IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orijoc/v32y3i2020p641-660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimization-based Mechanisms for the Course Allocation Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Hoda Atef Yekta

    (Department of Management, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio 44555)

  • Robert Day

    (Department of Operations and Information Management, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269)

Abstract

In recent years, several universities have adopted an algorithmic approach to the allocation of seats in courses, for which students place bids (typically by ordering or scoring desirable courses), and then seats are awarded according to a predetermined procedure or mechanism. Designing the appropriate mechanism for translating bids into student schedules has received attention in the literature, but there is currently no consensus on the best mechanism in practice. In this paper, we introduce five new algorithms for this course-allocation problem , using various combinations of matching algorithms, second-price concepts, and optimization, and compare our new methods with the natural benchmarks from the literature: the (proxy) draft mechanism and the (greedy) bidding-point mechanism. Using simulation, we compare the algorithms on metrics of fairness, efficiency, and incentive compatibility, measuring their ability to encourage truth telling among boundedly rational agents. We find good results for all of our methods and that a two-stage, full-market optimization performs best in measures of fairness and efficiency but with slightly worse incentives to act strategically compared with the best of the mechanisms. We also find generally negative results for the bidding-point mechanism, which performs poorly in all categories. These results can help guide the decision of selecting a mechanism for course allocation or for similar assignment problems, such as project team assignments or sports drafts, for example, in which efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance but incentives must also be considered. Additional robustness checks and comparisons are provided in the online supplement.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoda Atef Yekta & Robert Day, 2020. "Optimization-based Mechanisms for the Course Allocation Problem," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 641-660, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orijoc:v:32:y:3:i:2020:p:641-660
    DOI: 10.1287/ijoc.2018.0849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2018.0849
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/ijoc.2018.0849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Ehlers & Bettina Klaus, 2003. "Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 265-280, October.
    2. Thanh Nguyen & Ahmad Peivandi & Rakesh Vohra, 2014. "One-Sided Matching with Limited Complementarities," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-030, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Eric Budish & Estelle Cantillon, 2012. "The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2237-2271, August.
    4. repec:bla:jpbect:v:3:y:2001:i:3:p:257-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 691-705, August.
    6. Aradhna Krishna & M. Utku Ünver, 2008. "Research Note—Improving the Efficiency of Course Bidding at Business Schools: Field and Laboratory Studies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 262-282, 03-04.
    7. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 225-228, February.
    8. Franz Diebold & Haris Aziz & Martin Bichler & Florian Matthes & Alexander Schneider, 2014. "Course Allocation via Stable Matching," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 6(2), pages 97-110, April.
    9. Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver, 2010. "Course Bidding At Business Schools," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(1), pages 99-123, February.
    10. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 879-883, October.
    11. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 1195-1198, December.
    12. Eric Budish, 2011. "The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1061-1103.
    13. Eric Budish & Yeon-Koo Che & Fuhito Kojima & Paul Milgrom, 2013. "Designing Random Allocation Mechanisms: Theory and Applications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 585-623, April.
    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. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 411-413, April.
    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. Ciamac C. Moallemi & Utkarsh Patange, 2024. "Hybrid Scheduling with Mixed-Integer Programming at Columbia Business School," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 222-240, May.

    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. Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "Efficient resource allocation under multi-unit demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Nguyen, Thành & Peivandi, Ahmad & Vohra, Rakesh, 2016. "Assignment problems with complementarities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 209-241.
    3. Franz Diebold & Haris Aziz & Martin Bichler & Florian Matthes & Alexander Schneider, 2014. "Course Allocation via Stable Matching," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 6(2), pages 97-110, April.
    4. Martin Bichler & Soeren Merting, 2021. "Randomized Scheduling Mechanisms: Assigning Course Seats in a Fair and Efficient Way," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3540-3559, October.
    5. Caspari, Gian, 2020. "Booster draft mechanism for multi-object assignment," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-074, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2015. "Centralized allocation in multiple markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-85.
    7. Antonio Romero-Medina & Matteo Triossi, 2017. "(Group) Strategy-proofness and stability in many-to many marching markets," Documentos de Trabajo 332, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    8. Antonio Romero-Medina & Matteo Triossi, 2021. "Two-sided strategy-proofness in many-to-many matching markets," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(1), pages 105-118, March.
    9. Biró, Péter & Klijn, Flip & Pápai, Szilvia, 2022. "Serial Rules in a Multi-Unit Shapley-Scarf Market," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 428-453.
    10. Jacob Coreno & Ivan Balbuzanov, 2022. "Axiomatic Characterizations of Draft Rules," Papers 2204.08300, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    11. Eduardo M Azevedo & Eric Budish, 2019. "Strategy-proofness in the Large," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 81-116.
    12. Nhan-Tam Nguyen & Dorothea Baumeister & Jörg Rothe, 2018. "Strategy-proofness of scoring allocation correspondences for indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 101-122, January.
    13. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2013. "Matching with quorums," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 14-17.
    14. Mireille Ducassé & Peggy Cellier, 2016. "Using Bids, Arguments and Preferences in Sensitive Multi-unit Assignments: A p-Equitable Process and a Course Allocation Case Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1211-1235, November.
    15. Honda, Edward, 2021. "A modified deferred acceptance algorithm for conditionally lexicographic-substitutable preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Bettina Klaus & Alexandru Nichifor, 2020. "Serial dictatorship mechanisms with reservation prices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 665-684, October.
    17. Shuhei Morimoto & Shigehiro Serizawa & Stephen Ching, 2013. "A characterization of the uniform rule with several commodities and agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 871-911, March.
    18. Manjunath, Vikram, 2012. "When too little is as good as nothing at all: Rationing a disposable good among satiable people with acceptance thresholds," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 576-587.
    19. Di Feng & Bettina Klaus, 2022. "Preference revelation games and strict cores of multiple‐type housing market problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 61-76, March.
    20. Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "House allocation with existing tenants: an equivalence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 153-185, July.

    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:inm:orijoc:v:32:y:3:i:2020:p:641-660. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.