Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Incontestable Assignments

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.03598 v2 pith:AIPGYINQ submitted 2024-01-07 econ.TH

classification econ.TH
keywords incontestableassignmentsstudentsassignmentincontestabilitymechanismsappealappeal-proof
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In school districts where assignments are exclusively determined by a clearinghouse students can only appeal their assignment with a valid reason. An assignment is incontestable if it is appeal-proof. We study incontestability when students do not observe the other students' preferences and assignments. Incontestability is shown to be equivalent to individual rationality, non-wastefulness, and respect for top-priority sets (a weakening of justified envy). Stable mechanisms and those Pareto dominating them are incontestable, as well as the Top-Trading Cycle mechanism (but Boston is not). Under a mild consistency property, incontestable mechanisms are i-indinstiguishable (Li, 2017), and share similar incentive properties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools