2. Monte Carlo Inference: Overview
2.1. Monte Carlo Inference
2.2. Subvector Inference
3. A Two-Sided Random Matching Model
3.1. A College Admissions Model
- (i) A matching is stable with respect to , if the following two conditions are satisfied.
- (a) There is no such that and no such that for some .
- (b) There is no pair such that both and for some .
- (ii) A matching mechanism is stable if is stable with respect to each
3.2. Random Preferences
3.2.1. Students’ Heterogeneous Preferences
3.2.2. Colleges’ Homogeneous Preferences
3.3. The Joint Distribution of a Large Observed Matching
4. Monte Carlo Inference
4.1. Test Statistics, Critical Values and Confidence Sets
4.2. Constructing Test Statistics
5. Monte Carlo Simulation Studies
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Serial Dictatorship Algorithm
- x_s, x_c: vector of student characteristics and vector of college characteristics.
- theta_s, theta_c: scalar student and college preference parameters.
- N_s, N_c: number of students and colleges.
- student_score: vector of college preferences over students, based on theta_s, x_s and standard normal random variables.
- coll_rank: The indices associated with the preferred students of colleges. For example, coll_rank(1) is the index of the most preferred student according to colleges.
- val_ji: matrix whose element is associated with the value that student i places on college j based on theta_c, x_c and standard normal random variables.
- pos_vec: vector whose ith element says the college associated with the ith college position. For example, if pos_vec, it means that there are three colleges, where college 1 and 2 each have two positions and college 3 has 1.
- val_ji_pos is an matrix whose element is the value that student i has for position
- val_fv: matrix whose value is the value that the student ranked r highest according to coll_rank has for college position j.
- matching: vector, where matching(i) means student is matched with college position .
- Agarwal, Nikhil, and Paulo Somaini. 2018. Demand analysis using strategic reports: An application to a school choice mechanism. Econometrica 86: 391–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, Nikhil. 2015. An empirical model of the medical match. American Economic Review 105: 1939–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barndorff-Nielsen, Ole. 1983. On a formula for the distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator. Biometrika 70: 343–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besag, Julian, and Peter Clifford. 1989. Generalized monte carlo significance tests. Biometrika 76: 633–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, Donald, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 2013. Analyzing the determinants of the matching of public school teachers to jobs: Disentangling the preferences of teachers and employers. Journal of Labor Economics 31: 83–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bugni, Federico A., Ivan A. Canay, and Xiaoxia Shi. 2017. Inference for subvectors and other functions of partially identified parameters in moment inequality models. Quantitative Economics 8: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Canen, Nathan, Jacob Schwartz, and Kyungchul Song. 2018. Estimating local interactions among many agents who observe their neighbors. arXiv, arXiv:1704.02999v3. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Jiawei, and Kejun Song. 2013. Two-sided matching in the loan market. International Journal of Industrial Organization 31: 145–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiappori, Pierre-André, Sonia Oreffice, and Climent Quintana-Domeque. 2012. Anthropometric and socioeconomic matching on the marriage-market. Journal of Political Economy 120: 659–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choo, Eugene, and Aloysius Siow. 2006. Who marries whom and why. Journal of Political Economy 114: 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamond, William, and Nikhil Agarwal. 2017. Latent indices in assortative matching models. Quantitative Economics 8: 685–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dufour, Jean-Marie, and Lynda Khalaf. 2003. Monte carlo test methods in econometrics. In A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 494–519. [Google Scholar]
- Dufour, Jean-Marie. 2006. Monte carlo tests with nuisance parameters: A general approach to finite-sample inference and nonstandard asymptotics. Journal of Econometrics 133: 443–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwass, Meyer. 1957. Modified randomization tests for nonparametric hypotheses. American Mathematical Statistics 57: 181–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, Jeremy T., and Patrick Bajari. 2013. Measuring the efficiency of an fcc spectrum auction. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 5: 100–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, Jeremy T. 2010. Estimating Matching Games with Transfers. Quantitative Economics 9: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galichon, Alfred, and B. Salanié. 2012. Cupid’s Invisible Hand: Social Surplus and Identification in Matching Models. Working paper. Available online: https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01053710/ (accessed on 26 March 2019).
- Graham, Bryan S., Guido W. Imbens, and Geert Ridder. 2014. Complementarity and aggregate implications of assortative matching: A nonparametric analysis. Quantitative Economics 5: 29–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hitsch, Günter J., Ali Hortacsu, and Dan Ariely. 2010. Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review 100: 130–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hope, Adery C. A. 1968. A simplified monte carlo significance test procedure. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1968: 582–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menzel, K. 2015. Large matching markets as two-sided demand systems. Econometrica 83: 897–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Minjung. 2013. Understanding merger incentives and outcomes in the us mutual fund industry. Journal of Banking and Finance 37: 4368–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romano, Joseph P., and Azeem M. Shaikh. 2008. Inference for identifiable parameters in partially identified econometric models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 138: 2786–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, Alvin E., and Marilda A. OliveiraSotomayor. 1990. Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis. Econometric Society Monograph Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Satterthwaite, Mark A., and Hugo Sonnenschein. 1981. Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms at differentiable points. Review of Economic Studies 48: 587–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, Jacob. 2018. Schooling Choice, Labour Market Matching, and Wages. arXiv, arXiv:1803.09020. [Google Scholar]
- Sørensen, Morten. 2007. How smart is smart money? A two-sided matching model of venture capital. Journal of Finance 62: 2725–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
This assumption of homogeneity in preferences of one side is certainly restrictive, and yet this asymmetry of preference heterogeneity between the two sides reflects various many-to-one matching markets in practice. For example, colleges mostly agree on who the best students are whereas many students face tradeoff between the distance from their homes to a college and the college’s quality. This assumption of homogeneous preference on one side is not unprecedented in the literature either. See for example Agarwal (2015) who used this assumption in the analysis of medical residents’ matching market.
Schwartz (2018) used the Monte Carlo subvector inference approach following this paper’s proposal. However, his setting permits using standard inference on part of the parameter vector as a first step, applying Monte Carlo inference for the remaining parameters. This two-step approach no longer ensures finite sample validity. Nevertheless, it sharpens the inference results and reduces the computational costs.
By the definition of a matching mechanism as a map on , it is anonymous in the sense that the matching mechanism remains invariant to the relabeling of the agents’ indices.
A proper development will require defining preferences over sets of students by colleges, and defining stability of a matching in terms of these preferences. When the preferences are so-called responsive, the group stability is equivalent to pairwise stability. As we make use of pairwise stability for econometric inference, we refer the reader to Chapter 5 of Roth and Sotomayor (1990) for further details.
Adding an additive term whose covariate depends only on instead of the interaction term is superfluous for “identification”, because variations in do not change the ranking of the colleges by the student i.
Our choice of notation for matching as is to emphasize that matching is an endogenous outcome.
Using the notation instead of i is meant as a reminder that the quantity depends on the “history” , rather the current agent index i.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).