Alternative characterizations of Boston mechanism

Kojima and Ünver (2011) are the first to characterize the class of mechanisms coinciding with the Boston mechanism for some priority order. By mildly strengthening their central axiom, we are able to pin down the Boston mechanism outcome for every priority order. Our main result shows that a mechanism is outcome equivalent to the Boston mechanism at every priority if and only if it respects both preference rankings and priorities and satisfies individual rationality for schools. In environments where each student is acceptable to every school, respecting both preference rankings and priorities is enough to characterize the Boston mechanism

Efficient Priority Rules

We study the assignment of indivisible objects with quotas (houses, jobs, or offices) to a set of agents (students, job applicants, or professors). Each agent receives at most one object and monetary compensations are not possible. We characterize efficient priority rules by efficiency, strategy-proofness, and renegotiation-proofness. Such a rule respects an acyclical priority structure and the allocations can be determined using the deferred acceptance algorithm.acyclical priority structures, indivisible objects

Partial Strategyproofness: Relaxing Strategyproofness for the Random Assignment Problem

We present partial strategyproofness, a new, relaxed notion of strategyproofness for studying the incentive properties of non-strategyproof assignment mechanisms. Informally, a mechanism is partially strategyproof if it makes truthful reporting a dominant strategy for those agents whose preference intensities differ sufficiently between any two objects. We demonstrate that partial strategyproofness is axiomatically motivated and yields a parametric measure for "how strategyproof" an assignment mechanism is. We apply this new concept to derive novel insights about the incentive properties of the probabilistic serial mechanism and different variants of the Boston mechanism.Comment: Working Pape

Efficient Priority Rules

We study the assignment of indivisible objects with quotas (houses, jobs, or offices) to a set of agents (students, job applicants, or professors). Each agent receives at most one object and monetary compensations are not possible. We characterize efficient priority rules by efficiency, strategy-proofness, and renegotiation-proofness. Such a rule respects an acyclical priority structure and the allocations can be determined using the deferred acceptance algorithm.L. Ehlers gratefully acknowledges financial support from the SSHRC (Canada). B. Klaus's research was partly supported by a Ramón y Cajal contract and Research Grant BEC2002-02130 from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología and by the Barcelona Economics Program of CREA

Efficient priority rules

We study the assignment of indivisible objects with quotas (houses, jobs, or offices) to a set of agents (students, job applicants, or professors). Each agent receives at most one object and monetary compensations are not possible. We characterize efficient priority rules by efficiency, strategy-proofness, and renegotiation-proofness. Such a rule respects an acyclical priority structure and the allocations can be determined using the deferred acceptance algorithm

Fair Testing

In this paper we present a solution to the long-standing problem of characterising the coarsest liveness-preserving pre-congruence with respect to a full (TCSP-inspired) process algebra. In fact, we present two distinct characterisations, which give rise to the same relation: an operational one based on a De Nicola-Hennessy-like testing modality which we call should-testing, and a denotational one based on a refined notion of failures. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the should-testing pre-congruence is that it abstracts from divergences in the same way as Milner¿s observation congruence, and as a consequence is strictly coarser than observation congruence. In other words, should-testing has a built-in fairness assumption. This is in itself a property long sought-after; it is in notable contrast to the well-known must-testing of De Nicola and Hennessy (denotationally characterised by a combination of failures and divergences), which treats divergence as catrastrophic and hence is incompatible with observation congruence. Due to these characteristics, should-testing supports modular reasoning and allows to use the proof techniques of observation congruence, but also supports additional laws and techniques. Moreover, we show decidability of should-testing (on the basis of the denotational characterisation). Finally, we demonstrate its advantages by the application to a number of examples, including a scheduling problem, a version of the Alternating Bit-protocol, and fair lossy communication channel

Robust stability in matching markets

In a matching problem between students and schools, a mechanism is said to be robustly stable if it is stable, strategy-proof, and immune to a combined manipulation, where a student first misreports her preferences and then blocks the matching that is produced by the mechanism. We find that even when school priorities are publicly known and only students can behave strategically, there is a priority structure for which no robustly stable mechanism exists. Our main result shows that there exists a robustly stable mechanism if and only if the priority structure of schools is acyclic (Ergin, 2002), and in that case, the student-optimal stable mechanism is the unique robustly stable mechanism.Matching, stability, strategy-proofness, robust stability, acyclicity

Local Priority Mechanisms

We introduce a novel family of mechanisms for constrained allocation problems which we call local priority mechanisms. These mechanisms are parameterized by a function which assigns a set of agents -- the local compromisers -- to every infeasible allocation. The mechanism then greedily attempts to match agents with their top choices. Whenever it reaches an infeasible allocation, the local compromisers move to their next favorite alternative. Local priority mechanisms exist for any constraint so this provides a method of constructing new designs for any constrained allocation problem. We give axioms which characterize local priority mechanisms. Since constrained object allocation includes many canonical problems as special constraints, we apply this characterization to show that several well-known mechanisms, including deferred acceptance for school choice, top trading cycles for house allocation, and serial dictatorship can be understood as instances of local priority mechanisms. Other mechanisms, including the Boston mechanism, are not local priority mechanisms. We give necessary and sufficient conditions which characterize the local priority mechanisms that are group strategy-proof. As an application, we construct novel mechanisms for a natural variation of the house allocation problem where no existing class of mechanisms besides serial dictatorship would be applicable

Fictitious students creation incentives in school choice problems

We address the question of whether schools can manipulate the student-optimal stable mechanism by creating fictitious students in school choice problems. To this end, we introduce two different manipulation concepts, where one of them is stronger. We first demonstrate that the student-optimal stable mechanism is not even weakly fictitious student-proof under general priority structures. Then, we investigate the same question under acyclic priority structures. We prove that, while the student-optimal stable mechanism is not strongly fictitious student-proof even under the acyclicity condition, weak fictitious student-proofness is achieved under acyclicity. This paper, hence, shows a way to avoid the welfare detrimental fictitious students creation (in the weak sense) in terms of priority structures