We consider an allocation problem of multiple types of objects to agents, where each type of object has multiple copies (e.g., multiple seats in a school), each agent is endowed with an object, and some distributional constraints are imposed on the allocation (e.g., minimum/maximum quotas). We develop two mechanisms that are strategyproof, feasible (they always satisfy distributional constraints), and individually rational, assuming the distributional constraints are represented by an M-convex set. One mechanism, based on Top Trading Cycles, is Pareto efficient; the other, which belongs to the mechanism class specified by Kojima et al. [1], satisfies a relaxed fairness requirement. The class of distributional constraints we consider contains many situations raised from realistic matching problems, including individual minimum/maximum quotas, regional maximum quotas, type-specific quotas, and distance constraints. Finally, we experimentally evaluate the performance of these mechanisms by a computer simulation.

We extend the well-known model of graph-restricted games due to Myerson to signed graphs. In our model, it is possible to explicitly define not only that some players are friends (as in Myerson's model) but also that some other players are enemies. As such our games can express a wider range of situations, e.g., animosities between political parties. We define the value for signed graph games using the axiomatic approach that closely follows the celebrated characterization of the Myerson value. Furthermore, we propose an algorithm for computing an arbitrary semivalue, including the extension of the Myerson value proposed by us. We also develop a pseudo-polynomial algorithm for power indices in weighted voting games for signed graphs with bounded treewidth. Moreover, we consider signed graph games with a priori defined alliances (unions) between players and propose algorithms to compute the extension of the Owen value to this setting.

We investigate markets with a set of students on one side and a set of colleges on the other. A student and college can be linked by a weighted contract that defines the student's wage, while a college's budget for hiring students is limited. Stability is a crucial requirement for matching mechanisms to be applied in the real world. A standard stability requirement is coalitional stability, i.e., no pair of a college and group of students has any incentive to deviate. We find that a coalitionally stable matching is not guaranteed to exist, verifying the coalitional stability for a given matching is coNP-complete, and the problem of finding whether a coalitionally stable matching exists in a given market, is SigmaP2-complete: NPNP-complete. Other negative results also hold when blocking coalitions contain at most two students and one college. Given these computational hardness results, we pursue a weaker stability requirement called pairwise stability, where no pair of a college and single student has an incentive to deviate. Unfortunately, a pairwise stable matching is not guaranteed to exist either. Thus, we consider a restricted market called a typed weighted market, in which students are partitioned into types that induce their possible wages. We then design a strategy-proof and Pareto efficient mechanism that works in polynomial-time for computing a pairwise stable matching in typed weighted markets.

We consider a school choice program where minimum quotas are imposed for each school, i.e., a school must be assigned at least a certain number of students to operate. We require that the obtained matching must respect the initial endowments, i.e., each student must be assigned to a school that is at least as good as her initial endowment school. Although minimum quotas are relevant in school choice programs and strategy-proofness is important to many policymakers, few existing mechanisms simultaneously achieve both. One difficulty is that no strategy-proof mechanism exists that is both efficient and fair under the presence of minimum quotas. Furthermore, existing mechanisms require that all students consider all schools acceptable to obtain a feasible matching that respects minimum quotas. This assumption is unrealistic in a school choice program. We consider the environment where a student considers her initial endowment school acceptable and the initial endowments satisfy all the minimum quotas. We develop two strategy-proof mechanisms. One mechanism, which we call the Top Trading Cycles among Representatives with Supplementary Seats (TTCR-SS), is based on the Top Trading Cycles (TTC) mechanism and is significantly extended to handle the supplementary seats of schools while respecting minimum quotas. TTCR-SS is Pareto efficient. The other mechanism, which we call Priority List-based Deferred Acceptance with Minimum Quotas (PLDA-MQ), is based on the Deferred Acceptance (DA) mechanism. PLDA-MQ is fair, satisfies a concept called Priority List-based (PL-) stability, and obtains the student-optimal matching within all PL-stable matchings. Our simulation results show that our new mechanisms are significantly better than simple extensions of the existing mechanisms.