Market Information & Analysis Lecture 5 Karen Knibbs Marketing Practice – U14210 S2 07/08.
Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1
-
Upload
gabriel-merritt -
Category
Documents
-
view
33 -
download
5
description
Transcript of Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1
![Page 2: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Class Information
Focuses economic models and solution concepts computational aspects incentive analysis
![Page 3: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
References
Roth, Sotomayor, Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretical Modeling and Analysis, Cambridge Press, 1990.
Nisan, Roughgarden, Tardos, Vazirani,Algorithmic Game Theory,Cambridge Press, 2007.
Internet (Google, Wikipedia, etc.) Fuhito Kojima (
http://sites.google.com/site/fuhitokojimaeconomics/)
![Page 4: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Let’s start !
![Page 5: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Motivating Example – School Admission Students have preferences over different
schools and departments every student goes to one school/department
Schools and departments also have preferences over students school/department seats are limited
How to decide the admission process globally?
![Page 6: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Motivating Example – American Hospital-Intern Market
Medical students work as interns at hospitals. In the US more than 20,000 medical students and
4,000 hospitals are matched through a clearinghouse, called NRMP (National Resident Matching Program).
Doctors and hospitals submit preference rankings to the clearinghouse, who uses a specified rule to decide who works where.
What is a good way to match students and hospitals?
![Page 7: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Motivating Example – Kidney Exchange Medical transplant matches kidney donors and patients A successful transplant must have compatible blood
test – there are four blood types: O, A, B, AB O patients can receive kidneys from O donors A patients can receive kidneys from O or A donors B patients can receive kidneys from O or B donors AB patients can receive kidneys from all donors
Kidney exchange: match two (or more) incompatible donor-patient pairs and swap donors.
How to find efficient exchanges?
![Page 8: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
NTU Class Registration System
Students submit a preference for UE and PE courses (up to five).
Courses have implicit priorities over students according to, e.g., year of study.
How to assign students to courses so that most students are ‘happy’?
![Page 9: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Matching Markets
Input: Two heterogeneous sets of agents form a two-sided market
Output: Set up matches between agents of different sides
Other examples dormitory allocation marriage job market advertising market (TV, newspaper, Internet)
![Page 10: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Internet Advertising
keywords sponsored links
![Page 11: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Matching Markets Design
Mathematical models Economic solution concepts
computational issues mathematical properties economic properties
![Page 12: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Graph
Definition 1.1. A graph G = (V, E) consists of V: a non-empty set of vertices (or nodes) E: a set of pairs of distinct elements of V called edges. Two vertices u and v are called adjacent (or neighbors)
if (u,v) ∈E.
Example V = {v1, v2, v3, v4, v5}
E = {(v1,v2), (v1,v3), (v1,v5),
(v2,v4), (v3,v5)}
v5
v4
v1
v3
v2
![Page 13: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Bipartite Graph
A graph G = (V, E) is called bipartite if its vertex set V can be partitioned into two disjoint sets V1 and V2 such that every edge in the graph connects a vertex in V1 and a vertex in V2. That is, there are no edges in V1 and V2.
V1 V2
![Page 14: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Matching
Given a bipartite graph G = (V1,V2; E), a matching of G is a subset of edges E’ such that for any e, e’∈E’, they do not have the same endpoints.
The number of edges in E’, i.e. |E’|, is called the size of the matching E’.
![Page 15: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Matching
Example.
V1 V2
![Page 16: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Maximum and Perfect Matching A matching E’ of a bipartite graph G is called maximum
if it has the largest size of all matchings of G. In a given a bipartite graph G = (V1,V2; E), if |V1|=|V2|=n
and the maximum matching E’ of G has size n, then E’ is called a perfect matching.
V1 V2
![Page 17: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Let’s start (again) !
![Page 18: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Gale-Shapley Marriage Model
There are a set of men M and set of women W, where |M| = |W| = n. Each man m has a strict preference over women in W
(denoted by >m).
Each woman w has a strict preference over men in M (denoted by >w).
m1
w2
w1
m2
w1 > w2
w1 > w2
m1 > m2
m1 > m2
![Page 19: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Gale-Shapley Marriage Model
Preferences are required to be complete: any two alternatives can be compared strict: strict preference over any two alternatives transitive: if w1 >m w2 and w2 >m w3, then w1 >m w3
![Page 20: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
A Marriage Problem
Question: How to match men and women in M and W such that everyone is “happy” with the solution?
w1 > w2
w1 > w2
m1 > m2
m1 > m2
m1
m2 w2
w1
![Page 21: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Blocking Pair
A matching of an instance (M,W) is a set of disjoint edges, denoted by f: MW, i.e., f(m) is the woman matched to m∈M.
