IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reecde/v28y2024i2d10.1007_s10058-023-00346-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the solvability of three-agent task allocation with unqualified agents priority structures

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Gu

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

  • Yongchao Zhang

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

Abstract

In this paper, we study the problem of solvability for task allocation with unqualified agents (TAU) priority structures proposed by Ehlers and Westkamp (Theor Econ 13:1009-1041, 2018). In the TAU priority structure, at any position, either all agents have equal priority, or there exists exactly one agent who has the lowest priority and all others have equal highest priority. A priority structure is solvable if it admits a constrained efficient and strategy-proof mechanism, where a constrained efficient mechanism always produces a stable matching which can not be Pareto dominated by any other stable matching. We show that TAU priority structures with three agents are solvable via a top trading cycles mechanism with endogenous tie-breaking rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Gu & Yongchao Zhang, 2024. "On the solvability of three-agent task allocation with unqualified agents priority structures," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 28(2), pages 435-453, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reecde:v:28:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10058-023-00346-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10058-023-00346-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10058-023-00346-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10058-023-00346-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Pycia, Marek & Unver, Utku, 2017. "Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    3. Han, Xiang, 2018. "Stable and efficient resource allocation under weak priorities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-20.
    4. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    5. Abdulkadiroglu, Atila & Sonmez, Tayfun, 1999. "House Allocation with Existing Tenants," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 233-260, October.
    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. Gu, Yu & Zhang, Yongchao, 2024. "On two mechanisms in job rotation problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Yu, Jingsheng & Zhang, Jun, 2020. "A market design approach to job rotation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 180-192.
    3. Marek Pycia & M. Utku Ünver, 2022. "Outside options in neutral allocation of discrete resources," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 581-604, December.
    4. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2015. "Centralized allocation in multiple markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-85.
    5. 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.
    6. Kazuhiko Hashimoto, 2018. "Strategy-proofness and identical preferences lower bound in allocation problem of indivisible objects," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 1045-1078, June.
    7. Dur, Umut & Paiement, Scott, 2024. "A characterization of the top trading cycles mechanism for the school choice problem," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 93-100.
    8. 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).
    9. Hidekazu Anno & Sui Takahashi, 2023. "A unified approach to strategy-proofness of the deferred-acceptance rule and the top-trading cycles rule," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(1), pages 133-137, February.
    10. Morrill, Thayer & Roth, Alvin E., 2024. "Top trading cycles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Anno, Hidekazu, 2015. "A short proof for the characterization of the core in housing markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 66-67.
    12. Mustafa Oǧuz Afacan, 2019. "Matching with restricted trade," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(3), pages 957-977, September.
    13. Xinghua Long & Rodrigo A. Velez, 2021. "Balanced House Allocation," Papers 2109.01992, arXiv.org.
    14. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2018. "Endowments-swapping-proof house allocation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-202.
    15. Alvin E. Roth & Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver, 2004. "Kidney Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 457-488.
    16. Can, Burak & Pourpouneh, Mohsen & Storcken, Ton, 2017. "Cost of transformation: a measure on matchings," Research Memorandum 015, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    17. Rodrigo Velez, 2014. "Consistent strategy-proof assignment by hierarchical exchange," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 125-156, May.
    18. Markus Möller, 2024. "Transparent Matching Mechanisms," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 306, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    19. 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.
    20. Abdulkadiroglu, Atila & Sonmez, Tayfun, 2003. "Ordinal efficiency and dominated sets of assignments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 157-172, September.

    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:spr:reecde:v:28:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10058-023-00346-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.