The design of fair and efficient algorithms for allocating public resources, such as school admissions, housing, or medical residency, has a profound social impact. In one-sided matching problems, where individuals are assigned to items based on ranked preferences, a fundamental trade-off exists between efficiency and strategyproofness. Existing algorithms like Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD), Probabilistic Serial (PS), and Rank Minimization (RM) capture only one side of this trade-off: RSD is strategyproof but inefficient, while PS and RM are efficient but incentivize manipulation. We propose EMERGENT, a novel application of Generative Flow Networks (GFlowNets) to one-sided matching, leveraging its ability to sample diverse, high-reward solutions. In our approach, efficient and manipulation-resistant matches emerge naturally: high-reward solutions yield efficient matches, while the stochasticity of GFlowNets-based outputs reduces incentives for manipulation. Experiments show that EMERGENT outperforms RSD in rank efficiency while significantly reducing strategic vulnerability compared to matches produced by RM and PS. Our work highlights the potential of GFlowNets for applications involving social choice mechanisms, where it is crucial to balance efficiency and manipulability.

The Probabilistic Serial mechanism is well-known for its desirable fairness and efficiency properties. It is one of the most prominent protocols for the random assignment problem. However, Probabilistic Serial is not incentive-compatible, thereby these desirable properties only hold for the agents' declared preferences, rather than their genuine preferences. A substantial utility gain through strategic behaviors would trigger self-interested agents to manipulate the mechanism and would subvert the very foundation of adopting the mechanism in practice. In this paper, we characterize the extent to which an individual agent can increase its utility by strategic manipulation. We show that the incentive ratio of the mechanism is $\frac{3}{2}$. That is, no agent can misreport its preferences such that its utility becomes more than 1.5 times of what it is when reports truthfully. This ratio is a worst-case guarantee by allowing an agent to have complete information about other agents' reports and to figure out the best response strategy even if it is computationally intractable in general. To complement this worst-case study, we further evaluate an agent's utility gain on average by experiments. The experiments show that an agent' incentive in manipulating the rule is very limited. These results shed some light on the robustness of Probabilistic Serial against strategic manipulation, which is one step further than knowing that it is not incentive-compatible.

In a Fisher market game, a market equilibrium is computed in terms of the utility functions and money endowments that agents reported. As a consequence, an individual buyer may misreport his private information to obtain a utility gain. We investigate the extent to which an agent's utility can be increased by unilateral strategic plays and prove that the percentage of this improvement is at most 2 for markets with weak gross substitute utilities. Equivalently, we show that truthfully reporting is a 0.5-approximate Nash equilibrium in this game. To identify sufficient conditions for truthfully reporting being close to Nash equilibrium, we conduct a parameterized study on strategic behaviors and further show that the ratio of utility gain decreases linearly as buyer's initial endowment increases or his maximum share of an item decreases. Finally, we consider collusive behavior of a coalition and prove that the utility gain is bounded by 1/(1 - maximum share of the collusion). Our findings justify the truthful reporting assumption in Fisher markets by a quantitative study on participants incentive, and imply that under large market assumption, the utility gain of a buyer from manipulations diminishes to 0.