Given a matching f, we say a man-women pair (m,w) is a blocking pair if w >m f(m) and m >w f(w).
w
f(m)m
f(w)
![Page 22: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Blocking Pair
A matching of an instance (M,W) is a set of disjoint edges, denoted by f: MW, i.e., f(m) is the vertex matched to m∈M.
Given a matching f, we say a man-women pair (m,w) is a blocking pair if w >m f(m) and m >w f(w).
w1 > w2
w1 > w2
m1 > m2
m1 > m2w2
w1m1
m2
(m1,w1) is a blocking pair
![Page 23: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Stable Matching
A matching f is called stable if there it has no blocking pair.
Questions: Does a stable matching always exist? If yes, how to find one? What mathematical / economic properties it has?
![Page 24: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Stable Matching
Theorem 1.2. [Gale & Shapley’1962] For any stable marriage problem, there always is a stable matching.
![Page 25: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Example
m3 > m1> m2> m4
m3 > m4> m1> m2
m1 > m4> m2> m3
m4> m1> m3> m2
m1
m2
m3
m4
w2
w1
w4
w3
w1 > w2> w3> w4
w1 > w2> w3> w4
w2 > w1> w3> w4
w3 > w2> w4> w1
![Page 26: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Gale-Shapley (Deferred-Acceptance) Algorithm Initially all men and women are free While there is a man m who is free and hasn’t proposed
to every woman choose such a man m arbitrarily let w be the highest ranked woman in m’s preference list to
whom m hasn’t proposed yet m proposes to w if w is free, then (m,w) become engaged else, w is currently engaged to m’
if w prefers m’ to m, then m remains free if w prefers m to m’, then (m,w) become engaged and m’
becomes free
![Page 27: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Example
m1 > m2> m3
m1 > m3> m2
m1> m2> m3
\\
\
w1 > w2> w3
\w1 > w2> w3 m1
m2
m3
w2
w1
w3\w1 > w3> w2
![Page 28: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Analysis of the Algorithm
To prove correctness of an algorithm analyze convergence of the algorithm (i.e., show that the
algorithm will always terminate) analyze correctness of the algorithm (i.e., show that the
algorithm always generates the desired outcome)
![Page 29: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Analysis of the Algorithm – Observations For any woman w,
(O1) w remains engaged from the point at which she receives her first proposal.
(O2) the sequence of partners to which w is engaged gets better and better (in terms of her preference list)
For any man m, (O3) if m is free at some point in the execution of the
algorithm, then there is a woman to whom m hasn’t proposed yet.
(O4) the sequence of women to whom m proposes gets worse and worse (in terms of his preference list).
![Page 30: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Analysis of the Algorithm
Lemma 1.3. G-S algorithm returns a perfect matching in finite steps.
Proof. By observations O1 and O3.
Theorem 1.4. G-S algorithm returns a stable matching.
![Page 31: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Analysis of the Algorithm
Proof. Let f be a matching returned by the algorithm. Assume that (m,w) is a blocking pair, where (m,w’),(m’,w)∈f. That is, m prefers w to w’ and w prefers m to m’. In the algorithm, m last proposal was to w’ (by definition).
Then if m has proposed to w or not? if yes, since the sequence of partners of w only increases
(O2), w will be matched to a man better than m if not, by the algorithm, m should propose to w before w’ (O4)
A contradiction.
m
m’ w
w’
![Page 32: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
G-S Algorithm – Women Propose
\\
\
w1 > w2> w3
w1 > w3> w2
\w1 > w2> w3 m1
m2
m3
w2
w1
w3 \
m1 > m2> m3
m1 > m3> m2
m1> m2> m3
![Page 33: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Which Stable Matching is Better?
w1 > w2
w2 > w1
m2 > m1
m1 > m2
m1
m2 w2
w1
m1
m2 w2
w1 m1
m2 w2
w1
GS algorithm: men propose GS algorithm: women propose
![Page 34: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Stable Matching by G-S
For any man m, let best(m) be the best woman matched to m in all possible stable matchings.
Theorem 1.5. Gale-Shapley algorithm, when men propose, returns a stable matching, where for any man m, m is matched to best(m).
Implications: different orders of free men picked do not matter for any men m1 ≠ m2, best(m1) ≠ best(m2)
![Page 35: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Stable Matching by G-S
Proof. Assume otherwise that some men m are matched worse than their best(m). Then m must be rejected by best(m) in the course of the algorithm.
Consider the first moment in the algorithm in which some man, say m, is rejected by w = best(m). The rejection of m by w because either m proposed but was turned down (w prefers her
current partner) or w broke her engagement to m in favor of a better proposal.
