FIND DATA: By Author | Journal | Sites   ANALYZE DATA: Help with R | SPSS | Stata | Excel   WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | Int'l Relations | Law & Courts
   FIND DATA: By Author | Journal | Sites   WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | IR | Law & Courts
If this link is broken, please report as broken. You can also submit updates (will be reviewed).
How to Balance Preferences and Predicted Outcomes in Refugee and School Assignments
Insights from the Field
matching
refugees
school choice
machine learning
strategy-proofness
Methodology
Pol. An.
42 R files
27 other files
6 text files
10 PDF files
2 datasets
Dataverse
Combining Outcome-Based and Preference-Based Matching: A Constrained Priority Mechanism was authored by Avidit Acharya, Kirk Bansak and Jens Hainmueller. It was published by Cambridge in Pol. An. in 2022.

🔧 A New Constrained Priority Mechanism

A constrained priority mechanism is introduced that blends outcome-based matching (from machine learning predictions) with traditional preference-based allocation. The design lets a planner enforce a minimum average outcome while still assigning agents according to their ranked preferences.

🧾 Real-world Applications and Data

  • Illustrations use real-world data on two assignment problems: refugee families to host-country locations and kindergarteners to schools.
  • In these applications, the outcome score is interpreted as:
  • the predicted probability of employment for refugee families, and
  • standardized test scores for students.

📈 How the Mechanism Operates

  • The planner specifies a minimum acceptable average outcome threshold ḡ (denoted \bar g).
  • The mechanism is a priority-based assignment rule that considers agents in priority order and assigns them according to their preferences, but only so long as the final matching meets the planner’s specified threshold ḡ.
  • Outcome predictions come from machine-learning models and are incorporated into the feasibility constraint for the assignment.

📌 Key Theoretical Properties

  • Strategy-proof: no agent can benefit by misrepresenting preferences under the mechanism.
  • Constrained efficient: the mechanism always produces a matching that is not Pareto dominated by any other matching that also satisfies the planner’s threshold ḡ.

⚖️ Why This Matters

This approach provides a practical way for planners to enforce minimum welfare or performance standards—expressed through predictive outcome scores—while preserving agents’ preference-based assignments and important incentive and efficiency guarantees. The mechanism therefore offers a transparent tool for policy settings where predicted outcomes and individual preferences both matter.

data
Find on Google Scholar
Find on JSTOR
Find on CUP
Political Analysis
Podcast host Ryan