Paper detail

Reciprocating Preferences Stablize Matching: College Admissions Revisited

In considering the college admissions problem, almost fifty years ago, Gale and Shapley came up with a simple abstraction based on preferences of students and colleges. They introduced the concept of stability and optimality; and proposed the deferred acceptance (DA) algorithm that is proven to lead to a stable and optimal solution. This algorithm is simple and computationally efficient. Furthermore, in subsequent studies it is shown that the DA algorithm is also strategy-proof, which means, when the algorithm is played out as a mechanism for matching two sides (e.g. colleges and students), the parties (colleges or students) have no incentives to act other than according to their true preferences. Yet, in practical college admission systems, the DA algorithm is often not adopted. Instead, an algorithm known as the Boston Mechanism (BM) or its variants are widely adopted. In BM, colleges accept students without deferral (considering other colleges' decisions), which is exactly the opposite of Gale-Shapley's DA algorithm. To explain and rationalize this reality, we introduce the notion of reciprocating preference to capture the influence of a student's interest on a college's decision. This model is inspired by the actual mechanism used to match students to universities in Hong Kong. The notion of reciprocating preference defines a class of matching algorithms, allowing different degrees of reciprocating preferences by the students and colleges. DA and BM are but two extreme cases (with zero and a hundred percent reciprocation) of this set. This model extends the notion of stability and optimality as well. As in Gale-Shapley's original paper, we discuss how the analogy can be carried over to the stable marriage problem, thus demonstrating the model's general applicability.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.