  We study various novel complexity measures for two-sided matching mechanisms,
applied to the two canonical strategyproof matching mechanisms, Deferred
Acceptance (DA) and Top Trading Cycles (TTC). Our metrics are designed to
capture the complexity of various structural (rather than computational)
concerns, in particular ones of recent interest from economics. We consider a
canonical, flexible approach to formalizing our questions: define a protocol or
data structure performing some task, and bound the number of bits that it
requires. Our results apply this approach to four questions of general
interest; for matching applicants to institutions, we ask:
  (1) How can one applicant affect the outcome matching?
  (2) How can one applicant affect another applicant's set of options?
  (3) How can the outcome matching be represented / communicated?
  (4) How can the outcome matching be verified?
  We prove that DA and TTC are comparable in complexity under questions (1) and
(4), giving new tight lower-bound constructions and new verification protocols.
Under questions (2) and (3), we prove that TTC is more complex than DA. For
question (2), we prove this by giving a new characterization of which
institutions are removed from each applicant's set of options when a new
applicant is added in DA; this characterization may be of independent interest.
For question (3), our result gives lower bounds proving the tightness of
existing constructions for TTC. This shows that the relationship between the
matching and the priorities is more complex in TTC than in DA, formalizing
previous intuitions from the economics literature. Together, our results
complement recent work that models the complexity of observing
strategyproofness and shows that DA is more complex than TTC. This emphasizes
that diverse considerations must factor into gauging the complexity of matching
mechanisms.
