Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 43 references

Designing Pairwise-Stable Agent Seating Arrangements

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read When the seating graph itself can be designed, pairwise-stable arrangements of agents with ordinal preferences can be built efficiently from compressed stable-partition bundles.

desk verdict Clean design-side escape from hard seat/coalition problems via Tan bundles and pairwise stability; math checks out and is worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27102 v1 pith:CZURKISB submitted 2026-07-29 cs.DS cs.GT

Frederik Glitzner This is my paper
classification cs.DScs.GT
keywords stablegrapharrangementsseatarrangementcoalitionformationmatchingpairwisestabilitybundlesbinpackingefficientalgorithm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Classical multi-agent arrangement problems fix a target graph and then try to seat or group agents so that no one wants to swap or envy a neighbor; such solutions often fail to exist or are hard to find even on paths and cycles. This paper flips the setup: a planner may design the graph. It introduces a weak pairwise stability notion (no two agents both prefer each other to their current best neighbor) and shows that every preference system admits a compact “bundle” of tiny paths that is already stable. Those bundles can be glued together by adding edges, yielding seating layouts or teams that minimize the number of tables or the seats per table (or the dual objectives) in polynomial time, always succeeding once every component has size at least three. The same toolkit also solves a natural best-stable capacitated matching problem. The result turns an intractable fixed-graph problem into a tractable design problem while still guaranteeing a clean local stability guarantee.

What carries the argument

The (r1,r2,r3)-bundle: a stable arrangement on a disjoint union of P1s, P2s and P3s extracted from a reduced stable partition of a (tie-broken) Stable Roommates instance; it compresses the preference system so that later edge-addition steps remain stable and efficient.

What would settle it

Construct a concrete preference profile and a designed seating graph produced by the algorithms in which two agents still both strictly prefer each other to their best assigned neighbors, or show that for some profile every size-at-least-3 arrangement admits such a blocking pair.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Every finite preference system admits an (r1,r2,r3)-bundle—a collection of isolated vertices, paths of length 2 and paths of length 3 that already forms a pairwise-stable arrangement—and such a bundle can be computed in quadratic time from a reduced stable partition. Adding any edges that keep the original bundle neighbors intact preserves stability, so the planner can freely assemble the paths into tables, cliques or other connected components while controlling size and number objectives.

Load-bearing premise

Agents are content once they have one acceptable local neighbor and will not coordinate larger group departures that require talking to people they like less than that neighbor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MinTablesMinSeats and MinSeatsMinTables (and their clique/team analogues) become solvable in O((n^{2}+s*^{3})n^{2}) and O(s*^{3}n^{2}) time respectively, with all tables paths that may later be completed to cycles, grids or cliques.
  • For every table or team size at least 3 a pairwise-stable arrangement is guaranteed to exist and can be constructed from any bundle.
  • Best-stable b-matching (capacities at least 2) reduces to a linear-time post-processing of a bundle and runs in O(n^{2}) time.
  • Arranging a given bundle onto an arbitrary host graph is NP-complete even for bipartite maximum-degree-3 hosts, yet simple sufficient conditions (long path, enough large components, tall trees) remain polynomial to check.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same bundle-plus-edge-addition template should extend immediately to other sparse host families (grids of bounded width, bounded-treewidth graphs) once a suitable packing subroutine replaces the bin-packing step.
  • If the planner is allowed a small additive number of “dummy” seats or agents, the additive gap between the computed bundle and a globally minimal-P3 bundle disappears even under ties, recovering exact optimality for free.
  • Pairwise stability may serve as a computationally cheap certificate that can be audited after any stronger (envy-free or exchange-stable) heuristic has failed, giving practitioners a reliable fallback layout.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies agent arrangement problems (seat assignment, coalition/team formation, b-matching) under a pairwise “best-neighbour” stability notion: no two agents strictly prefer each other to their respective best neighbours in the arrangement. Unlike classical seat-arrangement and hedonic-game work, the target graph is a design object. The central technical device is an (r1,r2,r3)-bundle—a stable arrangement on a disjoint union of paths of length at most 3—obtained in O(n²) time from a reduced stable partition (Tan) after arbitrary tie-breaking (Algorithm 1, Theorem 3.6). Edge addition preserves stability (Theorem 3.12). Using this compression the authors give polynomial algorithms for hierarchical min-table/min-seat and min-team/min-size problems (Theorems 1.2–1.3) via a specialised three-size bin-packing DP and path-joining, always guaranteeing a stable solution once every component has size at least 3; an analogous O(n²) algorithm solves best-stable b-matching (Theorem 1.4). Arranging a given bundle onto a fixed host graph is NP-complete even for bipartite maximum-degree-3 hosts (Theorem 1.1). Local-versus-global optimality and the additive approximation under ties are stated explicitly.

