Three remarks on the many-to-many stable matching problem (Q1303882): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
Import240304020342 (talk | contribs)
Set profile property.
ReferenceBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Nonexistence of stable threesome matchings / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: The Lattice Structure of the Set of Stable Matchings with Multiple Partners / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Stability and Polarization of Interests in Job Matching / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q3999327 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: A nonconstructive elementary proof of the existence of stable marriages / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: The lattice structure of the set of stable outcomes of the multiple partners assignment game / rank
 
Normal rank

Revision as of 21:41, 28 May 2024

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Three remarks on the many-to-many stable matching problem
scientific article

    Statements

    Three remarks on the many-to-many stable matching problem (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    17 December 2000
    0 references
    In general, in a matching problem, we have two sets of agents \(P\) and \(Q\) and we must connect some agents \(p\in P\) with some agents \(q\in Q\). For each agent \(p\in P\) and for each agent \(q\in Q\), we are given a quota -- the largest possible number \(n(p)\) (corr., \(n(q)\)) of its connections, and a preference, i.e., an ordering (in general, partial ordering) on the set of all possible connecting sets (i.e., subsets \(C\subseteq Q\) of cardinality \(\leq n(P)\)). We want to find a stable matching, i.e., a matching for which no party can improve its situation by violating it. There are several known notions of stability; they are usually defined via defining the corresponding instability. For example, pairwise instability means that some pair \((p,q)\) can improve their situations if they become partners (and maybe drop some of their original partners); pairwise stability means that no such pairs exist. Corewise instability means that there is a set of agents \(A\subset P\cup Q\) such that all agents from \(A\) can improve their status by adding new connections between themselves -- and dropping all partners who are not from \(A\). The author introduces a new natural notion of setwise stability: a matching is called setwise unstable is there exists a subset \(A\subset P\cup Q\) such that all agents from \(A\) can improve their status by adding new connections between themselves -- and maybe dropping some partners who are not from \(A\). (A similar notion was previously introduced for the marriage problem, when all quotas are equal to 1.) Clearly, setwise stability implies pairwise and corewise stability. The author shows that setwise stability is stronger by giving an example of a matching which is pairwise and corewise stable but not setwise stable. In another example of a matching problem, there exist a pairwise-stable matching and a corewise-stable matching, but no matching is both pairwise- and corewise-stable, and thus, no matching is setwise-stable. In addition, the author uses his techniques to prove a new result about the existence of pairwise-stable matchings.
    0 references
    matching
    0 references
    stable matching
    0 references
    core
    0 references

    Identifiers