IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/xt37c.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Order Symmetry: A New Fairness Criterion for Assignment Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Freeman, Rupert
  • Pritchard, Geoffrey
  • Wilson, Mark

Abstract

We introduce a new fairness criterion, order symmetry, for assignment mechanisms that match n objects to n agents with ordinal preferences over the objects. An assignment mechanism is order symmetric with respect to some probability measure over preference profiles if every agent is equally likely to receive their favorite object, every agent is equally likely to receive their second favorite, and so on. When associated with a sufficiently symmetric probability measure, order symmetry is a relaxation of anonymity that, crucially, can be satisfied by discrete assignment mechanisms. Furthermore, it can be achieved without sacrificing other desirable axiomatic properties satisfied by existing mechanisms. In particular, we show that it can be achieved in conjunction with strategyproofness and ex post efficiency via the top trading cycles mechanism (but not serial dictatorship). We additionally design a novel mechanism that is both order symmetric and ordinally efficient. The practical utility of order symmetry is substantiated by simulations on Impartial Culture and Mallows-distributed preferences for four common assignment mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Freeman, Rupert & Pritchard, Geoffrey & Wilson, Mark, 2021. "Order Symmetry: A New Fairness Criterion for Assignment Mechanisms," SocArXiv xt37c, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:xt37c
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xt37c
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/60f6f89f4d9491006c232286/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/xt37c?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. Mohammad Akbarpour & Afshin Nikzad, 2020. "Approximate Random Allocation Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(6), pages 2473-2510.
    2. William Thomson, 2007. "Children Crying at Birthday Parties. Why?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(3), pages 501-521, June.
    3. Nesterov, Alexander S., 2017. "Fairness and efficiency in strategy-proof object allocation mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 145-168.
    4. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2001. "A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 295-328, October.
    5. Roth, Alvin E. & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1977. "Weak versus strong domination in a market with indivisible goods," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 131-137, August.
    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. Geoffrey Pritchard & Mark C. Wilson, 2022. "Asymptotic welfare performance of Boston assignment algorithms," Papers 2205.15418, arXiv.org.
    2. Xinghua Long & Rodrigo A. Velez, 2021. "Balanced House Allocation," Papers 2109.01992, arXiv.org.

    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. Ramezanian, Rasoul & Feizi, Mehdi, 2022. "Robust ex-post Pareto efficiency and fairness in random assignments: Two impossibility results," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 356-367.
    2. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    3. Demeulemeester, Tom & Goossens, Dries & Hermans, Ben & Leus, Roel, 2023. "A pessimist’s approach to one-sided matching," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1087-1099.
    4. Ivan Balbuzanov & Maciej H. Kotowski, 2019. "Endowments, Exclusion, and Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1663-1692, September.
    5. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    6. Kesten, Onur, 2009. "Why do popular mechanisms lack efficiency in random environments?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2209-2226, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Ramezanian, Rasoul & Feizi, Mehdi, 2021. "Stepwise ordinal efficiency for the random assignment problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 60-65.
    9. YIlmaz, Özgür, 2010. "The probabilistic serial mechanism with private endowments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 475-491, July.
    10. Chen, Yiling & Lai, John K. & Parkes, David C. & Procaccia, Ariel D., 2013. "Truth, justice, and cake cutting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 284-297.
    11. Basteck, Christian & Ehlers, Lars H., 2022. "Strategy-proof and envy-free random assignment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2022-208, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    12. Zhan Wang & Jinpeng Ma & Hongwei Zhang, 2023. "Object-based unawareness: Theory and applications," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 8(1), pages 1-55, December.
    13. Thayer Morrill, 2015. "Two simple variations of top trading cycles," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(1), pages 123-140, September.
    14. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tayfun Sönmez, 2003. "School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 729-747, June.
    15. Youngsub Chun & Kiyong Yun, 2020. "Upper-contour strategy-proofness in the probabilistic assignment problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 667-687, April.
    16. Basteck, Christian & Ehlers, Lars, 2021. "Strategy-Proof and Envy-Free Random Assignment," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 307, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    17. Paul Gölz & Dominik Peters & Ariel Procaccia, 2022. "In This Apportionment Lottery, the House Always Wins," Post-Print hal-03834513, HAL.
    18. Mehdi Feizi, 2023. "The object allocation problem with favoring upper ranks," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 19(2), pages 370-383, June.
    19. Zhang, Jun, 2019. "Efficient and fair assignment mechanisms are strongly group manipulable," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 167-177.
    20. Feizi, Mehdi & Ramezanian, Rasoul, 2023. "A new impossibility result for random assignments," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:xt37c. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.