Asymptotic Welfare Performance of Boston Assignment Algorithms

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (1998) Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica 66(3):689–701.Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: A mechanism design approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):729–747.Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che YK, Yasuda Y (2011) Resolving conflicting preferences in school choice: The “Boston mechanism” reconsidered. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(1):399–410.Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Sönmez T (2005) The Boston public school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(2):368–371.Google Scholar
• Budish E, Cantillon E (2012) The multi-unit assignment problem: Theory and evidence from course allocation at Harvard. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(5):2237–2271.Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia C, Fu C, Güell M (2020) Structural estimation of a model of school choices: The Boston mechanism vs. its alternatives. J. Polital Econom. 128(2):642–680.Google Scholar
• Che YK, Tercieux O (2018) Payoff equivalence of efficient mechanisms in large matching markets. Theoret. Econom. 13(1):239–271.Google Scholar
• Dur U, Mennle T, Seuken S (2018) First-choice maximal and first-choice stable school choice mechanisms. Tardos E, Elkind E, Vohra R, eds. Proc. 2018 ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (ACM, New York), 251–268.Google Scholar
• Durrett R (2019) Probability: Theory and Examples, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, 5th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Ergin H, Sönmez T (2006) Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism. J. Public Econom. 90(1–2):215–237.Google Scholar
• Featherstone C (2020) Rank efficiency: Modeling a common policymaker objective. Working paper, Baylor University, Waco, TX., https://clayton-featherstone.github.io/.Google Scholar
• Feller W (1970) An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. 1, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Freeman R, Pritchard G, Wilson MC (2021) Order symmetry: A new fairness criterion for assignment mechanisms. Preprint, submitted July 20, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/xt37c.Google Scholar
• Frieze A, Pittel BG (1995) Probabilistic analysis of an algorithm in the theory of markets in indivisible goods. Ann. Appl. Probab. 5(3):768–808.Google Scholar
• Hylland A, Zeckhauser R (1979) The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. J. Political Econom. 87(2):293–314.Google Scholar
• Knuth DE (1996) An exact analysis of stable allocation. J. Algorithms 20(2):431–442.Google Scholar
• Kojima F, Ünver MU (2014) The “Boston” school-choice mechanism: An axiomatic approach. Econom. Theory 55(3):515–544.Google Scholar
• Mennle T, Seuken S (2021) Partial strategyproofness: Relaxing strategyproofness for the random assignment problem. J. Econom. Theory 191(2021):105144.Google Scholar
• Miralles A (2009) School choice: The case for the Boston mechanism. Internat. Conf. Auctions Market Mechanisms Their Appl. (Springer, Berlin), 58–60.Google Scholar
• Nikzad A (2022) Rank-optimal assignments in uniform markets. Theoret. Econom. 17(1):25–55.Google Scholar
• Ortega J, Klein T (2022) A more efficient and egalitarian mechanism for school choice. Preprint, submitted July 15, https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07255.Google Scholar
• Pathak PA, Sönmez T (2008) Leveling the playing field: Sincere and sophisticated players in the Boston mechanism. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1636–1652.Google Scholar
• Pycia M (2019) Evaluating with statistics: Which outcome measures differentiate among matching mechanisms? Working paper, University of Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
• Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On cores and indivisibility. J. Math. Econom. 1(1):23–37.Google Scholar