Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,203 studies31 sourcesUpdated 5 min ago
PreprintarXiv licencearXiv

A Reachable-State Operator Formulation of Deferred Acceptance: Progress Invariants and Structural Diagnostics

Abstract

We give a reachable-state operator formulation of one-to-one deferred acceptance with strict, possibly incomplete preference lists. A local update operator is defined for each active proposer, while a scheduler selects which local update is applied. On the states reachable from the canonical empty initial state, three invariants are immediate: the set of proposed edges grows strictly, every proposer visits each acceptable receiver at most once, and every receiver holds its most-preferred proposal received so far. These invariants yield termination after at most |E| proposals and stability of every terminal reachable state. The classical rejection lemma then gives proposer optimality and schedule independence. We separate these trajectory statements from two logically different results: the distributive-lattice structure of the full stable-matching set and one-sided strategy-proofness. A diagnostic table records which proof obligation is lost when a model changes the bipartition, ordinal comparisons, proposal irreversibility, or receiver choice rule. The paper makes no new complexity claim; its purpose is a precise operator-level account of the classical proof architecture and of the limits of that architecture.

Related

  1. Structural Realizations and Invariants of Universal Obstruction Cohomology: Goodwillie Towers, Chromatic Filtrations, and Quantum Contextuality
    Shih-Yu Chang
    HALPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral mathematicsHAL
  2. Exact Avoid-or-Compress Extrema for Dense Reachable Images: Defects Four and Five
    Qichao Wang, Daoyu Dong
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textCombinatorics & discrete mathematicsarXiv
  3. Counting Reachable Positions in a Simplified Model of Connect Four
    Alistair Folster
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral mathematicsarXiv
  4. Reachable sets under Kolmogorov dynamics in the probability simplex
    Alfonso Fernández de Bobadilla, Mykhailo Hontarenko, Guillem Müller-Rigat +1
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textMathematical physicsarXiv
  5. Computing Invariant Reachable Sets through Sum-of-Squares Programming
    Mohamed Khalid M Jaffar
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textOptimisation & controlarXiv
BibTeX
@misc{ishida2026reachablestate,
  title = {{A Reachable-State Operator Formulation of Deferred Acceptance: Progress Invariants and Structural Diagnostics}},
  author = {Yoshiteru Ishida},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.19237},
  eprint = {2609.19237},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19237},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - A Reachable-State Operator Formulation of Deferred Acceptance: Progress Invariants and Structural Diagnostics
AU  - Yoshiteru Ishida
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/01
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.19237
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19237
AB  - We give a reachable-state operator formulation of one-to-one deferred acceptance with strict, possibly incomplete preference lists. A local update operator is defined for each active proposer, while a scheduler selects which local update is applied. On the states reachable from the canonical empty initial state, three invariants are immediate: the set of proposed edges grows strictly, every proposer visits each acceptable receiver at most once, and every receiver holds its most-preferred proposal received so far. These invariants yield termination after at most |E| proposals and stability of every terminal reachable state. The classical rejection lemma then gives proposer optimality and schedule independence. We separate these trajectory statements from two logically different results: the distributive-lattice structure of the full stable-matching set and one-sided strategy-proofness. A diagnostic table records which proof obligation is lost when a model changes the bipartition, ordinal comparisons, proposal irreversibility, or receiver choice rule. The paper makes no new complexity claim; its purpose is a precise operator-level account of the classical proof architecture and of the limits of that architecture.
ER  -