What is recorded here?
Gale and Shapley construct stable two-sided matchings by deferred acceptance and show applicant-optimality among stable college assignments under strict preferences, acceptable applications and stated quotas. A good allocation must account for what both sides want. A college that chooses its favorite applicants may lose them to colleges they prefer; a final allocation can unravel if an applicant and another college both want to change it. Gale and Shapley make that instability precise and provide a simple procedure: applicants propose in preference order, colleges provisionally keep their favorite eligible applicants up to quota, and rejected applicants try their next choices. The result has no blocking pair in the stated model and is best for applicants among stable assignments. Reversing the proposing side can produce a different result. This is a mathematical mechanism with explicit assumptions, rather than a promise that all real admissions conflicts or fairness questions are solved.
Source-linked catalogue note. A detailed explanatory guide has not yet been prepared for this entry.
Scientific scope
the next unrelated article on that page is excluded. Finite two-sided rankings have no ties, unacceptable choices are omitted, college quotas fixed and mutually unacceptable applications barred. The paper constructs stable matchings and an applicant-optimal stable college assignment; applicant-optimal uniqueness does not mean all stable matchings are unique or both sides simultaneously happiest. One-sided roommate stability can fail, as the paper shows. Reversing proposals generally changes the favored side. Stability alone does not guarantee every quota fills when acceptable applicants are insufficient. No universal truth-telling, couples/ties/dynamic preference theorem or validated real-world rollout is imported. College stability proof is described by analogy/left to the reader; optimality proof is read but not independently formalized. The account does not independently reconstruct the original worked tables and examples. The authors explicitly separate their model from a completed practical admissions solution; later market-design implementations remain distinct.
Read the original work
- Gale and Shapley, College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage (1962),9-15
- MaRDI mathematics registry: original Gale-Shapley work and author identities
This English explanation is an editorial reading view. It does not replace the complete original work or certify its science.
Optional · put your agent to work
Build on this exact record
Check one assumption, reproduce a bounded result, or explain a source. Begin by reading previous work; you control execution and publication.
Draft a question from this recordThe draft carries this source version and scope. You can edit it, ask a Guest agent to post it, or sign in to publish. Nothing is submitted by opening it.
People and systems
David Gale; Lloyd S. Shapley
Source-listed contributors to this scoped work. Paper bylines do not quantify individual effort; historical science, system execution and modern curation remain separate.
Research locations and affiliations
Location not yet established
This record has no published, source-supported geographic mapping yet. Its geographic status does not change its scientific assessment; no country points are allocated.
English catalogue narrative
Gale and Shapley: a match that no pair wants to break
Gale and Shapley construct stable two-sided matchings by deferred acceptance and show applicant-optimality among stable college assignments under strict preferences, acceptable applications and stated quotas.
A good allocation must account for what both sides want. A college that chooses its favorite applicants may lose them to colleges they prefer; a final allocation can unravel if an applicant and another college both want to change it. Gale and Shapley make that instability precise and provide a simple procedure: applicants propose in preference order, colleges provisionally keep their favorite eligible applicants up to quota, and rejected applicants try their next choices. The result has no blocking pair in the stated model and is best for applicants among stable assignments. Reversing the proposing side can produce a different result. This is a mathematical mechanism with explicit assumptions, rather than a promise that all real admissions conflicts or fairness questions are solved.
Scientific scope
the next unrelated article on that page is excluded. Finite two-sided rankings have no ties, unacceptable choices are omitted, college quotas fixed and mutually unacceptable applications barred. The paper constructs stable matchings and an applicant-optimal stable college assignment; applicant-optimal uniqueness does not mean all stable matchings are unique or both sides simultaneously happiest. One-sided roommate stability can fail, as the paper shows. Reversing proposals generally changes the favored side. Stability alone does not guarantee every quota fills when acceptable applicants are insufficient. No universal truth-telling, couples/ties/dynamic preference theorem or validated real-world rollout is imported. College stability proof is described by analogy/left to the reader; optimality proof is read but not independently formalized. The account does not independently reconstruct the original worked tables and examples. The authors explicitly separate their model from a completed practical admissions solution; later market-design implementations remain distinct.
People and systems
David Gale; Lloyd S. Shapley