Matching Markets: Theory and Practice

It has been almost half a century since David Gale and Lloyd Shapley published their pathbreaking paper “College admissions and the stability of marriage” in American Mathematical Monthly . It is hard to know whether Gale and Shapley expected the literature they initiated to be used to improve lives of masses of people all around the world. We are very fortunate to see that this is happening today. The model Gale and Shapley presented is very simple. A number of boys and girls have preferences for each other and would like to be matched. The question Gale and Shapley were especially interested in was whether there is a “stable” way to match each boy with a girl so that no unmatched pair can later find out that they can both do better by matching each other. They found that there indeed is such a stable matching, and they presented a deferred acceptance algorithm that achieves this objective. Versions of this algorithm are used today to match hospitals with residents and students with public schools in New York City and Boston. In 1974, Lloyd Shapley and Herbert Scarf published a somewhat related paper, “On Cores and Indivisibility,” in the first issue of the Journal of Mathematical Economics . Their model was arguably the simplest exchange economy one could think of. Each agent comes to the market with one indivisible good and seeks to trade it for possibly more preferred ones that might be brought by other agents. In their simple model agents are restricted to consume only one good. They were interested in whether a core allocation exists in their model. They showed that there indeed

[1]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 2013, Am. Math. Mon..

[2]  Fuhito Kojima,et al.  School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action , 2012, Games Econ. Behav..

[3]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment , 2011 .

[4]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  Effective affirmative action in school choice , 2011 .

[5]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation. NBER Working Paper No. 16783. , 2011 .

[6]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  Market Design for Kidney Exchange , 2011 .

[7]  Onur Kesten School Choice with Consent , 2010 .

[8]  Jay Sethuraman,et al.  Lotteries in Student Assignment: An Equivalence Result , 2010 .

[9]  Lars Ehlers,et al.  Efficient assignment respecting priorities , 2010, J. Econ. Theory.

[10]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Matching, Allocation, and Exchange of Discrete Resources , 2009 .

[11]  Flip Klijn,et al.  Constrained school choice , 2009, J. Econ. Theory.

[12]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice: The 'Boston' Mechanism Reconsidered , 2009 .

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

[14]  L. Dubins Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice : The “ Boston , 2009 .

[15]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Leveling the Playing Field: Sincere and Sophisticated Players in the Boston Mechanism , 2008 .

[16]  Aytek Erdil,et al.  What's the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice , 2008 .

[17]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Efficient Kidney Exchange: Coincidence of Wants in a Markets with Compatibility-Based Preferences , 2009 .

[18]  Yu Wang,et al.  The Relationship between Top Trading Cycles Mechanism and Top Trading Cycles and Chains Mechanism , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[19]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Games of Capacity Manipulation in Hospital-intern Markets , 2006, Soc. Choice Welf..

[20]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism , 2006 .

[21]  L. Ehlers,et al.  Respecting Priorities when Assigning Students to Schools , 2006 .

[22]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Changing the Boston School Choice Mechanism: Strategy-proofness as Equal Access , 2006 .

[23]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  College admissions with affirmative action , 2005, Int. J. Game Theory.

[24]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Matching with Contracts , 2005 .

[25]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The Boston Public School Match , 2005 .

[26]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The New York City High School Match , 2005 .

[27]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Pairwise Kidney Exchange , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[28]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  House Allocation with Existing Tenants: An Equivalence , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

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

[30]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach , 2003 .

[31]  H. Ergin Efficient Resource Allocation on the Basis of Priorities , 2002 .

[32]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem , 2001, J. Econ. Theory.

[33]  J. P. Davis,et al.  Consensus statement on the live organ donor. , 2000, JAMA.

[34]  L. Ross,et al.  Ethical issues in increasing living kidney donations by expanding kidney paired exchange programs. , 2000, Transplantation.

[35]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  HOUSE ALLOCATION WITH EXISTING TENANTS , 1999 .

[36]  M. Balinski,et al.  A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Student Placement , 1999 .

[37]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  RANDOM SERIAL DICTATORSHIP AND THE CORE FROM RANDOM ENDOWMENTS IN HOUSE ALLOCATION PROBLEMS , 1998 .

[38]  G Opelz,et al.  Impact of HLA compatibility on survival of kidney transplants from unrelated live donors. , 1997, Transplantation.

[39]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  Manipulation via Capacities in Two-Sided Matching Markets , 1997 .

[40]  L. Ross,et al.  Ethics of a paired-kidney-exchange program. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  José Alcalde,et al.  Top dominance and the possibility of strategy-proof stable solutions to matching problems , 1994 .

[42]  Jinpeng Ma Strategy-proofness and the strict core in a market with indivisibilities , 1994 .

[43]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis , 1990 .

[44]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  The College Admissions Problem Revisited , 1989 .

[45]  N Bilgin,et al.  Living unrelated donor kidney transplantation. , 1992, Transplantation Proceedings.

[46]  A. Roth On the Allocation of Residents to Rural Hospitals: A General Property of Two-Sided Matching Markets , 1986 .

[47]  F T Rapaport,et al.  The case for a living emotionally related international kidney donor exchange registry. , 1986, Transplantation proceedings.

[48]  David Gale,et al.  Ms. Machiavelli and the Stable Matching Problem , 1985 .

[49]  A. Roth Misrepresentation and stability in the marriage problem , 1984 .

[50]  A. Roth The Evolution of the Labor Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case Study in Game Theory , 1984, Journal of Political Economy.

[51]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  The Economics of Matching: Stability and Incentives , 1982, Math. Oper. Res..

[52]  V. Crawford,et al.  Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes , 1982 .

[53]  David A. Freedman,et al.  Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley Algorithm , 1981 .

[54]  V. Crawford,et al.  Job Matching with Heterogeneous Firms and Workers , 1981 .

[55]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  The Efficient Allocation of Individuals to Positions , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[56]  Andrew Postlewaite,et al.  Weak Versus Strong Domination in a Market with Indivisible Goods , 1977 .

[57]  L. Shapley,et al.  On cores and indivisibility , 1974 .

[58]  L. Shapley,et al.  The assignment game I: The core , 1971 .

[59]  L. B. Wilson,et al.  Stable marriage assignment for unequal sets , 1970 .