Two-Sided Matching for mentor-mentee allocations—Algorithms and manipulation strategies

In scenarios where allocations are determined by participant’s preferences, Two-Sided Matching is a well-established approach with applications in College Admissions, School Choice, and Mentor-Mentee matching problems. In such a context, participants in the matching have preferences with whom they want to be matched with. This article studies two important concepts in Two-Sided Matching: multiple objectives when finding a solution, and manipulation of preferences by participants. We use real data sets from a Mentor-Mentee program for the evaluation to provide insight on realistic effects and implications of the two concepts. In the first part of the article, we consider the quality of solutions found by different algorithms using a variety of solution criteria. Most current algorithms focus on one criterion (number of participants matched), while not directly taking into account additional objectives. Hence, we evaluate different algorithms, including multi-objective heuristics, and the resulting trade-offs. The evaluation shows that existing algorithms for the considered problem sizes perform similarly well and close to the optimal solution, yet multi-objective heuristics provide the additional benefit of yielding solutions with better quality on multiple criteria. In the second part, we consider the effects of different types of preference manipulation on the participants and the overall solution. Preference manipulation is a concept that is well established in theory, yet its practical effects on the participants and the solution quality are less clear. Hence, we evaluate the effects of three manipulation strategies on the participants and the overall solution quality, and investigate if the effects depend on the used solution algorithm as well.

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

[2]  C. Haas Incentives and Two-Sided Matching - Engineering Coordination Mechanisms for Social Clouds , 2014 .

[3]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Appendix to "Incentives and Stability in Large Two-Sided Matching Markets" , 2009 .

[4]  Christian Haas,et al.  Preference-Based Resource Allocation: Using Heuristics to Solve Two-Sided Matching Problems with Indifferences , 2013, GECON.

[5]  Katarzyna E. Paluch Faster and Simpler Approximation of Stable Matchings , 2014, Algorithms.

[6]  SangMok Lee,et al.  Incentive Compatibility of Large Centralized Matching Markets , 2017 .

[7]  Marco E. Castillo,et al.  Truncation strategies in two-sided matching markets: Theory and experiment , 2016, Games Econ. Behav..

[8]  David Manlove,et al.  An Integer Programming Approach to the Hospitals/Residents Problem with Ties , 2013, OR.

[9]  David Manlove,et al.  Hard variants of stable marriage , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Lars Ehlers,et al.  Truncation Strategies in Matching Markets , 2008, Math. Oper. Res..

[11]  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 .

[12]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  Determining the number of simulation runs: Treating simulations as theories by not sampling their behavior , 2011 .

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

[14]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Iterative combinatorial auctions: achieving economic and computational efficiency , 2001 .

[15]  Alvin E. Roth Deferred acceptance algorithms: history, theory, practice, and open questions , 2008, Int. J. Game Theory.

[16]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Local Search Approaches in Stable Matching Problems , 2013, Algorithms.

[17]  Zoltán Király Better and Simpler Approximation Algorithms for the Stable Marriage Problem , 2009, Algorithmica.

[18]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Mix and match: A strategyproof mechanism for multi-hospital kidney exchange , 2013, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  Stable Marriage and Its Relation to Other Combinatorial Problems: An Introduction to the Mathematical Analysis of Algorithms , 1996 .

[20]  Eric McDermid A 3/2-Approximation Algorithm for General Stable Marriage , 2009, ICALP.

[21]  Steven Orla Kimbrough,et al.  On heuristics for two-sided matching: revisiting the stable marriage problem as a multiobjective problem , 2010, GECCO '10.

[22]  David Manlove,et al.  Approximability results for stable marriage problems with ties , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[23]  Onur Kesten On two kinds of manipulation for school choice problems , 2012 .

[24]  Ngo Anh Vien,et al.  Multiobjective Fitness Functions for Stable Marriage Problem using Genetic Algrithm , 2006, 2006 SICE-ICASE International Joint Conference.

[25]  U. Rothblum,et al.  Truncation Strategies in Matching Markets-in Search of Advice for Participants , 1999 .

[26]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Manipulation complexity and gender neutrality in stable marriage procedures , 2009, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[27]  Robert W. Irving,et al.  An efficient algorithm for the “optimal” stable marriage , 1987, JACM.

[28]  Alistair J. Wilson,et al.  Clearinghouses for two-sided matching: An experimental study , 2016 .

[29]  Shuichi Miyazaki,et al.  A 25/17-Approximation Algorithm for the Stable Marriage Problem with One-Sided Ties , 2010, Algorithmica.

[30]  Aytek Erdil,et al.  Two-sided matching with indifferences , 2017, J. Econ. Theory.

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

[32]  Shuichi Miyazaki,et al.  Approximation algorithms for the sex-equal stable marriage problem , 2007, TALG.

[33]  Peter Coles,et al.  Optimal Truncation in Matching Markets , 2013, Games Econ. Behav..

[34]  Magnús M. Halldórsson,et al.  Improved approximation results for the stable marriage problem , 2007, TALG.

[35]  Robert W. Irving,et al.  The Stable marriage problem - structure and algorithms , 1989, Foundations of computing series.

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

[37]  Christian Haas,et al.  Finding optimal mentor-mentee matches: A case study in applied two-sided matching , 2018, Heliyon.

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