text: The stable marriage problem is a well-known problem of matching men to women so that no man and woman who are not married to each other both prefer each other. Such a problem has a wide variety of practical applications ranging from matching resident doctors to hospitals to matching students to schools. A well-known algorithm to solve this problem is the Gale-Shapley algorithm, which runs in polynomial time. It has been proven that stable marriage procedures can always be manipulated. Whilst the Gale-Shapley algorithm is computationally easy to manipulate, we prove that there exist stable marriage procedures which are NP-hard to manipulate. We also consider the relationship between voting theory and stable marriage procedures, showing that voting rules which are NP-hard to manipulate can be used to define stable marriage procedures which are themselves NP-hard to manipulate. Finally, we consider the issue that stable marriage procedures like Gale-Shapley favour one gender over the other, and we show how to use voting rules to make any stable marriage procedure gender neutral.
  @cite_4: Using a lemma of J.S. Hwang we obtain a generalization of a theorem of Dubins and Freedman. It is shown that the core of the matching game is non-manipulable in a suitable sense by coalitions consisting of both men and women. A further strong stability property of the core is derived.
  @cite_7: We analyze the Gale-Shapley matching problem within the context of Rawlsian justice. Defining a fair matching algorithm by a set of 4 axioms (Gender Indifference, Peer Indifference, Maximin Optimality, and Stability), we show that not all preference profiles admit a fair matching algorithm, the reason being that even this set of minimal axioms is too strong in a sense. Because of conflict between Stability and Maximin Optimality, even the algorithm which generates the mutual agreement match, paradoxically, has no chance to be fair.
  @cite_3: 
  @cite_6: This paper addresses strategies for the stable marriage problem. For the Gale-Shapley algorithm with men proposing, a classical theorem states that it is impossible for every cheating man to get a better partner than the one he gets if everyone is truthful. We study how to circumvent this theorem and incite men to cheat. First we devise coalitions in which a nonempty subset of the liars get better partners and no man is worse off than before. This strategy is limited in that not everyone in the coalition has the incentive to falsify his list. In an attempt to rectify this situation we introduce the element of randomness, but the theorem shows surprising robustness: it is impossible that every liar has a chance to improve the rank of his partner while no one gets hurt. To overcome the problem that some men lack the motivation to lie, we exhibit another randomized lying strategy in which every liar can expect to get a better partner on average, though with a chance of getting a worse one. Finally, we consider a variant scenario: instead of using the Gale-Shapley algorithm, suppose the stable matching is chosen at random. We present a modified form of the coalition strategy ensuring that every man in the coalition has a new probability distribution over partners which majorizes the original one.
  @cite_2: This paper considers the incentives confronting agents who face the prospect of being matched by some sort of random stable mechanism, such as that discussed in Roth and Vande Vate (1990). A one period game is studied in which all stable matchings can be achieved as equilibria; in a natural class of undominated strategies, and in which certain unstable matchings can also arise in this way. A multi-period extension of this game is then considered in which subgame perfect equilibria must result in stable matches. These results suggest avenues to explore markets in which matching is organized in a decentralized way.
  @cite_16: 
  @cite_20: SummaryGale and Shapley have an algorithm for assigning students to universities which gives each student the best university available in a stable system of assignments. The object here is to prove that students cannot improve their fate by lying about their preferences. Indeed, no coalition of students can simultaneously improve the lot of all its members if those outside the coalition state their true preferences.
  @cite_11: This paper considers some game-theoretic aspects of matching problems and procedures, of the sort which involve matching the members of one group of agents with one or more members of a second, disjoint group of agents, ail of whom have preferences over the possible resulting matches. The main focus of this paper is on determining the extent to which matching procedures can be designed which give agents the incentive to honestly reveal their preferences, and which produce stable matches.Two principal results are demonstrated. The first is that no matching procedure exists which always yields a stable outcome and gives players the incentive to reveal their true preferences, even though procedures exist which accomplish either of these goals separately. The second result is that matching procedures do exist, however, which always yield a stable outcome and which always give all the agents in one of the two disjoint sets of agents the incentive to reveal their true preferences.
summary: In @cite_7 fairness of a matching procedure is defined in terms of four axioms, two of which are gender neutrality and peer indifference. Then, the existence of a matching procedures satisfying all or a subset of the axioms is considered in terms of restrictions on preference orderings. Here, instead, we propose a preprocessing step that allows to obtain a gender neutral matching procedure from any matching procedure without imposing any restrictions on the preferences in the input. A detailed description of results about manipulation of stable marriage procedures can be found in @cite_6 . In particular, several early results @cite_4 @cite_20 @cite_3 @cite_11 indicated the futility of men lying, focusing later work mostly on strategies in which the women lie. Gale and Sotomayor @cite_16 presented the manipulation strategy in which women truncate their preference lists. Roth and Vate @cite_2 discussed strategic issues when the stable matching is chosen at random, proposed a truncation strategy and showed that every stable matching can be achieved as an equilibrium in truncation strategies. We instead do not allow the elimination of men from a woman's preference ordering, but permit reordering of the preference lists.