Market for American Physicians: Some Engineering Aspects of Economic Design , 1999, The American economic review.

[4]  Gerhard Opelz,et al.  Effect of Human Leukocyte Antigen Compatibility on Kidney Graft Survival: Comparative Analysis of Two Decades , 2007, Transplantation.

[5]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Optimizing kidney exchange with transplant chains: theory and reality , 2012, AAMAS.

[6]  Claire Mathieu,et al.  On-line bipartite matching made simple , 2008, SIGA.

[7]  Andrew McGregor,et al.  Finding Graph Matchings in Data Streams , 2005, APPROX-RANDOM.

[8]  Xuanming Su,et al.  Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model , 2005, Oper. Res..

[9]  Stefanos A. Zenios,et al.  PRIMUM NON NOCERE: AVOIDING HARM TO VULNERABLE WAIT LIST CANDIDATES IN AN INDIRECT KIDNEY EXCHANGE , 2001, Transplantation.

[10]  Stefanos A. Zenios Health care applications of optimal control theory , 1996 .

[11]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Online Stochastic Optimization in the Large: Application to Kidney Exchange , 2009, IJCAI.

[12]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Kidney exchange in dynamic sparse heterogenous pools , 2013, EC '13.

[13]  Avrim Blum,et al.  Clearing algorithms for barter exchange markets: enabling nationwide kidney exchanges , 2007, EC '07.

[14]  A. Roth,et al.  Jumping the Gun: Imperfections and Institutions Related to the Timing of Market Transactions , 1994 .

[15]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Dynamic Matching via Weighted Myopia with Application to Kidney Exchange , 2012, AAAI.

[16]  Samir Khuller,et al.  On-Line Algorithms for Weighted Bipartite Matching and Stable Marriages , 1991, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Matching, cardinal utility, and social welfare , 2010, SECO.

[18]  F. Delmonico,et al.  Exchanging kidneys--advances in living-donor transplantation. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match , 2009 .

[20]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Dynamic Kidney Exchange , 2007 .

[21]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Increasing the Opportunity of Live Kidney Donation by Matching for Two- and Three-Way Exchanges , 2006, Transplantation.