In either cases, at this moment w is engaged to a man m’ whom she prefers to m, i.e., m’ >w m.
m
m’
w =best(m)
![Page 36: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Stable Matching by G-S
In GS algorithm, because m is the first man who is rejected by best(m), at that moment m’ hasnot been rejected by best(m’) when he is engaged to w. By O4, this implies that
w ≥m’ best(m’)
m
m’
w =best(m)
![Page 37: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Stable Matching by G-S
In GS algorithm, because m is the first man who is rejected by best(m), at that moment m’ hasnot been rejected by best(m’) when he is engaged to w. By O4, this implies that
w ≥m’ best(m’)
By definition of best(m), consider the stable matching f where m is matched to w=best(m). Assume that m’ is matched to w’ in f. Hence,
best(m’) ≥ m’ w’
Hence, w >m’ w’ (note that w ≠ w’)
Contradiction to the fact that f is stable.
m
m’
w
w’
f
f
=best(m)
![Page 38: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Men/Women Optimal Stable Matching For any two stable matchings f and f’, denote
f(m) >m f’(m) if m prefers his partner in f than f’
f(m) ≥m f’(m) if either f(m) >m f’(m) or f(m) = f’(m)
f >M f’ if f(m) ≥m f’(m) for all m∈M and f(m) >m f’(m) for at least one man m.
f ≥M f’ if f(m) ≥m f’(m) for all m∈M
f(w) >w f’(w), f(w) ≥w f’(w), f >W f’ and f ≥W f’ are defined similarly.
![Page 39: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Men/Women Optimal Stable Matching Definition. A stable matching f is called men-optimal if for
any other stable matching f’, we have f ≥M f’. A stable matching f is called women-optimal if for any other stable matching f’, we have f ≥W f’.
For any stable matching f and any man m∈M, we have best(m) ≥m f(m).
Theorem 2.1. Gale-Shapley algorithm, when men propose, it returns a men-optimal stable matching; when women propose, it returns a women-optimal stable matching.
![Page 40: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Men/Women Optimal Stable Matching Theorem 2.2. Men (women)-optimal stable matching
is unique.
Proof. Assume f and f’ are two men-optimal stable matchings, then f ≥M f’ and f’ ≥M f. Hence, for any man m∈M, we have f(m) ≥m f’(m) and f’(m) ≥m f(m), i.e., f(m) = f’(m); this implies f = f’.
![Page 41: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Women-Pessimal Stable Matching Theorem 2.3. For any two stable matchings f and f’,
f >M f’ if and only if f’ >W f.
Proof. Assume that f >M f’, we will show f’ >W f.
Assume otherwise that there is a woman w∈W such that f(w) >w f’(w); let m = f(w).
By the assumption, w = f(m) >m f’(m).Hence, (m,w) is a blocking pair for f’, a contradiction.
f’(w)
f(w)m f’(m)
w
=
f
f’
f’
![Page 42: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Women-Pessimal Stable Matching Theorem 2.3. For any two stable matchings f and f’,
f >M f’ if and only if f’ >W f.
Corollary 2.4. Men-optimal stable matching is women-pessimal; women-optimal stable matching is men-pessimal.
![Page 43: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Pointing Function (sup)
Given two stable matchings f and f’, define a mapping g (denoted by f v f’) as follows: for each man m∈M, assign him more preferred
partner g(m) = f(m) if f(m) ≥ m f’(m)
g(m) = f’(m) if f’(m) >m f(m)
for each woman w∈W, assign her less preferred partner g(w) = f(w) if f(w) ≤w f’(w)
g(w) = f’(w) if f’(w) <w f(w)
![Page 44: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Pointing Function (sup)
Is it possible that g(m) = g(m’) for two different men?
Is it possible that g(m) = w, but g(w) ≠m?
If g is a matching (i.e., the answers to the above two questions are NO), can it be unstable?
![Page 45: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Conway’s Lattice Theorem
Theorem 2.5. If f and f’ are two stable matchings, then g = f v f’ is a stable matching as well.
Proof. We first show that g is a matching. Assume g(m) = w, and wlog f(m) = g(m). Hence, w >m f’(m).
If g(w) ≠ m, i.e., g(w) = f’(w), then m >w f’(w).
Thus, (m,w) is a blocking pair for f’, a contradiction.
That is, g(m) = w g(w) = m. Because |M| = |W|, this implies that
g(w) = m g(m) = w. f’(w)
m f’(m)
w
f
f’
f’
![Page 46: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Conway’s Lattice Theorem
Theorem 2.5. If f and f’ are two stable matchings, then g = f v f’ is a stable matching as well.
Proof. We next show that g is a stable matching.
Assume (m,w) is a blocking pair for g. Thenw >m g(m) and m >w g(w)
The former impliesw >m f(m) and w >m f’(m)
Therefore, (m,w) blocks f if g(w) = f(w), or f’ if g(w) = f’(w), a contradiction.
