Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Social Choice and Welfare 2/2017

08-12-2016 | Original Paper

New axioms for deferred acceptance

Author: Yajing Chen

Published in: Social Choice and Welfare | Issue 2/2017

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible objects to a set of agents based on agents’ preferences over objects and objects’ “choice functions” over agents, when monetary transfers are not allowed. Following Kojima and Manea (Econometrica 78(2):633–653, 2010) and Morrill (Int J Game Theory 42(1):19–28, 2013a), this paper provides four characterizations of the agent-proposing deferred acceptance allocation rule for all acceptant substitutable choice functions. It is the only rule satisfying any one of the following groups of axioms: (1) stability, rank monotonicity; (2) non-wastefulness, top best, weak consistency, rank monotonicity; (3) non-wastefulness, strong top best, weak Maskin monotonicity; (4) non-wastefulness, strong group rationality, rank monotonicity. These results suggested that two new axioms: rank monotonicity and weak consistency, deserve further attention. They also shed light on what distinguishes the agent-proposing deferred acceptance rule from the other rules.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
Choice functions are usually called priorities in the literature.
 
2
Different versions of rank-preserving monotonic transformation have been discussed in Roth and Rothblum (1999), Kojima et al. (2009) and Bogomolnaia and Heo (2012).
 
3
This rule corresponds to the top trading cycles school choice mechanism described in Abdulkadiroğlu and Sönmez (2003).
 
4
This rule corresponds to the Boston school choice mechanism described in Abdulkadiroğlu and Sönmez (2003) determined by the agent-proposing immediate acceptance algorithm.
 
5
Let F be the set of linear orders over N. For each \(f\in F\), the serial dictatorship rule associated with f assigns to the agent with the highest order his best object, to the agent with the second highest order his best object among what remains, and so on. The given priority orders are totally ignored.
 
6
This rule corresponds to the mechanism determined by the object-proposing deferred acceptance algorithm.
 
7
We use the name strong group rationality because we have a similar but weaker axiom called group rationality. Group rationality is defined in the earlier working paper version. It requires that a rule never assign an agent i to an object worse than a if agent i is “chosen” by a from the set of all agents. Formally, for each \(R \in \mathcal {R}\), each \(i\in N\) and each \(a\in O\), \(i\in C_a(N)\) imply that \(\varphi _i(R)\,\, R_i \,\,a\).
 
Literature
go back to reference Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: a mechanism design approach. Am Econ Rev 93(3):729–747 Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: a mechanism design approach. Am Econ Rev 93(3):729–747
go back to reference Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che Y-K (2010) The role of priorities in assigning indivisible objects: a characterization of top trading cycles. Working paper Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che Y-K (2010) The role of priorities in assigning indivisible objects: a characterization of top trading cycles. Working paper
go back to reference Afacan MO (2013) Alternative characterizations of Boston mechanism. Mathe Soc Sci 66(2):176–179CrossRef Afacan MO (2013) Alternative characterizations of Boston mechanism. Mathe Soc Sci 66(2):176–179CrossRef
go back to reference Balinski M, Sönmez T (1999) A tale of two mechanisms: student placement. J Econ Theory 84(1):73–94CrossRef Balinski M, Sönmez T (1999) A tale of two mechanisms: student placement. J Econ Theory 84(1):73–94CrossRef
go back to reference Bogomolnaia A, Heo EJ (2012) Probabilistic assignment of objects: characterizing the serial rule. J Econ Theory 147(5):2072–2082CrossRef Bogomolnaia A, Heo EJ (2012) Probabilistic assignment of objects: characterizing the serial rule. J Econ Theory 147(5):2072–2082CrossRef
go back to reference Chen Y (2016) New axioms for immediate acceptance. Rev Econ Des 20(4):329–337 Chen Y (2016) New axioms for immediate acceptance. Rev Econ Des 20(4):329–337
go back to reference Gale D, Shapley L (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Mon 69(1):9–15CrossRef Gale D, Shapley L (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Mon 69(1):9–15CrossRef
go back to reference Kojima F, Manea M (2010) Axioms for deferred acceptance. Econometrica 78(2):633–653CrossRef Kojima F, Manea M (2010) Axioms for deferred acceptance. Econometrica 78(2):633–653CrossRef
go back to reference Kojima F, Pathak PA (2009) Incentives and stability in large two-sided matching markets. Am Econ Rev 99(3):608–627CrossRef Kojima F, Pathak PA (2009) Incentives and stability in large two-sided matching markets. Am Econ Rev 99(3):608–627CrossRef
go back to reference Kojima F, Manea M, Ünver MU (2014) The “Boston” school-choice mechanism: an axiomatic approach. Econ Theory 55(3):515–544CrossRef Kojima F, Manea M, Ünver MU (2014) The “Boston” school-choice mechanism: an axiomatic approach. Econ Theory 55(3):515–544CrossRef
go back to reference Maskin E (1999) Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Rev Econ Stud 66(1):23–38CrossRef Maskin E (1999) Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Rev Econ Stud 66(1):23–38CrossRef
go back to reference Morrill T (2013a) An alternative characterization of the deferred acceptance algorithm. Int J Game Theory 42(1):19–28CrossRef Morrill T (2013a) An alternative characterization of the deferred acceptance algorithm. Int J Game Theory 42(1):19–28CrossRef
go back to reference Morrill T (2013b) An alternative characterization of top trading cycles. Econ Theory 54(1):181–197CrossRef Morrill T (2013b) An alternative characterization of top trading cycles. Econ Theory 54(1):181–197CrossRef
go back to reference Morrill T (2015) Making just school assignments. Games Econ Behav 92:18–27CrossRef Morrill T (2015) Making just school assignments. Games Econ Behav 92:18–27CrossRef
go back to reference Roth AE, Rothblum UG (1999) Truncation strategies in matching markets-in search of advice for participants. Econometrica 67(1):21–43CrossRef Roth AE, Rothblum UG (1999) Truncation strategies in matching markets-in search of advice for participants. Econometrica 67(1):21–43CrossRef
go back to reference Roth AE, Rothblum UG, Sotomayor MAO (1992) Two-sided matching: a study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Roth AE, Rothblum UG, Sotomayor MAO (1992) Two-sided matching: a study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
go back to reference Thomson W (1983) Problems of fair division and the egalitarian solution. J Econ Theory 31(2):211–226CrossRef Thomson W (1983) Problems of fair division and the egalitarian solution. J Econ Theory 31(2):211–226CrossRef
go back to reference Thomson W (1984) Monotonicity, stability and egalitarianism. Math Soc Sci 8(1):15–28CrossRef Thomson W (1984) Monotonicity, stability and egalitarianism. Math Soc Sci 8(1):15–28CrossRef
go back to reference Thomson W (2011) Consistency and its converse: an introduction. Rev Econ Des 15(4):257–291 Thomson W (2011) Consistency and its converse: an introduction. Rev Econ Des 15(4):257–291
go back to reference Toda M (2006) Monotonicity and consistency in matching markets. Int J Game Theory 34(1):13–31CrossRef Toda M (2006) Monotonicity and consistency in matching markets. Int J Game Theory 34(1):13–31CrossRef
Metadata
Title
New axioms for deferred acceptance
Author
Yajing Chen
Publication date
08-12-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Social Choice and Welfare / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0176-1714
Electronic ISSN: 1432-217X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-016-1010-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Social Choice and Welfare 2/2017 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The prediction value

Premium Partner