-
Rankings-Dependent Preferences: A Real Goods Matching Experiment
Authors:
Andrew Kloosterman,
Peter Troyan
Abstract:
We investigate whether preferences for objects received via a matching mechanism are influenced by how highly agents rank them in their reported rank order list. We hypothesize that all else equal, agents receive greater utility for the same object when they rank it higher. The addition of rankings-dependent utility implies that it may not be a dominant strategy to submit truthful preferences to a…
▽ More
We investigate whether preferences for objects received via a matching mechanism are influenced by how highly agents rank them in their reported rank order list. We hypothesize that all else equal, agents receive greater utility for the same object when they rank it higher. The addition of rankings-dependent utility implies that it may not be a dominant strategy to submit truthful preferences to a strategyproof mechanism, and that non-strategyproof mechanisms that give more agents objects they \emph{report} as higher ranked may increase market welfare. We test these hypotheses with a matching experiment in a strategyproof mechanism, the random serial dictatorship, and a non-strategyproof mechanism, the Boston mechanism. A novel feature of our experimental design is that the objects allocated in the matching markets are real goods, which allows us to directly measure rankings-dependence by eliciting values for goods both inside and outside of the mechanism. The experimental results are mixed, with stronger evidence for rankings-dependence in the RSD treatment than the Boston treatment. We find no differences between the two mechanisms for the rates of truth-telling and the final welfare.
△ Less
Submitted 29 August, 2024; v1 submitted 5 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Non-Obvious Manipulability of the Rank-Minimizing Mechanism
Authors:
Peter Troyan
Abstract:
In assignment problems, the rank distribution of assigned objects is often used to evaluate match quality. Rank-minimizing (RM) mechanisms directly optimize for average rank. While appealing, a drawback is RM mechanisms are not strategyproof. This paper investigates whether RM satisfies the weaker incentive notion of non-obvious manipulability (NOM, Troyan and Morrill, 2020). I show any RM mechani…
▽ More
In assignment problems, the rank distribution of assigned objects is often used to evaluate match quality. Rank-minimizing (RM) mechanisms directly optimize for average rank. While appealing, a drawback is RM mechanisms are not strategyproof. This paper investigates whether RM satisfies the weaker incentive notion of non-obvious manipulability (NOM, Troyan and Morrill, 2020). I show any RM mechanism with full support - placing positive probability on all rank-minimizing allocations - is NOM. In particular, uniform randomization satisfies this condition. Without full support, whether an RM mechanism is NOM or not depends on the details of the selection rule.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2024; v1 submitted 22 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Desirable Rankings: A New Method for Ranking Outcomes of a Competitive Process
Authors:
Thayer Morrill,
Peter Troyan
Abstract:
We consider the problem of aggregating individual preferences over alternatives into a social ranking. A key feature of the problems that we consider - and the one that allows us to obtain positive results, in contrast to negative results such as Arrow's Impossibililty Theorem - is that the alternatives to be ranked are outcomes of a competitive process. Examples include rankings of colleges or ac…
▽ More
We consider the problem of aggregating individual preferences over alternatives into a social ranking. A key feature of the problems that we consider - and the one that allows us to obtain positive results, in contrast to negative results such as Arrow's Impossibililty Theorem - is that the alternatives to be ranked are outcomes of a competitive process. Examples include rankings of colleges or academic journals. The foundation of our ranking method is that alternatives that agents rank higher than the one they receive (and thus have been rejected by) should also be ranked higher in the aggregate ranking. We introduce axioms to formalize this idea, and call any ranking that satisfies our axioms a desirable ranking. We show that as the market grows large, any desirable ranking coincides with the true underlying ranking of colleges by quality. Last, we provide an algorithm for constructing desirable rankings, and show that the outcome of this algorithm is the unique ranking of the colleges that satisfy our axioms.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2024; v1 submitted 23 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
