Efficiency of Truthful and Symmetric Mechanisms in One-Sided Matching

  • Marek Adamczyk
  • Piotr Sankowski
  • Qiang Zhang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8768)


We study the efficiency (in terms of social welfare) of truthful and symmetric mechanisms in one-sided matching problems with dichotomous preferences and normalized von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences. We are particularly interested in the well-known Random Serial Dictatorship mechanism. For dichotomous preferences, we first show that truthful, symmetric and optimal mechanisms exist if intractable mechanisms are allowed. We then provide a connection to online bipartite matching. Using this connection, it is possible to design truthful, symmetric and tractable mechanisms that extract 0.69 of the maximum social welfare, which works under assumption that agents are not adversarial. Without this assumption, we show that Random Serial Dictatorship always returns an assignment in which the expected social welfare is at least a third of the maximum social welfare. For normalized von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences, we show that Random Serial Dictatorship always returns an assignment in which the expected social welfare is at least \(\frac{1}{e}\frac{\nu(\mathcal{O})^2}{n}\), where \(\nu(\mathcal{O})\) is the maximum social welfare and n is the number of both agents and items. On the hardness side, we show that no truthful mechanism can achieve a social welfare better than \(\frac{\nu(\mathcal{O})^2}{n}\).


Social Welfare Bipartite Graph Maximum Matchings Favorite Item Private Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bhalgat, A., Chakrabarty, D., Khanna, S.: Social welfare in one-sided matching markets without money. In: Goldberg, L.A., Jansen, K., Ravi, R., Rolim, J.D.P. (eds.) RANDOM 2011 and APPROX 2011. LNCS, vol. 6845, pp. 87–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogomolnaia, A., Moulin, H.: A new solution to the random assignment problem. Journal of Economic Theory 100(2), 295–328 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bogomolnaia, A., Moulin, H.: Random matching under dichotomous preferences. Econometrica 72(1), 257–279 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chakrabarty, D., Swamy, C.: Welfare maximization and truthfulness in mechanism design with ordinal preferences. In: In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 105–120 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dughmi, S., Ghosh, A.: Truthful assignment without money. In: In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 325–334 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filos-Ratsikas, A., Frederiksen, S.K.S., Zhang, J.: Social welfare in one-sided matchings: Random priority and beyond. In: In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gale, D., Shapley, L.S.: College admissions and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly, 9–15 (1962)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gale, D.: College Course Assignments and Optimal Lotteries. University of California at Berkeley (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hylland, A., Zeckhauser, R.: The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. The Journal of Political Economy, 293–314 (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalai, E., Schmeidler, D.: Aggregation procedure for cardinal preferences: A formulation and proof of Samuelson’s impossibility conjecture. Econometrica 45(6), 1431–1438 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karp, R.M., Vazirani, U.V., Vazirani, V.V.: An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching. In: STOC, pp. 352–358 (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahdian, M., Yan, Q.: Online bipartite matching with random arrivals: an approach based on strongly factor-revealing lps. In: In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 597–606 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roth, A.E., Sotomayor, M.A.O.: Two-sided matching: A study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sönmez, T., Ünver, M.U.: Matching, allocation, and exchange of discrete resources. Handbook of Social Economics 1, 781–852 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Svensson, L.G.: Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods. Social Choice and Welfare 16(4), 557–567 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williams, D.: Probability with Martingales. Cambridge mathematical textbooks. Cambridge University Press (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou, L.: On a conjecture by gale about one-sided matching problems. Journal of Economic Theory 52(1), 123–135 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Adamczyk
    • 1
  • Piotr Sankowski
    • 2
  • Qiang Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.Sapienza University of RomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations