Strategy-proof stochastic assignment

I study strategy-proof assignment mechanisms where the agents reveal their preference rankings over the available objects. A stochastic mechanism returns lotteries over deterministic assignments, and mechanisms are compared according to first-order stochastic dominance. I show that non-wasteful strategy-proof mechanisms are not dominated by strategy-proof mechanisms, however nonwastefulness is highly restrictive when the mechanism involves randomization. In fact, the Random Priority mechanism (i.e., the Random Serial Dictatorship), and a recently adopted school choice mechanism, Deferred Acceptance with Random Tie-breaking, are wasteful. I find that both these mechanisms are dominated by strategy-proof mechanisms. In general, strategy-proof improvement cannot be due to merely reshuffling objects, and therefore must involve assigning more objects. Forthcoming in

[1]  A. Roth,et al.  Two-sided matching , 1990 .

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

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

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

[5]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  Asymptotic Equivalence of Probabilistic Serial and Random Priority Mechanisms , 2008 .

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

[7]  Onur Kesten,et al.  Why do popular mechanisms lack efficiency in random environments? , 2009, J. Econ. Theory.

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

[9]  H. Moulin,et al.  Random Matching under Dichotomous Preferences , 2004 .

[10]  M. Manea,et al.  Asymptotic ordinal inefficiency of random serial dictatorship , 2009 .

[11]  Hans Peters,et al.  Probabilistic strategy-proof rules over single-peaked domains , 2013 .

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

[13]  Onur Kesten,et al.  On the (im)possibility of improving upon the student-proposing deferred acceptance mechanism , 2012 .

[14]  M. Satterthwaite,et al.  Strategy-Proof Allocation Mechanisms at Differentiable Points , 1981 .

[15]  Lin Zhou On a conjecture by gale about one-sided matching problems , 1990 .

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

[17]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Decomposing Random Mechanisms , 2014 .

[18]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  A theory of school‐choice lotteries , 2015 .

[19]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  Ordinal efficiency and dominated sets of assignments , 2003, J. Econ. Theory.

[20]  Gabriel D. Carroll A general equivalence theorem for allocation of indivisible objects , 2014 .

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

[22]  Fuhito Kojima,et al.  Incentives in the probabilistic serial mechanism , 2010, J. Econ. Theory.

[23]  S. Pápai,et al.  Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange , 2000 .

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

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

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

[27]  R. Myerson,et al.  Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information , 1983 .

[28]  M. Pycia,et al.  Ordinal Efficiency, Fairness, and Incentives in Large Markets , 2016 .

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

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

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

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

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