Optimal Priority-Based Allocation Mechanisms

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (1998) Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica 66(3):689–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: A mechanism design approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):729–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2013) Matching markets: Theory and practice. Acemoglu D, Arellano M, Dekel E, eds. Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Tenth World Congress, Volume I, Economic Theory, Econometric Society Monographs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom), 3–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che Y, Yasuda Y (2011) Resolving conflicting preferences in school choice: The Boston mechanism reconsidered. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(1):399–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che Y, Yasuda Y (2015) Expanding “choice” in school choice.Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 7(1):1–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu 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
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Sönmez T (2006) Changing the Boston school choice mechanism. Boston College Working Papers in Economics No. 639, Boston College Department of Economics, Boston.Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che YK, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Tercieux O (2020) Efficiency, justified envy, and incentives in priority-based matching. Amer. Econom. Rev.: Insights 2(4):425–442.Google Scholar
• Agarwal N, Somaini P (2020) Revealed preference analysis of school choice models. Annual Rev. Econom. 12(2020):471–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akbarpour M, Kapor A, Neilson C, Van Dijk W, Zimmerman S (2020) Centralized school choice with unequal outside options. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Arnosti N (2016) Centralized clearinghouse design: A quantity-quality tradeoff.Technical report, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Nikzad A (2017) What matters in tie-breaking rules? How competition guides design. Technical report, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.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. 64(4):1078–1097.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Nikzad A, Romm A (2019) Assigning more students to their top choices: A comparison of tie-breaking rules. Games Econom. Behav. 115(2019):167–187.Crossref, 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
• Bertsekas D (2015) Convex Optimization Algorithms (Athena Scientific, Nashua, NH).Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Tsitsiklis J (1997) Introduction to Linear Optimization, 1st ed. (Athena Scientific, Nashua, NH).Google Scholar
• Biró P, Kiselgof S (2015) College admissions with stable score-limits. Central Eur. J. Oper. Res. 23(4):727–741.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanchet J, Gallego G, Goyal V (2016) A Markov chain approximation to choice modeling. Oper. Res. 64(4):886–905.Link, Google Scholar
• Bodoh-Creed A (2020) Optimizing for distributional goals in school choice problems. Management Sci. 66(8):3657–3676.Link, Google Scholar
• Bogomolnaia A, Moulin H (2001) A new solution to the random assignment problem. J. Econom. Theory 100(2):295–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bront JJM, Méndez-Díaz I, Vulcano G (2009) A column generation algorithm for choice-based network revenue management. Oper. Res. 57(3):769–784.Link, Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia C, Martinez-Mora F, Miralles A (2020) Cardinal assignment mechanisms: Money matters more than it should. Working paper, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
• Cardell NS (1997) Variance components structures for the extreme-value and logistic distributions with application to models of heterogeneity. Econometric Theory 13(2):185–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubins LE, Freedman DA (1981) Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley algorithm. Amer. Math. Monthly 88(7):485–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dur U, Kominers SD, Pathak PA, Sönmez T (2018) Reserve design: Unintended consequences and the demise of Boston’s walk zones. J. Political Econom. 126(6):2457–2479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlers L, Hafalir IE, Yenmez MB, Yildirim MA (2014) School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds vs. soft bounds. J. Econom. Theory 153(2014):648–683.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feigenbaum I, Kanoria Y, Lo I, Sethuraman J (2020) Dynamic matching in school choice: Efficient seat reassignment after late cancellations. Management Sci. 66(11):5341–5361.Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman JB, Topaloglu H (2017) Revenue management under the Markov chain choice model. Oper. Res. 65(5):1322–1342.Link, Google Scholar
• Gallego G, Topaloglu H (2014) Constrained assortment optimization for the nested logit model. Management Sci. 60(10):2583–2601.Link, Google Scholar
• Gallego G, Iyengar G, Phillips R, Dubey A (2004) Managing flexible products on a network. Technical report, Columbia University, New York.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hafalir IE, Yenmez MB, Yildirim MA (2013) Effective affirmative action in school choice. Theoret. Econom. 8(2):325–363.Google Scholar
• Hausman JA, Ruud PA (1987) Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J. Econometrics 34(1):83–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Israni AK, Salkowski N, Gustafson S, Snyder JJ, Friedewald JJ, Formica RN, Wang X, et al. (2014) New national allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States and possible effect on patient outcomes. J. Amer. Soc. Nephrology 25(8):1842–1848.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeong Bh (2018) School choice in context: Can open enrollment cure segregation? Working paper, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
• Kojima F (2012) School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action. Games Econom. Behav. 75(2):685–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kominers SD, Sönmez T (2016) Matching with slot-specific priorities: Theory. Theoret. Econom. 11(2):683–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leshno JD, Lo I (2020) The cutoff structure of top trading cycles in school choice. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Li G, Rusmevichientong P, Topaloglu H (2015) The d-level nested logit model: Assortment and price optimization problems. Oper. Res. 62(2):325–342.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Pycia M (2016) Ordinal efficiency, fairness, and incentives in large markets. Preprint, submitted August 30, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1872713.Google Scholar
• Liu Q, van Ryzin G (2008) On the choice-based linear programming model for network revenue management. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 10(2):288–310.Link, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1978) Modeling the choice of residential location. Transportation Res. Record 672(1978):72–77.Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometrics 15(5):447–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mikulecky MT (2013) Open Enrollment Is on the Menu—But Can You Order It (Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO).Google Scholar
• Pathak P, Shi P (2020) How well do structural demand models work? Counterfactual predictions in school choice. J. Econometrics, ePub ahead of print August 6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.07.031.Google Scholar
• Pathak PA (2017) What really matters in designing school choice mechanisms. Honoré B, Pakes A, Piazzesi M, Samuelson L, eds. Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Eleventh World Congress, Econometric Society Monographs, vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom), 176–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pathak PA, Shi P (2013) Simulating alternative school choice options in Boston. Technical report, MIT School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Pycia M (2019) Evaluating with statistics: Which outcome measures differentiate among matching mechanisms?Working paper, University of Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
• Pycia M, Ünver MU (2017) Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources. Theoret. Econom. 12(1):287–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1982) The economics of matching: Stability and incentives. Math. Oper. Res. 7(4):617–628.Link, Google Scholar
• Rusmevichientong P, Shen ZJM, Shmoys DB (2010) Dynamic assortment optimization with a multinomial logit choice model and capacity constraint. Oper. Res. 58(6):1666–1680.Link, Google Scholar
• Rusmevichientong P, Shmoys D, Tong C, Topaloglu H (2014) Assortment optimization under the multinomial logit model with random choice parameters. Production Oper. Management 23(11):2023–2039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi P (2015) Guiding school-choice reform through novel applications of operations research. Interfaces 45(2):117–132.Link, 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
• Thompson D, Waisanen L, Wolfe R, Merion RM, McCullough K, Rodgers A (2004) Simulating the allocation of organs for transplantation. Health Care Management Sci. 7(4):331–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Hohenbalken B (1977) Simplicial decomposition in nonlinear programming algorithms. Math. Programming 13(1):49–68.Google Scholar
• Vulkan N, Roth AE, Neeman Z (2013) The Handbook of Market Design (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xie T (2016) A combinatorial algorithm for constrained assortment optimization under nested logit model. Preprint, submitted March 30, https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09014.Google Scholar