We study matching markets with ties, where workers on one side of the market may have tied preferences over jobs, determined by their matching utilities. Unlike classical two-sided markets with strict preferences, no single stable matching exists that is utility-maximizing for all workers. To address this challenge, we introduce the Optimal Stable Share (OSS)-ratio, which measures the ratio of a worker's maximum achievable utility in any stable matching to their utility in a given matching. We prove that distributions over only stable matchings can incur linear utility losses, i.e., an Ω(N) OSS-ratio, where N is the number of workers. To overcome this, we design an algorithm that efficiently computes a distribution over (possibly non-stable) matchings, achieving an asymptotically tight O(logN) OSS-ratio. When exact utilities are unknown, our second algorithm guarantees workers a logarithmic approximation of their optimal utility under bounded instability. Finally, we extend our offline approximation results to a bandit learning setting where utilities are only observed for matched pairs. In this setting, we consider worker-optimal stable regret, design an adaptive algorithm that smoothly interpolates between markets with strict preferences and those with statistical ties, and establish a lower bound revealing the fundamental trade-off between strict and tied preference regimes.

We study a multi-agent multi-armed bandit problem in the competitive setup with two-sided matching markets under a human centric decision making model. To capture human preferences, we use cumulative prospect theory (CPT) that weighs the actions of the agent in a nonlinear fashion using a ($α$-Hölder continuous) weight function. CPT has been widely used in behavioral economics and risk sensitive machine learning to emulate human preferences. We analyze the state-of-the-art learning algorithm with CPT weight distorted rewards and obtain a player optimal regret of $\mathcal{O}(K\log T \left(\frac{1}Δ\right)^{2/α})$, where $K$ denotes the number of arms, $T$ is the learning horizon, and $Δ$ represents (suitably defined) players' minimum preference gap. Noticing the dependence on $Δ$ to be sub-optimal, we further improve this regret by judiciously selecting the active set of arms during exploration, which removes the dependence on $K$ in the dominant term and achieves an improved (optimal) regret guarantees in the setting where the number of arms $K$ is significantly larger than the number of players $N$. In addition, we consider adversarial markets where the observed rewards of the agents may be corrupted. We propose and analyze algorithms for robust markets with CPT as risk sensitive measure in both settings where the total corruption budget is known and where it is unknown, and establish logarithmic player-optimal regret guarantees in both cases.

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven progress in reasoning tasks, from program synthesis to scientific hypothesis generation, yet their ability to handle ranked preferences and structured algorithms in combinatorial domains remains underexplored. We study matching markets, a core framework behind applications like resource allocation and ride-sharing, which require reconciling individual ranked preferences to ensure stable outcomes. We evaluate seven stateof-the-art models on a hierarchy of preference-based reasoning tasks--ranging from stable-matching generation to instability detection, instability resolution, and finegrained preference queries--to systematically expose their logical and algorithmic limitations in handling ranked inputs. Surprisingly, even top-performing models with advanced reasoning struggle to resolve instability in large markets, often failing to identify blocking pairs or execute algorithms iteratively. We further show that parameter-efficient fine-tuning (LoRA) significantly improves performance in small markets, but fails to bring about a similar improvement in large instances, suggesting the need for more sophisticated strategies to improve LLMs' reasoning with larger-context inputs.

A matching process on a two-sided market can determine who gets which job [40, 31], school place[44],orspouse.