Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Wisdom and Foolishness of Noisy Matching Markets

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 2402.16771 v1 pith:PQLXKT5M submitted 2024-02-26 econ.TH cs.GTmath.PR

classification econ.THcs.GTmath.PR
keywords studentscollegesstudentlargemarketsmatchedmatchingmathcal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

We consider a many-to-one matching market where colleges share true preferences over students but make decisions using only independent noisy rankings. Each student has a true value $v$, but each college $c$ ranks the student according to an independently drawn estimated value $v + X_c$ for $X_c\sim \mathcal{D}.$ We ask a basic question about the resulting stable matching: How noisy is the set of matched students? Two striking effects can occur in large markets (i.e., with a continuum of students and a large number of colleges). When $\mathcal{D}$ is light-tailed, noise is fully attenuated: only the highest-value students are matched. When $\mathcal{D}$ is long-tailed, noise is fully amplified: students are matched uniformly at random. These results hold for any distribution of student preferences over colleges, and extend to when only subsets of colleges agree on true student valuations instead of the entire market. More broadly, our framework provides a tractable approach to analyze implications of imperfect preference formation in large markets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Impact of Rankings and Personalized Recommendations in Marketplaces

    econ.TH 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a stylized marketplace model, public rankings provide zero welfare gains under capacity constraints, while personalized recommendations yield welfare gains that grow with preference heterogeneity and heavy-tailed i...

Pith tools