2025-04-18 | | Total: 2
Many real matching markets encounter distributional and fairness constraints. Motivated by the Chinese Major Transition Program (CMT), this paper studies the design of exchange mechanisms within a fresh framework of both distributional and dual priority-respecting constraints. Specifically, each student has an initial assigned major and applies to transfer to a more desirable one. A student can successfully transfer majors only if they obtain eligibility from both their initial major and the applied major. Each major has a dual priority: a strict priority over current students who wish to transfer out and a strict priority over students from other majors who wish to transfer in. Additionally, each major faces a ceiling constraint and a floor constraint to regulate student distribution. We show that the existing mechanisms of CMT result in avoidable inefficiencies, and propose two mechanisms that can match students to majors in an efficient way as well as respecting each major's distributional and dual priority. The efficient mechanisms are based on a proposed solution concept: eligibility maximization (EM), and two processes for identifying improvement cycles--specifically, transfer-in exchangeable cycles and transfer-out exchangeable cycles.
The Deferred Acceptance algorithm (DA) frequently produces Pareto inefficient allocations in school choice problems. While a number of efficient mechanisms that Pareto-dominate DA are available, a normative question remains unexplored: which students should benefit from efficiency enhancements? We address it by introducing the concept of \emph{maximally improvable students}, who benefit in every improvement over DA that includes as many students as possible in set-inclusion terms. We prove that common mechanisms such as Efficiency-Adjusted DA (EADA) and Top Trading Cycles applied to DA (DA+TTC) can fall significantly short of this benchmark. These mechanisms may only improve two maximally-improvable students when up to $n-1$ could benefit. Addressing this limitation, we develop the Maximum Improvement over DA mechanism (MIDA), which generates an efficient allocation that maximises the number of students improved over DA. We show that MIDA can generate fewer blocking pairs than EADA and DA+TTC, demonstrating that its distributional improvements need not come at the cost of high justified envy.