![Page 47: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
Pointing Function (inf)
Given two stable matchings f and f’, define a mapping h (denoted by f f’∧ ) as follows: for each man m∈M, assign him less preferred partner
h(m) = f(m) if f(m) ≤m f’(m)
h(m) = f’(m) if f’(m) <m f(m)
for each woman w∈W, assign her more preferred partner h(w) = f(w) if f(w) ≥w f’(w)
h(w) = f’(w) if f’(w) >w f(w)
![Page 48: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Conway’s Lattice Theorem
Theorem 2.5. If f and f’ are two stable matchings, then g = f v f’ and h = f f’∧ both are stable matchings.
By the definition of g and h g >M f >M h, g >M f’ >M h
h >W f >W g, h >W f’ >W g
![Page 49: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Example
m4 > m3> m2> m1
m3 > m4> m1> m2
m2 > m1> m4> m3
m1 > m2> m3> m4
m1
m2
m3
m4
w2
w1
w4
w3
w1 > w2> w3> w4
w2 > w1> w4> w3
w3 > w4> w1> w2
w4 > w3> w2> w1
![Page 50: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
w2w1 w4w3
f1 m1 m2 m3 m4
f2 m2 m1 m3 m4
f3 m1 m2 m4 m3
f4 m2 m1 m4 m3
f5 m3 m1 m4 m2
f6 m2 m4 m1 m3
f7 m3 m4 m1 m2
f8 m4 m3 m1 m2
f9 m3 m4 m2 m1
f10 m4 m3 m2 m1
f2 v f3 = f1 f2 ∧ f3 = f4
f5 v f6 = f4 f5 ∧ f6 = f7
f8 v f9 = f7 f8 ∧ f9 = f10
f2
f5
f8
f3
f6
f9
f1
f4
f7
f10
![Page 51: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Lattice
Consider a set S which contains n elements with a partial order “≥”, which satisfies antisymmetry property: if a ≥ b and a ≤ b, then a = b.
For any a,b∈S, if a ≥ b, we say “a is greater than or equal to b” if a ≤ b, we say “a is smaller than or equal to b”
![Page 52: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Lattice
Upper bound: An upper bound of any subset X of S is an element a∈S
such that for all b∈X, we have a ≥ b. Denote by supX the least upper bound of X if an upper
bound exists. That is a = supX if a is an upper bound of X and there is no other upper bound a’ of X such that a ≥ a’.
By the antisymmetry property, if supX exists, it’s unique.
Lower bound and greatest lower bound (denoted by infX) are defined similarly.
![Page 53: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Lattice
Definition. A lattice is a partially ordered set S, where any two elements a,b∈S, have a “sup”, denoted by a v b, and have an “inf”, denoted by a b∧ . A lattice S is complete if each of its subset has a “sup” and an “inf” in S.
In particular, if lattice S if complete, then there is a supS and infS.
![Page 54: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
Lattice
Examples.
![Page 55: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Distributive Lattice
Definition. A lattice S is distributive if for any a,b,c∈S, the following two facts hold a (b v c) = (a b) v (a c)∧ ∧ ∧ a v (b c) = (a v b) (a v c)∧ ∧
Theorem 2.6. (Conway) The set of all stable matchings forms a distributive lattice.
Theorem 2.7. (Blair) Every finite distributive lattice equals the set of stable matchings of some marriage market.
![Page 56: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
Linear Structure of Stable Matchings For any given market, a matching f can be written by a
matrix A = (amw)|M|x|W| (called configuration matrix) ,where
amw = 1 if f(m) = w
amw = 0 otherwise
Let ∑j >m w amj denote the sum over all women j∈W that man m
prefers to woman w ∑i >w m aiw denote the sum over all men i∈M that
woman w prefers to man m
![Page 57: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
Linear Structure of Stable Matchings Theorem 2.9. (Vande Vate) A matching is stable if
and only if its configuration matrix is an integer matrix satisfying the following set of constraints:1) ∑j amj = 1 for all m∈M
2) ∑i aiw = 1 for all w∈W
3) ∑j >m w amj + ∑i >w m aiw + amw ≥ 1, for all m∈M and w∈W
4) amw ≥ 0, for all m∈M and w∈W
![Page 58: Market Design and Analysis Lecture 1](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062721/56813787550346895d9f1fb1/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
Linear Structure of Stable Matchings Theorem 2.10. (Vande Vate) Let C be the convex
polyhedron of the solutions to the linear constraints (1)-(4). Then the extreme points of the linear constraints (1)-(4) corresponds precisely to the stable matchings.
Implication: the stable matching that maximizes a linear objective function can be computed by linear programming.