Significance. The work supplies a clean, reusable bridge from classical non-bipartite stable-matching structure to the design of seating graphs and coalitions. By treating the target topology as flexible rather than fixed, it converts several problems that are hard even on paths or cycles into efficiently solvable design problems while retaining a natural stability guarantee. The bundle abstraction, the edge-addition invariance, and the explicit complexity boundary between “design the graph” and “arrange on a given graph” are technically solid and of independent interest. Connections to subgraph isomorphism, path partition and bin packing are correctly identified and exploited. The modelling choice of pairwise best-neighbour stability is stated up front and motivated; the paper does not claim transfer to envy-freeness or exchange-stability. Overall this is a useful algorithmic contribution for multi-agent systems and computational social choice.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] Section 2.2 / Observation 2.6: the claim that an arbitrary tie-break of an SRT instance yields a stable partition that remains valid for the original weak instance is correct, but a one-sentence reminder that different tie-breaks can produce different odd-cycle sets (hence different r3) would help readers who are not specialists in SRT.
  2. [Section 4.2.1] Algorithm 2 (DP): the state is written (r1,r2,r3,t) yet the visited set V stores only the triple (r1,r2,r3). A brief remark that t is recovered from BFS depth (or from the trace) would remove a possible source of confusion.
  3. [Section 3.2] Theorem 3.11: the additive floor(n/3) guarantee is tight in the all-ties case, but the text could explicitly note that the same bound holds for any tie-break, not merely the one chosen by Algorithm 1.
  4. [Section 3.1] Figures 1–5: the preference ranks shown in blue are only partial; a short caption sentence clarifying that the displayed ranks are sufficient to realise the illustrated partition (other consistent rankings exist) would improve readability.
  5. [Section 2.1 / 4.4] Notation: b(ai) for best neighbour versus bi for capacity appears in the same sections; a single clarifying sentence at the first joint occurrence (around Definition 2.3 / Section 4.4) would be helpful.
  6. [Section 1.3] References: a few recent seat-arrangement and near-feasible matching papers already cited in the related-work section could be cross-referenced more tightly when the design perspective is introduced in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: bundles and stability follow from classical external Tan partitions plus proved edge-addition, not from self-defined or fitted quantities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external classical results. Algorithm 1 and Theorem 3.6 construct an (r1,r2,r3)-bundle from any preference system by breaking ties, computing a reduced stable partition via Tan’s algorithm (external, 1991), and cutting odd cycles into P2/P3 paths; Lemmas 3.1–3.3 prove the resulting arrangement is pairwise-stable by direct appeal to Tan’s T1/T2 properties, not by redefining stability to match the construction. Theorem 3.12 (edge addition preserves best-neighbor stability) is proved from the definition of blocking pairs and is then used as a black-box tool to glue paths into tables/teams or b-matchings; the MinTables/MinSeats algorithms reduce to a standard three-item-size bin-packing DP whose correctness is independent of the preference data. Hardness of Arranging Bundles is a direct reduction from the external Monnot–Toulouse P3-Partition result. Self-citations (Glitzner–Manlove) appear only for related b-matching/unsolvability context and are not load-bearing for the existence, approximation, or runtime claims. No parameter is fitted to data and then re-predicted; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to forbid alternatives; the local-vs-global optimality gap is explicitly acknowledged rather than papered over. The modeling choice of pairwise (best-neighbor) stability is definitional and motivated, not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard stable-roommates structure (Tan partitions always exist, odd cycles characterize unsolvability under strict lists), complete ordinal preferences, the modeling choice that pairwise best-neighbor stability is the objective, and the definitional invention of bundles as the compression primitive. No numeric parameters are fitted. The only essentially new entities are the bundle and the pairwise/runaway stability notion itself.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Every SR instance admits a stable partition computable in O(n²) (Tan); even cycles reduce to transpositions in linear time.
    Invoked as the engine of Algorithm 1 and Theorem 3.6; classical external result.
  • domain assumption Preferences are complete weak orders over all other agents.
    Definition 2.1; used to bound r1 ∈ {0,1} and to guarantee existence of stable arrangements for component size ≥ 3.
  • ad hoc to paper A matching/arrangement is stable iff no two agents strictly prefer each other to their respective best neighbors (pairwise/runaway stability).
    Definition 2.3; deliberately weaker than exchange-stability or envy-freeness; load-bearing for all tractability claims.
  • standard math Adding edges to a graph that already admits a stable arrangement preserves stability.
    Theorem 3.12; elementary but repeatedly used to glue paths into tables/cliques/matchings.
  • standard math Deciding existence of a weakly stable matching in SRT is NP-complete (Ronn).
    Used in Theorem 3.11 to show min-r3 is hard under ties and that multiplicative approximation is impossible.
  • standard math P3-Partition remains NP-complete on bipartite maximum-degree-3 graphs (Monnot–Toulouse).
    Source of the Arranging Bundles hardness reduction (Theorem 1.1 / 4.2).
invented entities (2)
  • (r1,r2,r3)-bundle
    purpose: Compress any preference system into a stable disjoint union of P1/P2/P3 components that can later be glued while preserving pairwise stability.
    Definition 3.5 and Algorithm 1; the central technical object. Independent evidence is internal (poly-time construction and stability proofs) rather than external measurement.
  • Pairwise / runaway stability for arrangements
    purpose: Provide a tractable middle ground between trivial solutions and intractable envy-free or exchange-stable seatings.
    Definition 2.3; motivated by wedding/hackathon/housing stories but not independently validated against behavioral data in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Pairwise-Stable Agent Seating Arrangements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZURKISB

