On 28th November OxTalks will move to the new Halo platform and will become 'Oxford Events' (full details are available on the Staff Gateway).
There will be an OxTalks freeze beginning on Friday 14th November. This means you will need to publish any of your known events to OxTalks by then as there will be no facility to publish or edit events in that fortnight. During the freeze, all events will be migrated to the new Oxford Events site. It will still be possible to view events on OxTalks during this time.
If you have any questions, please contact halo@digital.ox.ac.uk
In many-to-many matching markets, various competing stability concepts have been introduced. Most of these stability concepts lack a clear interpretation. This paper argues that the differences between solution concepts reflect different implicit anonymity assumptions. Such anonymity assumptions can best be justified in large markets, modeled in this paper with a continuum of agents. In such large markets, stability is actually a much better behaved solution concept; stability blocks do indeed lead to an improvement for all members of a blocking coalition, unlike in finite markets. It is shown that various differences between solution concepts disappear. In particular stability and weak setwise stability coincide. Moreover, the relationship between anonymity and largeness of the market is made explicit in a natural noncooperative foundation of stability
