IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2502.06499.html

Marginal Mechanisms For Balanced Exchange

Author

Listed:
  • Vikram Manjunath
  • Alexander Westkamp

Abstract

We study balanced exchange problems in which agents with responsive preferences are endowed with multiple indivisible objects and can trade without transfers (e.g. shift exchange, time-banking). Eliciting full preferences over bundles is infeasible, so mechanisms often rely solely on marginal preferences, that is, rankings of individual objects. We characterize when eliciting only marginal preferences is enough to unambiguously identify allocations that are efficient and individually rational in the sense that these properties hold with respect to any responsive preferences consistent with the elicited marginals. We parameterize domains of marginal preferences by which indifference classes can contain endowed and non-endowed objects. We show that the essentially unique maximal domain for which an unambiguously efficient and unambiguously individually rational marginal mechanism exists is trichotomous: agents rank objects in three tiers, with the bottom tier containing no endowed objects. We also consider incentives for truthful preference revelation. The maximal domain for which an efficient, individually rational, and strategy-proof mechanism exists is strongly trichotomous: agents rank objects in three tiers, with the bottom tier containing no endowed objects and the middle tier containing no non-endowed objects. The canonical marginal mechanism achieving our three desiderata on that domain is a serial dictatorship over individually rational allocations. When employed on the larger trichotomous domain, this mechanism still admits a weakly dominant strategy: reveal the top tier truthfully and omit non-endowed objects from the middle tier. We propose a family of gradual-revelation mechanisms that are also unambiguously efficient and individually rational on the trichotomous domain while providing better incentives for truthful revelation across all three tiers.

Suggested Citation

  • Vikram Manjunath & Alexander Westkamp, 2025. "Marginal Mechanisms For Balanced Exchange," Papers 2502.06499, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.06499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.06499
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perez-Richet, Eduardo, 2011. "A note on the tight simplification of mechanisms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 15-17, January.
    2. Perez-Richet, Eduardo, 2011. "A note on the tight simplification of mechanisms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 15-17, January.
    3. Paul Milgrom, 2009. "Assignment Messages and Exchanges," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 95-113, August.
    4. Murat Atlamaz & Bettina Klaus, 2007. "Manipulation via Endowments in Exchange Markets with Indivisible Goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Echenique, Federico & Goel, Sumit & Lee, SangMok, 2024. "Stable allocations in discrete exchange economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    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. Gian Caspari, 2026. "Booster draft mechanisms for multi-object assignment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-20, June.

    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. Paul Milgrom, 2011. "Critical Issues In The Practice Of Market Design," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 311-320, April.
    2. Manjunath, Vikram & Westkamp, Alexander, 2021. "Strategy-proof exchange under trichotomous preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    4. Lahiri, Somdeb, 2008. "Manipulation of market equilibrium via endowments," MPRA Paper 10002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Feng, Di, 2025. "Efficiency in multiple-type housing markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    7. R. Pablo Arribillaga & Jordi Massó & Alejandro Neme, 2014. "On the Structure of Cooperative and Competitive Solutions for a Generalized Assignment Game," Journal of Applied Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2014(1).
    8. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.
    9. Massó, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro, 2014. "On cooperative solutions of a generalized assignment game: Limit theorems to the set of competitive equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 187-215.
    10. Alexander Teytelboym & Shengwu Li & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour & Piotr Dworczak, 2021. "Discovering Auctions: Contributions of Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(3), pages 709-750, July.
    11. Rustamdjan Hakimov & Manshu Khanna, 2025. "Complexity Beyond Incentives: The Critical Role of Reporting Language," Papers 2511.22834, arXiv.org.
    12. Somdeb Lahiri, 2005. "Manipulation via Endowments in a Market with Profit Maximizing Agents," Game Theory and Information 0511008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. de Regt, E.R., 2005. "Overtime and short-time with fluctuating absenteeism and demand," Research Memorandum 027, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    14. 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).
    15. Tim Roughgarden, 2010. "Computing equilibria: a computational complexity perspective," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(1), pages 193-236, January.
    16. Doruk İriş & İpek Özkal-Sanver, 2011. "Manilulation via endowments in university-admission problem," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 2952-2958.
    17. Milgrom, Paul, 2010. "Simplified mechanisms with an application to sponsored-search auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 62-70, September.
    18. William Thomson, 2009. "Borrowing-proofness," RCER Working Papers 545, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    19. Di Feng, 2023. "Endowments-swapping-proofness and Efficiency in Multiple-Type Housing Markets," Discussion Paper Series DP2023-14, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    20. Martin Bichler & Paul Milgrom & Gregor Schwarz, 2023. "Taming the Communication and Computation Complexity of Combinatorial Auctions: The FUEL Bid Language," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2217-2238, April.

    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:arx:papers:2502.06499. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.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.