IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v62y2014i6p1247-1264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Community Cohesion in School Choice via Correlated-Lottery Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Itai Ashlagi

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Peng Shi

    (Operations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

In school choice, children submit a preference ranking over schools to a centralized assignment algorithm, which takes into account schools’ priorities over children and uses randomization to break ties. One criticism of existing school choice mechanisms is that they tend to disperse communities, so children do not go to school with others from their neighborhood. We suggest improving community cohesion by implementing a correlated lottery in a given school choice mechanism: we find a convex combination of deterministic assignments that maintains the original assignment probabilities, thus maintaining choice but improving community cohesion. To analyze the gain in cohesion for a wide class of mechanisms, we first prove the following characterization, which may be of independent interest: any mechanism that, in the large market limit, is nonatomic, Bayesian incentive compatible, symmetric, and efficient within each priority class is a “lottery-plus-cutoff” mechanism. This means that the large market limit can be described as follows: given the distribution of preferences, every student receives an identically distributed lottery number, every school sets a lottery cutoff for each priority class, and a student is assigned to her most preferred school for which she meets the cutoff. This generalizes liu-pycia-2012 to allow arbitrary priorities. Using this, we derive analytic expressions for maximum cohesion under a large market approximation. We show that the benefit of lottery-correlation is greater when students’ preferences are more correlated. In practice, although the correlated-lottery implementation problem is NP-hard, we present a heuristic that does well. We apply this to real data from Boston elementary school choice 2012 and find that we can increase cohesion by 79% for kindergarten 1 (K1) and 37% for kindergarten 2 (K2) new families. Greater cohesion gain is possible (tripling cohesion for K1 and doubling for K2) if we reduce the choice menus on top of applying lottery correlation.

