Dynamic Matching in School Choice: Efficient Seat Reassignment After Late Cancellations

References

• Abdulkadiroglu A, Sönmez T (1999) House allocation with existing tenants. J. Econom. Theory 88(2):233–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroglu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: A mechanism design approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):729–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroglu A, Sönmez T (2011) Matching Markets: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroglu A, Agarwal N, Pathak PA (2017) The welfare effects of coordinated assignment: Evidence from the New York City high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(12):3635–3689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroglu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2005a) The New York City high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(2):364–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroglu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2009) Strategy-proofness vs. efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the NYC high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(5):1954–1978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroglu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Sönmez T (2005b) The Boston public school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(2):368–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal N, Somaini P (2018) Demand analysis using strategic reports: An application to a school choice mechanism. Econometrica 86(2):391–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Najjar NI (2004) Aggregation and the law of large numbers in large economies. Games Econom. Behav. 47(1):1–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson R, Ashlagi I, Gamarnik D, Kanoria Y (2017) Efficient dynamic barter exchange. Oper. Res. 65(6):1446–1459.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson R, Ashlagi I, Gamarnik D, Rees M, Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2015) Kidney exchange and the alliance for paired donation: Operations research changes the way kidneys are transplanted. Interfaces 45(1):26–42.Link, Google Scholar
• Arnosti N (2015) Short lists in centralized clearinghouses. Proc. 16th ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 751.Google Scholar
• Arnosti N, Shi P (2017) How (not) to allocate affordable housing. Proc. 2017 ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 679.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Nikzad A (2016) What matters in school choice tie-breaking? How competition guides design. Proc. 17th ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Shi P (2014) Improving community cohesion in school choice via correlated-lottery implementation. Oper. Res. 62(6):1247–1264.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Shi P (2015) Optimal allocation without money: An engineering approach. Management Sci. 62(4):1078–1097.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Nikzad A, Romm A (2015) Assigning more students to their top choices: A tiebreaking rule comparison. Proc. 16th ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 755–756.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Burq M, Jaillet P, Manshadi V (2019) On matching and thickness in heterogeneous dynamic markets. Oper. Res. 67(4):927–949.Google Scholar
• Azevedo EM, Budish EB (2013) Strategy-proofness in the large. Working paper, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Azevedo EM, Leshno JD (2016) A supply and demand framework for two-sided matching markets. J. Political Econom. 124(5):1235–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balinski M, Sönmez T (1999) A tale of two mechanisms: Student placement. J. Econom. Theory 84(1):73–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Combe J, Tercieux O, Terrier C (2016) The design of teacher assignment: Theory and evidence. ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).Google Scholar
• Compte O, Jehiel P (2008) Voluntary participation and reassignment in two-sided matching. Working paper, Paris School of Economics, Paris.Google Scholar
• Dickerson JP, Sandholm T (2015) Futurematch: Combining human value judgments and machine learning to match in dynamic environments. Proc. 29th AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA), 622–628.Google Scholar
• Dur U (2012) Dynamic school choice problem. Working paper, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.Google Scholar
• Erdil A, Ergin H (2008) What’s the matter with tie-breaking? Improving efficiency in school choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(3):669–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly 69(1):9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hassidim A, Marciano-Romm D, Romm A, Shorrer RI (2015) “Strategic” behavior in a strategy-proof environment. Working paper, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.Google Scholar
• Kadam SV, Kotowski MH (2014) Multi-period matching. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1987) Analyzing tenant assignment policies. Management Sci. 33(3):395–408.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee H-S, Srinivasan MM (1989) Control policies for the MX/G/1 queueing system. Management Sci. 35(6):708–721.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Pycia M (2016) Ordinal efficiency, fairness, and incentives in large markets. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Narita Y (2016) Match or mismatch: Learning and inertia in school choice. Working paper, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
• Pathak PA (2011) The mechanism design approach to student assignment. Annual Rev. Econom. 3(1):513–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pereyra JS (2013) A dynamic school choice model. Games Econom. Behav. 80:100–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2004) Kidney exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):457–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2006) Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Sci. 52(11):1647–1660.Link, Google Scholar
• Talluri KT, Van Ryzin GJ (2006) The Theory and Practice of Revenue Management (Springer Science and Business Media, New York).Google Scholar
• Whitt W (2002) Stochastic-Process Limits: An Introduction to Stochastic-Process Limits and Their Application to Queues (Springer Science and Business Media, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA (1999) Modeling the transplant waiting list: A queueing model with reneging. Queueing Systems 31(3–4):239–251.Crossref, Google Scholar