On the difficulty of characterizing top trading cycles with identical houses

We study Shapley-Scarf housing markets (Shapley and Scarf, 1974) in which houses come in types and agents are indifferent between houses of the same type but rank the types strictly. On this domain of objective indifferences, top trading cycles (TTC) rules with fixed tie-breaking regain Pareto efficiency and group strategy-proofness (Sandholtz and Tai, 2026), properties that need not hold under general weak preferences. We ask whether the characterization of the TTC rule for strict preferences by Ma (1994) and the characterization of TTC rules with fixed tie-breaking for weak preferences by Ehlers (2014) extend to this domain. They do not. With five agents and two types of houses, we construct a rule that satisfies individual rationality, Pareto efficiency, group strategy-proofness, non-bossiness, and consistency, but whose restriction to the five-agent population is not welfare equivalent to any TTC rule with fixed tie-breaking. With two types, five agents are minimal for this fixed-population result. The same rule shows that several other characterizations of TTC for strict preferences do not extend either.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.03251
Primary Topic
Game Theory and Voting Systems
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

On the difficulty of characterizing top trading cycles with identical houses

Bettina Klaus
arXiv (Cornell University)
Game Theory and Voting Systems
preprint

On the difficulty of characterizing top trading cycles with identical houses

Bettina Klaus
preprint en

Abstract

We study Shapley-Scarf housing markets (Shapley and Scarf, 1974) in which houses come in types and agents are indifferent between houses of the same type but rank the types strictly. On this domain of objective indifferences, top trading cycles (TTC) rules with fixed tie-breaking regain Pareto efficiency and group strategy-proofness (Sandholtz and Tai, 2026), properties that need not hold under general weak preferences. We ask whether the characterization of the TTC rule for strict preferences by Ma (1994) and the characterization of TTC rules with fixed tie-breaking for weak preferences by Ehlers (2014) extend to this domain. They do not. With five agents and two types of houses, we construct a rule that satisfies individual rationality, Pareto efficiency, group strategy-proofness, non-bossiness, and consistency, but whose restriction to the five-agent population is not welfare equivalent to any TTC rule with fixed tie-breaking. With two types, five agents are minimal for this fixed-population result. The same rule shows that several other characterizations of TTC for strict preferences do not extend either.

arXiv (Cornell University)
Game Theory and Voting Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon