IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/308.html

A Theory of Auditability for Allocation Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Aram Grigoryan

    (University of California)

  • Markus Möller

    (University of Bonn)

Abstract

In centralized mechanisms and platforms, participants do not fully observe each others' type reports. Hence, if there is a deviation from the promised mechanism, participants may be unable to detect it. We formalize a notion of auditabilty that captures how easy or hard it is to detect deviations from a mechanism. We find a stark contrast between the auditabilities of prominent mechanisms. We also provide tight characterizations of maximally auditable classes of allocation mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Aram Grigoryan & Markus Möller, 2024. "A Theory of Auditability for Allocation Mechanisms," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 308, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_308_2024.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yinghua He & Antonio Miralles & Marek Pycia & Jianye Yan, 2018. "A Pseudo-Market Approach to Allocation with Priorities," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 272-314, August.
    2. Afacan, Mustafa Oǧuz, 2013. "Alternative characterizations of Boston mechanism," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 176-179.
    3. Yan Chen & Onur Kesten, 2017. "Chinese College Admissions and School Choice Reforms: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 99-139.
    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. Xinquan Hu & Jun Zhang, 2025. "Verifiable affirmative action in school admissions," Papers 2504.04689, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2025.

    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. Afacan, Mustafa Og̃uz & Dur, Umut Mert, 2017. "When preference misreporting is Harm[less]ful?," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 16-24.
    2. Ayoade, Nickesha & Pápai, Szilvia, 2023. "School choice with preference rank classes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 317-341.
    3. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tommy Andersson, 2022. "School Choice," NBER Working Papers 29822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Aram Grigoryan & Markus Möller, 2025. "A Theory of Auditability for Allocation Mechanisms," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_652, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    5. Klijn, Flip & Pais, Joana & Vorsatz, Marc, 2019. "Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 147-163.
    6. Can, Burak & Pourpouneh, Mohsen & Storcken, Ton, 2017. "Cost of transformation: a measure on matchings," Research Memorandum 015, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    7. Bo, Shiyu & Liu, Jing & Shiu, Ji-Liang & Song, Yan & Zhou, Sen, 2019. "Admission mechanisms and the mismatch between colleges and students: Evidence from a large administrative dataset from China," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 27-37.
    8. Somouaoga Bonkoungou & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Comparing School Choice and College Admission Mechanisms By Their Immunity to Strategic Admissions," Papers 2001.06166, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2020.
    9. Yan Chen & Yingzhi Liang & Tayfun Sönmez, 2016. "School choice under complete information: An experimental study," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 45-82, December.
    10. Cantillon, Estelle & Chen, Li & Pereyra, Juan S., 2024. "Respecting priorities versus respecting preferences in school choice: When is there a trade-off?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 82-96.
    11. Alexander Nesterov & Olga Rospuskova & Sofia Rubtcova, 2024. "Robustness to manipulations in school choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(3), pages 519-548, May.
    12. Julien Combe & Vladyslav Nora & Olivier Tercieux, 2021. "Dynamic assignment without money: Optimality of spot mechanisms," Working Papers 2021-11, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    13. Atı̇la Abdulkadı̇roğlu & Joshua D. Angrist & Yusuke Narita & Parag Pathak, 2022. "Breaking Ties: Regression Discontinuity Design Meets Market Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 117-151, January.
    14. Jan Christoph Schlegel, 2016. "Ex-Ante Stable Lotteries," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 16.23, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    15. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    16. José Raimundo Carvalho & Thierry Magnac & Qizhou Xiong, 2019. "College choice, selection, and allocation mechanisms: A structural empirical analysis," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(3), pages 1233-1277, July.
    17. Yajing Chen, 2016. "New axioms for immediate acceptance," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(4), pages 329-337, December.
    18. Kong, Dongmin & Zhang, Bohui & Zhang, Jian, 2022. "Higher education and corporate innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    19. Zhenhua Jiao & Ziyang Shen & Guoqiang Tian, 2022. "When is the deferred acceptance mechanism responsive to priority-based affirmative action?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 257-282, February.
    20. Tong Wang & Congyi Zhou, 2020. "High school admission reform in China: a welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(3), pages 215-269, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:ajk:ajkdps:308. 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: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    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.