Paper detail

Stable Nash Equilibria in the Gale-Shapley Matching Game

In this article we study the stable marriage game induced by the men-proposing Gale-Shapley algorithm. Our setting is standard: all the lists are complete and the matching mechanism is the men-proposing Gale-Shapley algorithm. It is well known that in this setting, men cannot cheat, but women can. In fact, Teo, Sethuraman and Tan \cite{TST01}, show that there is a polynomial time algorithm to obtain, for a given strategy (the set of all lists) $Q$ and a woman $w$, the best partner attainable by changing her list. However, what if the resulting matching is not stable with respect to $Q$? Obviously, such a matching would be vulnerable to further manipulation, but is not mentioned in \cite{TST01}. In this paper, we consider (safe) manipulation that implies a stable matching in a most general setting. Specifically, our goal is to decide for a given $Q$, if w can manipulate her list to obtain a strictly better partner with respect to the true strategy $P$ (which may be different from $Q$), and also the outcome is a stable matching for $P$.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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.