@misc{pith2026260727102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Pairwise-Stable Agent Seating Arrangements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZURKISB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27102}
}
read the original abstract

Many fundamental problems in multi-agent systems involve the arrangement of agents, who have preferences over each other, on a target graph. These problems include, for example, Stable Matching, Seat Arrangement, and Coalition Formation. However, guaranteeing game-theoretically desirable properties such as exchange-stability or envy-freeness is difficult, as such solutions may not exist, and even if they do, they are often intractable to find, even in highly constrained settings such as path or cycle target graphs. In this paper, we challenge the classical setup and investigate what can be achieved when the structure of the target graph is a designable object for the central planner, rather than a fixed part of the input. We study this in the context of a natural pairwise stability criterion, which is similar to having spare seats. In particular, we introduce a highly flexible framework to efficiently design approximately optimal target graphs and associated pairwise-stable agent arrangements. Our model assumes that agents have (weak or strict) ordinal preferences over other agents. We show that classical results from stable matching theory can be extended and adapted to this much more general setting and can serve as a useful tool for navigating the trade-off between stability and computational efficiency. Our results highlight strict boundaries between tractability and intractability, and between local and global optimality. We also uncover intriguing connections to classical computational problems such as subgraph isomorphism, disjoint path partitioning, and bin-packing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An sr instance and a stable partition. Now it is natural to consider a stable partition as an agent arrangement – we simply consider the (bijective) identity mapping from the agent set to their place on the stable partition graph as the arrangement. We will refer to this as a stable partition arrangement. Notice that this construction always exists and is stable. Lemma 3.1. A stable partition arrangement M is a stab… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An sr instance and a reduced stable partition Now that this is a reduced stable partition, we cannot make any of the graph components smaller (i.e., involving fewer agents) or remove any edges from the arrangement while keeping it a stable partition. However, if we are only interested in our new stability notion and can discard the stable partition requirements, we can also open up the loops to gain “stable paths” i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An arrangement based on a cut-up reduced stable partition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An arrangement with more components based on a cut-up reduced stable partition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A bundle based on a cut-up reduced stable partition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Atila Abdulkadiro˘ glu and Tayfun S¨ onmez. 2003. School Choice: A Mechanism De- sign Approach.American Economic Review93, 3 (6 2003), 729—-747. doi:10.1257/ 000282803322157061

    2003

  2. [2]

    2016.Hedonic Games

    Haris Aziz and Rahul Savani. 2016.Hedonic Games. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 356–376

    2016

  3. [3]

    Damien Berriaud, Andrei Constantinescu, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2024. Stable Dinner Party Seating Arrangements. InWeb and Internet Economics (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 15444), J. Garg, M. Klimm, and Y. Kong (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 3–20. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_1 2024

