IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dur/durham/2022_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Arbiter Assignment

Author

Listed:
  • Mustafa Oguz Afacan

    (Sabancı University)

  • Nejat Anbarci

    (Durham University)

  • Ozgur Kıbrıs

    (Sabancı University)

Abstract

In dispute resolution, arbitrator assignments are decentralized and also incorporate parties’ preferences, in total contrast to referee assignments in sports. We suggest that there can be gains (i) in dispute resolution from centralizing the allocation by bundling the newly arriving cases, and (ii) in sports from incorporating teams’ preferences. To that end, we introduce a class of Arbiter Assignment Problems where a set of matches (e.g., disputes or games), each made up of two agents, are to be assigned arbiters (e.g., arbitrators or referees). On this domain, the question of how agents in a match should compromise becomes critical. To evaluate the value of an arbiter for a match, we introduce the (Rawlsian) notion of depth, defined as the arbiter’s worst position in the two agents’ rankings. Depth optimal assignments minimize depth over matches, and they are Pareto optimal. We first introduce and analyze depth optimal (and fair) mechanisms. We then propose and study strategy-proof mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Mustafa Oguz Afacan & Nejat Anbarci & Ozgur Kıbrıs, 2022. "Arbiter Assignment," Working Papers 2022_02, Durham University Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2022_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.durham.ac.uk/business/media/durham-university-business-school/about-us/EconWP22_02.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus, Bettina & Klijn, Flip, 2005. "Stable matchings and preferences of couples," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 75-106, March.
    2. repec:bla:jpbect:v:3:y:2001:i:3:p:257-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Erdil, Aytek & Ergin, Haluk, 2017. "Two-sided matching with indifferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 268-292.
    4. Özgür Kıbrıs & Murat Sertel, 2007. "Bargaining over a finite set of alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(3), pages 421-437, April.
    5. Lars-Gunnar Svensson & Bo Larsson, 2002. "Strategy-proof and nonbossy allocation of indivisible goods and money," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(3), pages 483-502.
    6. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Eliaz & Brian Knight, 2014. "On the Selection of Arbitrators," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(11), pages 3434-3458, November.
    7. Bettina Klaus & Flip Klijn & Toshifumi Nakamura, 2005. "Corrigendum: Stable Matchings and Preferences of Couples," Working Papers 261, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 1999. "Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 557-567.
    9. Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth, 2013. "Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large Markets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(4), pages 1585-1632.
    10. Bloom, David E & Cavanagh, Christopher L, 1986. "An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 408-422, June.
    11. Nejat Anbarci, 1993. "Noncooperative Foundations of the Area Monotonic Solution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(1), pages 245-258.
    12. M B Wright, 2009. "50 years of OR in sport," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 161-168, May.
    13. Balinski, Michel & Sonmez, Tayfun, 1999. "A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Student Placement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 73-94, January.
    14. John Hatfield, 2009. "Strategy-proof, efficient, and nonbossy quota allocations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 505-515, September.
    15. Özgür Kıbrıs, 2003. "Constrained allocation problems with single-peaked preferences: An axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    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. Perach, Nitsan & Anily, Shoshana, 2022. "Stable matching of student-groups to dormitories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 50-61.
    2. Dur, Umut Mert & Wiseman, Thomas, 2019. "School choice with neighbors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 101-109.
    3. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2022. "Compromising on compromise rules," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(1), pages 95-112, March.
    4. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    5. Chao Huang, 2021. "Stable matching: an integer programming approach," Papers 2103.03418, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    6. Dimitrov, Dinko & Lazarova, Emiliya A., 2008. "Coalitional Matchings," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 37523, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Fisher, James C.D. & Hafalir, Isa E., 2016. "Matching with aggregate externalities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-7.
    8. Alvin Roth, 2008. "Deferred acceptance algorithms: history, theory, practice, and open questions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 537-569, March.
    9. Hatfield, John William & Kominers, Scott Duke, 2017. "Contract design and stability in many-to-many matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 78-97.
    10. Ata Atay & Sylvain Funck & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2023. "Matching markets with farsighted couples," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2023/445, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. Thanh Nguyen & Rakesh Vohra, 2014. "Near Feasible Stable Matchings with Complementarities," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-028, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    12. Chao Huang, 2022. "Firm-worker hypergraphs," Papers 2211.06887, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    13. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Eliaz & Brian Knight, 2014. "On the Selection of Arbitrators," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(11), pages 3434-3458, November.
    14. Tello, Benjamín, 2016. "Matching with contracts, substitutes and two-unit demand," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 85-88.
    15. Benedict Dellaert & Vladislav Golounov & Jaideep Prabhu, 2005. "The Impact of Price Disclosure on Dynamic Shopping Decisions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 37-52, January.
    16. Khare, Shashwat & Roy, Souvik, 2017. "Stability in Matching with Couples having Non-Responsive Preferences," Research Memorandum 007, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    17. Itai Ashlagi & Mark Braverman & Avinatan Hassidim, 2014. "Stability in Large Matching Markets with Complementarities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 713-732, August.
    18. Dimitrov, Dinko & Lazarova, Emiliya, 2011. "Two-sided coalitional matchings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 46-54, July.
    19. Erel Segal-Halevi & Shmuel Nitzan, 2019. "Fair cake-cutting among families," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 709-740, December.
    20. Chao Huang, 2021. "Unidirectional substitutes and complements," Papers 2108.12572, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Arbiter; arbitration; dispute resolution; assignment; mechanism; depth optimality; fairness; unanimity compromise; strategy-proofness; referee; sports; football.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • J44 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Professional Labor Markets and Occupations

    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:dur:durham:2022_02. 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: Tatiana Damjanovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deduruk.html .

    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.