Stable Matching with Contingent Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using school choice as a motivating example, we introduce a stylized model of a many-to-one matching market where the clearinghouse seeks to implement contingent priorities—i.e., priorities that depend on the current assignment—to improve the likelihood that students with siblings are assigned together. We provide a series of guidelines and introduce two natural approaches to implement them: (i) absolute, whereby a prioritized student can displace any student without siblings assigned to the school, and (ii) partial, whereby prioritized students can only displace students that have a less favorable lottery than their priority provider. We study several properties of the corresponding mechanisms, including the existence of a stable assignment under contingent priorities, the complexity of finding one if it exists, and its incentive properties. Furthermore, we introduce a soft version of these priorities to guarantee existence, and we provide mathematical programming formulations to find such stable matching or certify that one does not exist. Finally, using data from the Chilean school choice system, we show that our framework can significantly increase the number of students assigned to their top preference and the number of siblings assigned together relative to current practice. A full version of this paper can be found at https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04914
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".