Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1004.2565

Competitive Equilibria in Matching Markets with Budgets

Abstract

We study competitive equilibria in the classic Shapley-Shubik assignment model with indivisible goods and unit-demand buyers, with budget constraints: buyers can specify a maximum price they are willing to pay for each item, beyond which they cannot afford the item. This single discontinuity introduced by the budget constraint fundamentally changes the properties of equilibria: in the assignment model without budget constraints, a competitive equilibrium always exists, and corresponds exactly to a stable matching. With budgets, a competitive equilibrium need not always exist. In addition, there are now two distinct notions of stability, depending on whether both or only one of the buyer and seller can strictly benefit in a blocking pair, that no longer coincide due to the budget-induced discontinuity. We define weak and strong stability for the assignment model with transferable utilities, and show that competitive equilibria correspond exactly to strongly stable matchings. We consider the algorithmic question of efficiently computing competitive equilibria in an extension of the assignment model with budgets, where each buyer specifies his preferences over items using utility functions $u_{ij}$, where $u_{ij}(p_j)$ is the utility of buyer $i$ for item $j$ when its price is $p_j$. Our main result is a strongly polynomial time algorithm that decides whether or not a competitive equilibrium exists and if yes, computes a minimum one, for a general class of utility functions $u_{ij}$. This class of utility functions includes the standard quasi-linear utility model with a budget constraint, and in addition, allows modeling marketplaces where, for example, buyers only have a preference ranking amongst items subject to a maximum payment limit for each item, or where buyers want to optimize return on investment (ROI) instead of a quasi-linear utility and only know items' relative values.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ning Chen, Xiaotie Deng, Arpita Ghosh. 2010-04-16. Competitive Equilibria in Matching Markets with Budgets. https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2565

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

An Algorithm-to-Contract Framework without Demand Queries

Consider costly and time-consuming tasks that add up to the success of a project, and must be fitted into a given time-frame. This is an instance of the classic budgeted maximization (knapsack) problem, which admits an FPTAS. Now assume an agent is performing these tasks on behalf of a principal, who is the one to reap the rewards if the project succeeds. The principal must design a contract to incentivize the agent. Is there still an approximation scheme? In this work we lay the foundations for an algorithm-to-contract framework, which transforms algorithms for combinatorial problems to handle contract design problems subject to the same combinatorial constraints. Our approach diverges from previous works in avoiding the assumption of demand oracle access. As an example, for budgeted maximization, we show how to "lift" the classic FPTAS to the best-possible (approximately-IC) FPTAS for the contract problem. We establish this through our local-to-global framework, in which the local step is to approximately solve a two-sided strengthened variant of the demand problem. The global step then utilizes the local one to find the approximately optimal contract. We apply our framework to a host of combinatorial constraints: multi-dimensional budgets, budgeted matroid, and budgeted matching constraints. In all cases we essentially match the best purely algorithmic approximation. Separately, we also develop a method for multi-agent contract settings. Our method yields the first approximation schemes for multi-agent contract settings that go beyond additive reward functions.

cs.GT

Information Requirements for Service Allocation and Aggregate Verification

A service system may use the same categories to assign standard allocations and to check whether each service is fulfilled. Finer categories can match individual needs more closely, but they divide the observations available for monitoring. We study this conflict for a fixed menu from which participants select by declaring a category, with fulfilment assessed from each category's aggregate outcomes during a fixed period. We relate allocation loss to variation in preferred allocations within categories and identify conditions under which aggregate observations preserve the verification performance of individual records. For nested refinements under stated utility and observation assumptions, an allocation-loss tolerance and a per-category detection target define a feasibility band. Categories must be fine enough to provide suitable allocations but sufficiently populated to support verification. A source-dependent lower bound on declaration entropy and a minimum contributor requirement give necessary information and population constraints. For an explicit finite population with quadratic utility and binary service outcomes, we prove the exact feasible range across all categorical designs and exhibit designs attaining the information lower bound at specified tolerances. The results provide conditions for choosing categories jointly for allocation and verification.

cs.GT

Simultaneous Envy and Equitability Guarantees

Recent work in fair division has focused on either simultaneously satisfying closely related fairness notions or achieving a single notion across the ex-ante and ex-post worlds. We study the compatibility of two fundamentally different fairness notions: envy-freeness and equitability. For indivisible goods-only and chores-only settings, we study the existence and complexity of simultaneously satisfying their relaxations, revealing sharp contrasts between the two settings. We show that EF1+EQ1 may fail to exist even for normalized binary goods: we construct an instance with 113 agents and 341 goods in which every agent approves exactly 165 goods, but no complete allocation satisfies both notions. Our main algorithmic result computes an EF1+EQ1 allocation for every normalized binary goods instance with at most seven agents. Thus, the smallest number of agents admitting a counterexample lies between 8 and 113, leaving the cases from 8 through 112 unresolved. In sharp contrast, binary chores admit the stronger EFX+EQX guarantee for any number of agents, even without normalization. We further initiate the study of cross-notion ex-ante and ex-post guarantees, asking whether randomized allocations can provide ex-ante guarantees for one notion while preserving ex-post guarantees for another.

cs.GT