  4. [4]

    Bodlaender, Tesshu Hanaka, Lars Jaffke, Hirotaka Ono, Yota Otachi, and Tom C

    Hans L. Bodlaender, Tesshu Hanaka, Lars Jaffke, Hirotaka Ono, Yota Otachi, and Tom C. van der Zanden. 2020. Hedonic Seat Arrangement Problems. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems(Auckland, New Zealand)(AAMAS ’20). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC,...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Vincenzo Bonifaci and Helena Rivera Dallorto. 2025. Egalitarian roommate allocations: Complexity and stability.Theoretical Computer Science1026 (2025), 115009. doi:10. 1016/j.tcs.2024.115009

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Katar ´ ına Cechl´ arov´ a and Jana Hajdukov´ a. 2003. Computational Complexity of Stable Partitions with B-preferences.International Journal of Game Theory31, 3 (6 2003), 353–

    2003

  7. [7]

    Katar ´ ına Cechl´ arov´ a and Antonio Romero-Medina. 2001. Stability in Coalition Formation Games.International Journal of Game Theory29, 4 (5 2001), 487–494. doi:10.1007/ s001820000053

    2001

  8. [8]

    Katar ´ ına Cechl´ arov´ a and Jana Hajdukov´ a. 2004. Stable partitions with W-preferences.Dis- crete Applied Mathematics138, 3 (2004), 333–347. doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(03)00464-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0166-218x(03)00464-5 2004

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Javier Cembrano, Andr´ es Moraga, and Victor Verdugo. 2025. Near-feasible Fair Allocations in Two-sided Markets. arXiv:2506.01178 [cs.GT]https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01178

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2022.Optimal Seat arrangement: Structure, algorithms, and complexity

    Esra Ceylan. 2022.Optimal Seat arrangement: Structure, algorithms, and complexity. Thesis. Technische Universit¨ at Wien

    2022

  3. [11]

    Esra Ceylan, Jiehua Chen, and Sanjukta Roy. 2023. Optimal Seat Arrangement: What are the Hard and Easy Cases?. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’23), Edith Elkind (Ed.). International Joint Con- ferences on A...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2020.Fair and large stable matchings in the stable marriage and student- project allocation problems

    Frances Cooper. 2020.Fair and large stable matchings in the stable marriage and student- project allocation problems. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Glasgow

    2020

  5. [13]

    ´Agnes Cseh, Tam´ as Fleiner, and Petra Harj´ an. 2019. Pareto Optimal Coalitions of Fixed Size.Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design4, 1 (11 2019), 87–108. doi:10.22574/ jmid.2019.11.003

    2019

  6. [14]

    Gergely Cs´ aji. 2025. Near-Feasible Solutions to Complex Stable Matching Problems.http: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.02503

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Angelo Fanelli, Laurent Gourv` es, Ayumi Igarashi, and Luca Moscardelli. 2025. Individually Stable Dynamics in Coalition Formation over Graphs.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence39, 13 (4 2025), 13831–13838. doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i13.33512

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Tam´ as Fleiner. 2003. A Fixed-Point Approach to Stable Matchings and Some Applications. Mathematics of Operations Research28, 1 (2003), 103–126.http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4126993

    2003

  9. [17]

    Tam´ as Fleiner. 2008. Stable matchings through fixed points and graphs.Annales Univer- sitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eotvos Nominatae, Sectio Mathematica51 (2008), 69–116

    2008

  10. [18]

    David Gale and Lloyd S. Shapley. 1962. College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly69 (1 1962), 9. Issue 1. doi:10.2307/2312726

    1962 doi

  11. [19]

    Garey and David S

    Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. 1979.Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York

    1979

  12. [20]

    Frederik Glitzner. 2026. Near-Feasible Stable Matchings: Incentives and Optimality. InPro- ceedings of AAMAS 2026. IF AAMAS, Paphos, Cyprus, 3 pages. doi:10.65109/RZEM3915

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    Frederik Glitzner and David Manlove. 2025. Perspectives on Unsolvability in the Room- mates Problem. arXiv:2505.06717 [cs.GT] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.06717

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Frederik Glitzner and David Manlove. 2026. Unsolvability and Beyond in Many-to-Many Non-bipartite Stable Matching.ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation(5 2026). doi:10.1145/3814616Just Accepted