Suggested Citation

  • Itai Ashlagi & Peng Shi, 2014. "Improving Community Cohesion in School Choice via Correlated-Lottery Implementation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1247-1264, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:62:y:2014:i:6:p:1247-1264
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.2014.1319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.2014.1319
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.2014.1319?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Budish & Estelle Cantillon, 2012. "The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2237-2271, August.
    2. Klaus, Bettina & Klijn, Flip, 2005. "Stable matchings and preferences of couples," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 75-106, March.
    3. Ehlers, Lars & Hafalir, Isa E. & Yenmez, M. Bumin & Yildirim, Muhammed A., 2014. "School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 648-683.
    4. Echenique, Federico & Yenmez, M. Bumin, 2007. "A solution to matching with preferences over colleagues," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 46-71, April.
    5. Parag A. Pathak, 2011. "The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 513-536, September.
    6. Dur, Umut Mert & Wiseman, Thomas, 2019. "School choice with neighbors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 101-109.
    7. Victor Lavy & Edith Sand, 2012. "The Friends Factor: How Students' Social Networks Affect Their Academic Achievement and Well-Being?," NBER Working Papers 18430, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Mavridou, T. & Pardalos, P.M. & Pitsoulis, L.S. & Resende, Mauricio G.C., 1998. "A GRASP for the biquadratic assignment problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 613-621, March.
    9. , A. & ,, 2011. "Lotteries in student assignment: An equivalence result," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
    10. Bettina Klaus & Flip Klijn & Toshifumi Nakamura, 2005. "Corrigendum: Stable Matchings and Preferences of Couples," Working Papers 261, Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "Strategy-proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the New York City High School Match," NBER Working Papers 14864, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Itai Ashlagi & Mark Braverman & Avinatan Hassidim, 2014. "Stability in Large Matching Markets with Complementarities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 713-732, August.
    13. Federico Echenique & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2015. "How to Control Controlled School Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2679-2694, August.
    14. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1954-1978, December.
    15. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Ayse Imrohoroglu & Alistair J. Wilson & Leeat Yariv, 2012. "A Field Study on Matching with Network Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 1773-1804, August.
    16. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth & Tayfun Sönmez, 2006. "Changing the Boston School Choice Mechanism," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000001022, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Aytek Erdil & Haluk Ergin, 2008. "What's the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 669-689, June.
    18. Scott Duke Kominers & Tayfun Sönmez, 2012. "Designing for Diversity: Matching with Slot-Specific Priorities," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 806, Boston College Department of Economics.
    19. Eric Budish & Yeon-Koo Che & Fuhito Kojima & Paul Milgrom, 2013. "Designing Random Allocation Mechanisms: Theory and Applications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 585-623, April.
    20. EHLERS, Lars, 2010. "School Choice with Control," Cahiers de recherche 2010-05, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peng Shi, 2015. "Guiding School-Choice Reform through Novel Applications of Operations Research," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 117-132, April.
    2. Marco Chiarandini & Rolf Fagerberg & Stefano Gualandi, 2019. "Handling preferences in student-project allocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 275(1), pages 39-78, April.
    3. Afacan, Mustafa Oǧuz, 2018. "The object allocation problem with random priorities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 71-89.
    4. Will Ma, 2023. "When Is Assortment Optimization Optimal?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2088-2105, April.
    5. Perach, Nitsan & Anily, Shoshana, 2022. "Stable matching of student-groups to dormitories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 50-61.
    6. Allman, Maxwell & Ashlagi, Itai & Nikzad, Afshin, 2023. "On rank dominance of tie-breaking rules," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), May.
    7. Ashlagi, Itai & Nikzad, Afshin & Romm, Assaf, 2019. "Assigning more students to their top choices: A comparison of tie-breaking rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-187.
    8. Itai Ashlagi & Peng Shi, 2016. "Optimal Allocation Without Money: An Engineering Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1078-1097, April.
    9. Dur, Umut Mert & Wiseman, Thomas, 2019. "School choice with neighbors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 101-109.
    10. Peng Shi, 2022. "Optimal Priority-Based Allocation Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 171-188, January.
    11. Itai Feigenbaum & Yash Kanoria & Irene Lo & Jay Sethuraman, 2020. "Dynamic Matching in School Choice: Efficient Seat Reassignment After Late Cancellations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5341-5361, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    2. Umut M. Dur & Scott Duke Kominers & Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez, 2013. "The Demise of Walk Zones in Boston: Priorities vs. Precedence in School Choice," NBER Working Papers 18981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Itai Ashlagi & Peng Shi, 2016. "Optimal Allocation Without Money: An Engineering Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1078-1097, April.
    4. Alvin Roth, 2008. "Deferred acceptance algorithms: history, theory, practice, and open questions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 537-569, March.
    5. Ehlers, Lars & Hafalir, Isa E. & Yenmez, M. Bumin & Yildirim, Muhammed A., 2014. "School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 648-683.
    6. Dur, Umut Mert & Wiseman, Thomas, 2019. "School choice with neighbors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 101-109.
    7. Hafalir, Isa E. & Kojima, Fuhito & Yenmez, M. Bumin, 2022. "Interdistrict school choice: A theory of student assignment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Chao Huang, 2022. "Firm-worker hypergraphs," Papers 2211.06887, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    9. Kojima, Fuhito & Tamura, Akihisa & Yokoo, Makoto, 2018. "Designing matching mechanisms under constraints: An approach from discrete convex analysis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 803-833.
    10. Mennle, Timo & Seuken, Sven, 2021. "Partial strategyproofness: Relaxing strategyproofness for the random assignment problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    11. Chao Huang, 2021. "Unidirectional substitutes and complements," Papers 2108.12572, arXiv.org.
    12. Bó, Inácio, 2016. "Fair implementation of diversity in school choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 54-63.
    13. Chao Huang, 2021. "Stable matching: an integer programming approach," Papers 2103.03418, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    14. Wu, Binzhen & Zhong, Xiaohan, 2020. "Matching inequality and strategic behavior under the Boston mechanism: Evidence from China's college admissions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-21.
    15. Andrew McLennan & Shino Takayama & Yuki Tamura, 2024. "An Efficient, Computationally Tractable School Choice Mechanism," Discussion Papers Series 668, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    16. Ding, Tingting & Schotter, Andrew, 2017. "Matching and chatting: An experimental study of the impact of network communication on school-matching mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 94-115.
    17. Aaron L. Bodoh-Creed, 2020. "Optimizing for Distributional Goals in School Choice Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3657-3676, August.
    18. Ashlagi, Itai & Nikzad, Afshin & Romm, Assaf, 2019. "Assigning more students to their top choices: A comparison of tie-breaking rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-187.
    19. Wu, Binzhen & Zhong, Xiaohan, 2014. "Matching mechanisms and matching quality: Evidence from a top university in China," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 196-215.
    20. Abdulkadiroglu, Atila & Andersson, Tommy, 2022. "School Choice," Working Papers 2022:4, Lund University, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:62:y:2014:i:6:p:1247-1264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.