IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-01432941.html

Matching in the Large: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Chen

    (School of Information, University of Michigan - UMich - Université du Michigan = University of Michigan [Ann Arbor])

  • Ming Jiang

    (Shanghai Jiao Tong University [Shanghai])

  • Onur Kesten

    (Carnegie Mellon Tepper School of Business - CMU - Carnegie Mellon University [Pittsburgh])

  • Stéphane Robin

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - Université de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Min Zhu

    (BNU - Beijing Normal University)

Abstract

Market size has been predicted to play an influential role in a broad class of environments. We study performance of the Boston and the Deferred Acceptance (DA) mechanism in a laboratory where we increase the market size. Our results show that increasing the market size from 4 to 40 students per match increases participant truth-telling under the DA but decreases it under the Boston mechanism, leading to a decrease in efficiency for both mechanisms but no change in the large stability advantage of the DA over the Boston mechanism. We then further increase the market size to 4,000 by introducing robots. When humans play truthful robots (without strategic uncertainty), we find that scale has no effect on best response behavior. However, when humans play empirical robots (with strategic uncertainty), scale increases best responses under both mechanisms, which is likely due to the increase in the precision of subjects' beliefs about others' strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Chen & Ming Jiang & Onur Kesten & Stéphane Robin & Min Zhu, 2017. "Matching in the Large: An Experimental Study," Working Papers halshs-01432941, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-01432941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Di Feng & Yun Liu & Gaowang Wang, 2023. "On the Asymptotic Performance of Affirmative Actions in School Choice," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 24(2), pages 289-307, November.
    2. Hoyer, B. & Stroh-Maraun, N., 2020. "Matching strategies of heterogeneous agents under incomplete information in a university clearinghouse," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 453-481.
    3. Chen, Yan & He, YingHua, 2021. "Information acquisition and provision in school choice: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Ha, Wei & Kang, Le & Song, Yang, 2020. "College matching mechanisms and matching stability: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 206-226.
    5. Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2021. "Experiments on centralized school choice and college admissions: a survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 434-488.
    6. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.
    7. Hu, Xinquan & Yao, Lan, 2024. "Cognitive ability in matching with strategic uncertainty: An experimental study," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Daniel Stephenson, 2022. "Assignment feedback in school choice mechanisms," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1467-1491, November.
    9. Chen, Yan & Kesten, Onur, 2019. "Chinese college admissions and school choice reforms: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 83-100.
    10. March, Christoph, 2019. "The behavioral economics of artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," BERG Working Paper Series 154, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
    11. Roy Chen & Peter Katuščák & Thomas Kittsteiner & Katharina Kütter, 2024. "Does disappointment aversion explain non-truthful reporting in strategy-proof mechanisms?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(5), pages 1184-1210, November.
    12. Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2019. "Experiments On Matching Markets: A Survey," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 153, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. March, Christoph, 2021. "Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    15. Umut Dur & Robert G. Hammond & Thayer Morrill, 2019. "The Secure Boston Mechanism: theory and experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 918-953, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Cho, Wonki Jo & Hafalir, Isa E. & Lim, Wooyoung, 2022. "Tie-breaking and efficiency in the laboratory school choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Adam Kapor & Mohit Karnani & Christopher Neilson, 2019. "Negative Externalities of Off Platform Options and the Efficiency of Centralized Assignment Mechanisms," Working Papers 635, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-01432941. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.