Preference Elicitation in Matching Markets Via Interviews: A Study of Offline Benchmarks

The stable marriage problem and its extensions have been extensively studied, with much of the work in the literature assuming that agents fully know their own preferences over alternatives. This assumption however is not always practical (especially in large markets) and agents usually need to go through some costly deliberation process in order to learn their preferences. In this paper we assume that such deliberations are carried out via interviews, where an interview involves a man and a woman, each of whom learns information about the other as a consequence. If everybody interviews everyone else, then clearly agents can fully learn their preferences. But interviews are costly, and we may wish to minimize their use. It is often the case, especially in practical settings, that due to correlation between agents’ preferences, it is unnecessary for all potential interviews to be carried out in order to obtain a stable matching. Thus the problem is to find a good strategy for interviews to be carried out in order to minimize their use, whilst leading to a stable matching. One way to evaluate the performance of an interview strategy is to compare it against a na¨ıve algorithm that conducts all interviews. We argue however that a more meaningful comparison would be against an optimal offline algorithm that has access to agents’ preference orderings under complete information. We show that, unless P=NP, no offline algorithm can compute the optimal interview strategy in polynomial time. If we are additionally aiming for a particular stable matching (perhaps one with certain desirable properties), we provide restricted settings under which efficient optimal offline algorithms exist

Monotone Preferences over Information

We consider preference relations over information that are monotone: more information is preferred to less. We prove that, if a preference relation on information about an uncountable set of states of nature is monotone, then it is not representable by a utility function

How to score alternatives when criteria are scored on an ordinal scale

International audienceWe address in this paper the problem of scoring alternatives when they are evaluated with respect to several criteria on a finite ordinal scale $E$. We show that in general, the ordinal scale $E$ has to be refined or shrunk in order to be able to represent the preference of the decision maker by an aggregation operator belonging to the family of mean operators. The paper recalls previous theoretical results of the author giving necessary and sufficient conditions for a representation of preferences, and then focusses on describing practical algorithms and examples

Infinite sequential Nash equilibrium

In game theory, the concept of Nash equilibrium reflects the collective stability of some individual strategies chosen by selfish agents. The concept pertains to different classes of games, e.g. the sequential games, where the agents play in turn. Two existing results are relevant here: first, all finite such games have a Nash equilibrium (w.r.t. some given preferences) iff all the given preferences are acyclic; second, all infinite such games have a Nash equilibrium, if they involve two agents who compete for victory and if the actual plays making a given agent win (and the opponent lose) form a quasi-Borel set. This article generalises these two results via a single result. More generally, under the axiomatic of Zermelo-Fraenkel plus the axiom of dependent choice (ZF+DC), it proves a transfer theorem for infinite sequential games: if all two-agent win-lose games that are built using a well-behaved class of sets have a Nash equilibrium, then all multi-agent multi-outcome games that are built using the same well-behaved class of sets have a Nash equilibrium, provided that the inverse relations of the agents' preferences are strictly well-founded.Comment: 14 pages, will be published in LMCS-2011-65

Arrovian juntas

This article explicitly constructs and classifies all arrovian voting systems on three or more alternatives. If we demand orderings to be complete, we have, of course, Arrow's classical dictator theorem, and a closer look reveals the classification of all such voting systems as dictatorial hierarchies. If we leave the traditional realm of complete orderings, the picture changes. Here we consider the more general setting where alternatives may be incomparable, that is, we allow orderings that are reflexive and transitive but not necessarily complete. Instead of a dictator we exhibit a junta whose internal hierarchy or coalition structure can be surprisingly rich. We give an explicit description of all such voting systems, generalizing and unifying various previous results.Comment: 22 pages, 1 figur