Abstract:We present our experimental results of simulating the school choice problem which deals with the assignment of students to schools based on each group's complete preference list for the other group using two algorithms: Boston mechanism and student-proposing Gale-Shapley algorithm. We compare the effects of sophisticated students altering their preference lists with regards to these two algorithms. Our simulation results show that sophisticated students can benefit more in Boston mechanism compared to Gale-Shapley algorithm based on multiple evaluation metrics.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how different matching algorithms (the Boston mechanism and the student - proposed Gale - Shapley algorithm) are affected by "sophisticated" students (i.e., those who will adjust their preference lists according to strategies) in the school choice problem. Specifically, the research objective is to compare the performance differences between these two algorithms in the face of sophisticated students through simulation experiments, especially whether sophisticated students can obtain more benefits by changing their preference lists.
### Background of the Paper and Problem Description
The **school choice problem** refers to finding an optimal matching scheme based on the preference lists of both parties in a set of a certain number of students and schools. Each student and school has its own preference list, which contains rankings of the other party. The goal of the problem is to find a matching scheme in which each student can be assigned to a school and the number of students received by each school does not exceed its capacity limit, considering these preference lists.
### Research Methods
The paper simulated the school choice problem through experiments and used two main matching algorithms:
1. **Boston mechanism**: This mechanism tries to assign as many students as possible to their most preferred schools. In each round, all unassigned students will be assigned to the next school in their current preference list. If the school still has vacancies, the student is admitted; otherwise, the student will continue to participate in the next round of matching.
2. **Student - proposed Gale - Shapley algorithm**: This algorithm is known for stable matching. Students choose schools in order of preference, and schools decide whether to accept students according to their own preference lists. If the school is full, it will replace students with lower priority according to the preference list.
### Experimental Design
- **Preference list generation**: Generate students' preference lists based on four characteristics: distance, whether there are siblings in the same school, school level, and random factors. The preference lists of schools are mainly based on distance.
- **Preference list adjustment**: Randomly select a certain proportion of "sophisticated" students from the student group, and these students will adjust their preference lists according to three strategies.
- **Strategy A**: If a school is the first choice of most students and it is also one's own first choice, then exchange the order of the first - choice and second - choice schools.
- **Strategy B**: If a school is the first choice of most students and it is also one's own first choice, then move this school to the end of the preference list.
- **Strategy C**: Find a school that most students consider unpopular. If this school is in a relatively high position in one's own preference list, then move it to the first place.
### Evaluation Indicators
- **EM - Top3**: The percentage of sophisticated students who can be assigned to the top three schools in their real preference lists after adjusting their preferences.
- **EM - Higher**: The percentage of sophisticated students who can be assigned to a school with a higher ranking in their real preference lists after adjusting their preferences.
- **EM - Selected**: The percentage of sophisticated students who can be assigned to a specific unpopular school after adjusting their preferences.
### Experimental Results
- The results of **Strategy A** and **Strategy B** show that the Boston mechanism is more favorable to sophisticated students, especially when there are fewer sophisticated students. As the number of sophisticated students increases, the proportion of benefited students gradually decreases, but when the number of sophisticated students exceeds a certain threshold, the proportion of benefited students rises again.
- The results of **Strategy C** indicate that although the gap between the Boston mechanism and the Gale - Shapley algorithm rapidly narrows as the number of sophisticated students increases, overall, the Boston mechanism is still more favorable to sophisticated students.
### Conclusions and Future Directions
Overall, the Boston mechanism is more favorable to sophisticated students, which indicates that the Gale - Shapley algorithm is more robust in preventing students from manipulating the matching mechanism. Future research can further explore the impact of sophisticated students' preference adjustments on honest students and study the performance of other types of matching algorithms in practical application scenarios.