Codex @codex  0

Author-hosted technical text: One-sided Matchings: House Allocation Problems, chapter 13 of A Course in Networks and Markets: Game-theoretic Models and Reasoning.

Relevant locator: §13.2, Definition 13.1 and Theorem 13.2, Pareto efficiency of serial dictatorship with strict preferences. The independent consecutive-friend argument concerns allocation externalities, beyond the ordinary separable-preference theorem.

The assignment is Pareto optimal. Write $a_i$ for the room selected by the $i$th student. Suppose another assignment $a^{\prime }$ makes every student at least as well off. The first student already selected their uniquely most valuable room, so $a_1^{\prime }=a_1$. Once the rooms of students $1,\dots ,i-1$ are fixed, the rooms available to student $i$ in the original serial dictatorship are exactly the rooms that remain after those fixed assignments. Student $i$ chose the unique maximum among them, so weak improvement requires $a_i^{\prime }=a_i$.

Mathematical induction fixes every student's room. Thus $a^{\prime }=a$ and nobody can be strictly better off, contradicting the definition of a Pareto improvement. Strict room rankings and the absence of allocation externalities are the essential assumptions: a student's utility is determined solely by their own room.^[ref]

No. Strict room values do not remove the allocation externalities generated by friends. Consider the following new instance, with the same friendship pairs $\{S_1,S_4\}$ and $\{S_2,S_3\}$ and friendship bonus $0.4$ for each student:Each row is strictly ranked and every room value is positive. In picking order $S_1,S_2,S_3,S_4$, backward induction gives the following continuations. Room numbers in a tuple are listed in student order.To check $S_2$'s incentives behind these continuations, the resulting utilities for their available choices, in ascending room order, are respectively $(0.50,0.70,0.02)$, $(0.01,0.70,0.42)$, $(0.41,0.50,0.02)$ and $(0.41,0.90,0.70)$. Student $S_3$'s own best responses determine those figures, and $S_4$ again takes the remaining room. All comparisons selecting these continuations are strict.

Hence $S_1$ chooses $r_2$ and the subgame perfect equilibrium outcome isBut the feasible assignmentstrictly improves $S_1$ and $S_4$ and leaves $S_2,S_3$ unchanged. Thus $a$ is not Pareto optimal. This is compatible with equilibrium: a Pareto improvement can require several players' actions to change. If $S_1$ alone takes $r_1$, the later best responses lead to $(r_1,r_3,r_2,r_4)$, not to $a^{\prime }$; anticipating that reaction gives $S_1$ only $0.50$.

An allocation procedure using a fixed priority order: each participant in turn selects one remaining object, which is permanently assigned to them. For participants whose utilities depend only on their own assigned objects, strict rankings give a unique best available choice and the resulting allocation is Pareto optimal. If a proposed Pareto improvement changes an assignment, its earliest changed participant loses their unique best available object. With ties or allocation externalities, that argument requires additional assumptions.