IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.15631.html

Non-obvious Manipulability with Groups in Shapley-Scarf Housing Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Demoor
  • Mart'i Jan'e-Ballar'in
  • Pierre Nunn
  • Subhajit Pramanik
  • Antoine Pr'evotat
  • Makoto Yokoo

Abstract

In Shapley-Scarf housing markets, Ma (1994) shows that top trading cycles (TTC) is the unique mechanism satisfying individual rationality (IR), Pareto efficiency (PE), and strategy-proofness. We ask what other mechanisms become possible when strategy-proofness is replaced by a weaker condition called non-obvious manipulability (NOM), introduced by Troyan and Morrill (2020). We first show that this weaker condition does not help on its own: every IR and PE mechanism is already NOM. We therefore introduce a new condition: NOM with groups, under which each agent knows the preferences of the other members of her group, but not those of agents outside the group. This condition reduces to strategy-proofness when all agents belong to one group, and to standard NOM when every group is a singleton. Also, we introduce a participation condition called group rationality (GR), which requires that no group do worse than it would by trading only among its own members. We then define a class of mechanisms called TTC with super-groups, whose members satisfy GR, PE, and NOM with groups. The class includes mechanisms that differ from standard TTC, including mechanisms that are not strategy-proof. Furthermore, we show that every mechanism that satisfies GR, PE, and NOM with groups has the same best- and worst-case outcomes as every TTC with super-groups mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Demoor & Mart'i Jan'e-Ballar'in & Pierre Nunn & Subhajit Pramanik & Antoine Pr'evotat & Makoto Yokoo, 2026. "Non-obvious Manipulability with Groups in Shapley-Scarf Housing Markets," Papers 2608.15631, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.15631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.15631
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Szilvia Papai, 2000. "Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1403-1434, November.
    2. Troyan, Peter & Morrill, Thayer, 2020. "Obvious manipulations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Bird, Charles G., 1984. "Group incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 309-313.
    4. , & , E., 2014. "Free riding and participation in large scale, multi-hospital kidney exchange," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    5. Peter Troyan, 2022. "Non-Obvious Manipulability of the Rank-Minimizing Mechanism," Papers 2206.11359, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    6. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    7. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    8. Ekici, Özgün, 2024. "Pair-efficient reallocation of indivisible objects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(2), May.
    9. Ma, Jinpeng, 1994. "Strategy-Proofness and the Strict Core in a Market with Indivisibilities," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(1), pages 75-83.
    10. Ekici, Özgün & Sethuraman, Jay, 2024. "Characterizing the TTC rule via pair-efficiency: A short proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    11. Roth, Alvin E., 1982. "Incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 127-132.
    12. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    13. 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)

    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. Morrill, Thayer & Roth, Alvin E., 2024. "Top trading cycles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Chen, Yajing & Jiao, Zhenhua & Zhang, Chenfeng & Zhang, Luosai, 2025. "Some new characterizations of top trading cycles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    3. Sumit Goel & Yuki Tamura, 2025. "TTC Domains," Papers 2501.15422, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    4. Yuji Fujinaka & Takuma Wakayama, 2011. "Secure implementation in Shapley–Scarf housing markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(1), pages 147-169, September.
    5. Klaus, Bettina & Klijn, Flip & Sethuraman, Jay, 2025. "A characterization of the top-trading-cycles mechanism for housing markets via respecting-improvement," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    6. Feng, Di & Klaus, Bettina & Klijn, Flip, 2024. "Characterizing the typewise top-trading-cycles mechanism for multiple-type housing markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 234-254.
    7. Yuji Fujinaka & Takuma Wakayama, 2008. "Secure Implementation in Shapley-Scarf Housing Markets," ISER Discussion Paper 0727r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised Feb 2009.
    8. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2018. "Endowments-swapping-proof house allocation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-202.
    9. Demeulemeester, Tom & Klaus, Bettina, 0. "Pairwise efficiency and monotonicity imply Pareto efficiency in (probabilistic) object allocation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    10. Bettina Klaus, 2024. "Characterizing the top trading cycles rule for housing markets with lexicographic preferences," Papers 2410.16745, arXiv.org.
    11. Di Feng & Bettina Klaus & Flip Klijn, 2022. "A Characterization of the Coordinate-Wise Top-Trading-Cycles Mechanism for Multiple-Type Housing Markets," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 22.06, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    12. Ekici, Özgün & Sethuraman, Jay, 2024. "Characterizing the TTC rule via pair-efficiency: A short proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    13. Jaramillo, Paula & Manjunath, Vikram, 2012. "The difference indifference makes in strategy-proof allocation of objects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1913-1946.
    14. Papai, Szilvia, 2007. "Exchange in a general market with indivisible goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 208-235, January.
    15. Bettina Klaus, 2025. "Characterizing the top trading cycles rule for housing markets with lexicographic preferences when externalities are limited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 65(1), pages 1-26, August.
    16. Karakaya, Mehmet & Klaus, Bettina & Schlegel, Jan Christoph, 2019. "Top trading cycles, consistency, and acyclic priorities for house allocation with existing tenants," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. Ekici, Özgün, 2013. "Reclaim-proof allocation of indivisible objects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-10.
    18. Pycia, Marek & Unver, Utku, 2017. "Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    19. Wako, Jun, 2005. "Coalition-proof Nash allocation in a barter game with multiple indivisible goods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 179-199, March.
    20. Fujinaka, Yuji & Miyakawa, Toshiji, 2020. "Ex-post incentive compatible and individually rational assignments in housing markets with interdependent values," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 157-164.

    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:2608.15631. 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: https://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.