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

    Goemans and Thomas Rothvoss

    Michel X. Goemans and Thomas Rothvoss. 2020. Polynomiality for Bin Packing with a Constant Number of Item Types.J. ACM67, 6, Article 38 (Nov. 2020), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3421750

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Dan Gusfield. 1988. The Structure of the Stable Roommate Problem: Efficient Representa- tion and Enumeration of All Stable Assignments.SIAM J. Comput.17 (7 1988), 742–769. Issue 4. doi:10.1137/0217048

    1988 doi

  17. [25]

    1989.The Stable Marriage problem: Structure and Algorithms

    Daniel Gusfield and Robert Irving. 1989.The Stable Marriage problem: Structure and Algorithms. MIT press, Cambridge, USA

    1989

  18. [26]

    Hadi Hosseini, Shivika Narang, and Sanjukta Roy. 2025. Strategyproof Matching of Room- mates and Rooms. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. AAAI, Philadelphia, USA, 13926–13934

    2025

  19. [27]

    stable roommates

    Robert W. Irving. 1985. An efficient algorithm for the “stable roommates” problem.Journal of Algorithms6 (12 1985), 577–595. Issue 4. doi:10.1016/0196-6774(85)90033-1

    1985 doi

  20. [28]

    1986.On the stable roommates problem

    Robert W Irving. 1986.On the stable roommates problem. Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow. 27

    1986

  21. [29]

    Irving and David Manlove

    Robert W. Irving and David Manlove. 2002. The Stable Roommates Problem with Ties. Journal of Algorithms43 (4 2002), 85–105. Issue 1. doi:10.1006/JAGM.2002.1219

    2002

  22. [30]

    Irving and Sandy Scott

    Robert W. Irving and Sandy Scott. 2007. The stable fixtures problem—A many-to-many extension of stable roommates.Discrete Applied Mathematics155 (10 2007), 2118–2129. Issue 16. doi:10.1016/J.DAM.2007.05.015

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Adam Kunysz. 2016. The strongly stable roommates problem.Leibniz International Pro- ceedings in Informatics, LIPIcs57. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2016.60

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    2013.Algorithmics of Matching Under Preferences

    David Manlove. 2013.Algorithmics of Matching Under Preferences. Series on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 2. World Scientific, Singapore. doi:10.1142/8591

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Sagar Massand and Sunil Simon. 2019. Graphical One-Sided Markets. InProceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’19). AAAI Press, Macao, 492–498. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/70

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J´ erˆ ome Monnot and Sophie Toulouse. 2007. The path partition problem and related prob- lems in bipartite graphs.Operations Research Letters35, 5 (2007), 677–684. doi:10.1016/ j.orl.2006.12.004

    2007

  27. [35]

    Th` anh Nguyen and Rakesh Vohra. 2018. Near-Feasible Stable Matchings with Couples. American Economic Review108, 11 (2018), 3154—-3169. doi:10.1257/aer.20141188

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Jos´ e Rodr ´ ıguez. 2024. Seat Arrangement Problems under B-utility and W-utility. arXiv:2406.09965 [cs.DS]https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09965

    2024

  29. [37]

    Eytan Ronn. 1990. NP-complete stable matching problems.Journal of Algorithms11 (6 1990), 285–304. Issue 2. doi:10.1016/0196-6774(90)90007-2

    1990 doi

  30. [38]

    2005.A Study of Stable Marriage Problems with Ties

    Sandy Scott. 2005.A Study of Stable Marriage Problems with Ties. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Glasgow

    2005

  31. [39]

    Jimmy J.M. Tan. 1991. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a complete stable matching.Journal of Algorithms12 (3 1991), 154–178. Issue 1. doi:10.1016/ 0196-6774(91)90028-W

    1991

  32. [40]

    Jimmy J.M. Tan. 1991. Stable matchings and stable partitions.International Journal of Computer Mathematics39 (1 1991), 11–20. Issue 1-2. doi:10.1080/00207169108803975

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    Ana¨ elle Wilczynski. 2023. Ordinal Hedonic Seat Arrangement under Restricted Prefer- ence Domains: Swap Stability and Popularity. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second In- ternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’23), Edith Elkind (Ed.). International Join...

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Rui Yao and Shlomo Bekhor. 2023. A general equilibrium model for multi-passenger ridesharing systems with stable matching.Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 175 (2023), 102775. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2023.05.012 28

    2023 doi

  35. [364]

    doi:10.1007/s001820200124

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.