IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.02024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Time-Efficient Algorithms for Nash-Bargaining-Based Matching Market Models

Author

Listed:
  • Ioannis Panageas
  • Thorben Trobst
  • Vijay V. Vazirani

Abstract

In the area of matching-based market design, existing models using cardinal utilities suffer from two deficiencies: First, the Hylland-Zeckhauser (HZ) mechanism, which has remained a classic in economics for one-sided matching markets, is intractable; computation of even an approximate equilibrium is PPAD-complete. Second, there is an extreme paucity of such models. This led Hosseini and Vazirani (2022) to define a rich collection of Nash-bargaining-based models for one-sided and two-sided matching markets, in both Fisher and Arrow-Debreu settings, together with very fast implementations using available solvers and very encouraging experimental results. In this paper, we give fast algorithms with proven running times for the models introduced by Hosseini and Vazirani, using the techniques of multiplicative weights update (MWU) and conditional gradient descent (CGD). Additionally, we make the following contributions: (1) By Tr\"obst and Vazirani (2024), a linear one-sided Nash-bargaining-based matching market satisfies envy-freeness within factor two. We show that the other models satisfy approximate equal-share fairness, where the exact factor depends on the utility function being used in the particular model. (2) We define a Nash-bargaining-based model for non-bipartite matching markets and give fast algorithms for it using conditional gradient descent.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioannis Panageas & Thorben Trobst & Vijay V. Vazirani, 2021. "Time-Efficient Algorithms for Nash-Bargaining-Based Matching Market Models," Papers 2106.02024, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.02024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.02024
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    2. Yinghua He & Antonio Miralles & Marek Pycia & Jianye Yan, 2018. "A Pseudo-Market Approach to Allocation with Priorities," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 272-314, August.
    3. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    4. Atila Abdulkadiro?lu & Yeon-Koo Che & Yosuke Yasuda, 2015. "Expanding "Choice" in School Choice," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 1-42, February.
    5. Vijay V. Vazirani, 2021. "The General Graph Matching Game: Approximate Core," Papers 2101.07390, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    6. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2001. "A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 295-328, October.
    7. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    8. Jens Vygen, 2002. "On dual minimum cost flow algorithms," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 56(1), pages 101-126, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1979. "The Efficient Allocation of Individuals to Positions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(2), pages 293-314, April.
    11. PADBERG, Manfred W. & WOLSEY, Laurence A., 1984. "Fractional covers for forests and matchings," LIDAM Reprints CORE 563, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    12. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, April.
    13. Vijay V. Vazirani, 2020. "An Extension of the Birkhoff-von Neumann Theorem to Non-Bipartite Graphs," Papers 2010.05984, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2020.
    14. James B. Orlin, 1993. "A Faster Strongly Polynomial Minimum Cost Flow Algorithm," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 338-350, April.
    15. Phuong Le, 2017. "Competitive equilibrium in the random assignment problem," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 13(4), pages 369-385, December.
    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. Jugal Garg & Thorben Trobst & Vijay V. Vazirani, 2020. "One-Sided Matching Markets with Endowments: Equilibria and Algorithms," Papers 2009.10320, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    2. Basteck, Christian, 2018. "Fair solutions to the random assignment problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 163-172.
    3. Fragiadakis, Daniel E. & Troyan, Peter, 2019. "Designing mechanisms to focalize welfare-improving strategies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 232-252.
    4. Federico Echenique & Antonio Miralles & Jun Zhang, 2018. "Fairness and Efficiency for Probabilistic Allocations with Endowments," Working Papers 1055, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Shende, Priyanka & Purohit, Manish, 2023. "Strategy-proof and envy-free mechanisms for house allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Che, Yeon-Koo & Tercieux, Olivier, 2018. "Payoff equivalence of efficient mechanisms in large matching markets," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    8. Onur Kesten & Morimitsu Kurino & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2017. "Efficient lottery design," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 31-57, January.
    9. Nikhil Agarwal & Eric Budish, 2021. "Market Design," NBER Working Papers 29367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. He, Yinghua & Li, Sanxi & Yan, Jianye, 2015. "Evaluating assignment without transfers: A market perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 40-44.
    11. Hashimoto, Tadashi, 2018. "The generalized random priority mechanism with budgets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 708-733.
    12. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    13. Vijay V. Vazirani & Mihalis Yannakakis, 2020. "Computational Complexity of the Hylland-Zeckhauser Scheme for One-Sided Matching Markets," Papers 2004.01348, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    14. Simina Br^anzei & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2019. "Algorithms for Competitive Division of Chores," Papers 1907.01766, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    15. 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.
    16. Julien Combe & Vladyslav Nora & Olivier Tercieux, 2021. "Dynamic assignment without money: Optimality of spot mechanisms," Working Papers 2021-11, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    17. Ivan Balbuzanov & Maciej H. Kotowski, 2019. "Endowments, Exclusion, and Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1663-1692, September.
    18. Bettina Klaus & David F. Manlove & Francesca Rossi, 2014. "Matching under Preferences," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 14.07, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    19. Eun Jeong Heo & Vikram Manjunath, 2017. "Implementation in stochastic dominance Nash equilibria," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 5-30, January.
    20. Kesten, Onur, 2009. "Why do popular mechanisms lack efficiency in random environments?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2209-2226, September.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2106.02024. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.