Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
175 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The Incentive Guarantees Behind Nash Welfare in Divisible Resources Allocation (2308.08903v2)

Published 17 Aug 2023 in cs.GT

Abstract: We study the problem of allocating divisible resources among $n$ agents, hopefully in a fair and efficient manner. With the presence of strategic agents, additional incentive guarantees are also necessary, and the problem of designing fair and efficient mechanisms becomes much less tractable. While there are flourishing positive results against strategic agents for homogeneous divisible items, very few of them are known to hold in cake cutting. We show that the Maximum Nash Welfare (MNW) mechanism, which provides desirable fairness and efficiency guarantees and achieves an \emph{incentive ratio} of $2$ for homogeneous divisible items, also has an incentive ratio of $2$ in cake cutting. Remarkably, this result holds even without the free disposal assumption, which is hard to get rid of in the design of truthful cake cutting mechanisms. Moreover, we show that, for cake cutting, the Partial Allocation (PA) mechanism proposed by Cole et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/sigecom/ColeGG13}, which is truthful and $1/e$-MNW for homogeneous divisible items, has an incentive ratio between $[e{1 / e}, e]$ and when randomization is allowed, can be turned to be truthful in expectation. Given two alternatives for a trade-off between incentive ratio and Nash welfare provided by the MNW and PA mechanisms, we establish an interpolation between them for both cake cutting and homogeneous divisible items. Finally, we study the existence of fair mechanisms with a low incentive ratio in the connected pieces setting. We show that any envy-free cake cutting mechanism with the connected pieces constraint has an incentive ratio of $\Theta(n)$.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (55)
  1. Truthful allocation mechanisms without payments: Characterization and implications on fairness. In EC, pages 545–562. ACM, 2017.
  2. Maximum nash welfare and other stories about EFX. Theor. Comput. Sci., 863:69–85, 2021.
  3. Allocating indivisible goods to strategic agents: Pure nash equilibria and fairness. In WINE, volume 13112 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2021.
  4. Round-robin beyond additive agents: Existence and fairness of approximate equilibria. CoRR, abs/2301.13652, 2023.
  5. Envy-free mechanisms with minimum number of cuts. In AAAI, pages 312–318. AAAI Press, 2017.
  6. Cake cutting: An envy-free and truthful mechanism with a small number of cuts. In ISAAC, volume 181 of LIPIcs, pages 15:1–15:16. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020.
  7. Cake cutting algorithms for piecewise constant and piecewise uniform valuations. In WINE, volume 8877 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–14. Springer, 2014.
  8. Cake cutting: Envy and truth. In IJCAI, pages 3625–3631. ijcai.org, 2017.
  9. Fair and truthful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In AAAI, pages 5119–5126. AAAI Press, 2021.
  10. Nash social welfare approximation for strategic agents. Oper. Res., 70(1):402–415, 2022.
  11. Truthful fair division without free disposal. Soc. Choice Welf., 55(3):523–545, 2020.
  12. Better ways to cut a cake. Notices of the AMS, 53(11):1314–1321, 2006.
  13. Better ways to cut a cake - revisited. In Fair Division, volume 07261 of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2007.
  14. A dictatorship theorem for cake cutting. In IJCAI, pages 482–488. AAAI Press, 2015.
  15. On existence of truthful fair cake cutting mechanisms. Artif. Intell., 319:103904, 2023.
  16. An envy-free cake division protocol. The American Mathematical Monthly, 102(1):9–18, 1995.
  17. Fair division - from cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  18. On the fair division of a heterogeneous commodity. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 21(3):201–216, 1992.
  19. Truthful and fair mechanisms for matroid-rank valuations. In AAAI, pages 4801–4808. AAAI Press, 2022.
  20. Agent incentives of strategic behavior in resource exchange. Discret. Appl. Math., 264:15–25, 2019.
  21. Tightening up the incentive ratio for resource sharing over the rings. In IPDPS, pages 127–136. IEEE, 2020.
  22. Tight incentive analysis on sybil attacks to market equilibrium of resource exchange over general networks. In EC, pages 792–793. ACM, 2022.
  23. Incentive ratio: A game theoretical analysis of market equilibria. Inf. Comput., 285(Part):104875, 2022.
  24. How profitable are strategic behaviors in a market? In ESA, volume 6942 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 106–118. Springer, 2011.
  25. Incentive ratios of fisher markets. In ICALP (2), volume 7392 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 464–475. Springer, 2012.
  26. Approximate pure nash equilibria in weighted congestion games: Existence, efficient computation, and structure. ACM Trans. Economics and Comput., 3(1):2:1–2:32, 2015.
  27. Mechanism design for fair division: allocating divisible items without payments. In EC, pages 251–268. ACM, 2013.
  28. Positive results for mechanism design without money. In AAMAS, pages 1165–1166. IFAAMAS, 2013.
  29. Yun Kuen Cheung. Better strategyproof mechanisms without payments or prior - an analytic approach. In IJCAI, pages 194–200. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 2016.
  30. Weighted envy-freeness in indivisible item allocation. ACM Trans. Economics and Comput., 9(3):18:1–18:39, 2021.
  31. The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare. ACM Trans. Economics and Comput., 7(3):12:1–12:32, 2019.
  32. Truth, justice, and cake cutting. Games Econ. Behav., 77(1):284–297, 2013.
  33. Consensus of subjective probabilities: The pari-mutuel method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30(1):165–168, 1959.
  34. Francis Edward Su. Rental harmony: Sperner’s lemma in fair division. The American mathematical monthly, 106(10):930–942, 1999.
  35. Strategy-proof allocation of multiple items between two agents without payments or priors. In AAMAS, pages 881–888. IFAAMAS, 2010.
  36. Efficient mechanisms without money: Randomization won’t let you escape from dictatorships, 2022.
  37. Fair division with binary valuations: One rule to rule them all. In WINE, volume 12495 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 370–383. Springer, 2020.
  38. On strategy-proof allocation without payments or priors. In WINE, volume 7090 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 182–193. Springer, 2011.
  39. How to cut a cake before the party ends. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 2013.
  40. Hervé Moulin. Fair division and collective welfare. MIT Press, 2003.
  41. Truthful fair division. In SAGT, volume 6386 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 288–299. Springer, 2010.
  42. A survey of approximability and inapproximability results for social welfare optimization in multiagent resource allocation. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 68(1-3):65–90, 2013.
  43. Obvious manipulations in cake-cutting. Soc. Choice Welf., 59(4):969–988, 2022.
  44. Ariel D. Procaccia. Cake cutting algorithms. In Handbook of Computational Social Choice, pages 311–330. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  45. Fair and efficient allocations without obvious manipulations. In NeurIPS, 2022.
  46. Aviad Rubinstein. Settling the complexity of computing approximate two-player nash equilibria. SIGecom Exch., 15(2):45–49, 2017.
  47. Cake-cutting algorithms - be fair if you can. A K Peters, 1998.
  48. Amartya Sen. Social choice theory. Handbook of mathematical economics, 3:1073–1181, 1986.
  49. Expand the shares together: Envy-free mechanisms with a small number of cuts. Algorithmica, 81(4):1728–1755, 2019.
  50. Resource-monotonicity and population-monotonicity in cake-cutting. CoRR, abs/1510.05229, 2015.
  51. Taiki Todo. Analysis of incentive ratio in top-trading-cycles algorithms. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of JSAI 33rd (2019), pages 2F1E304–2F1E304. The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 2019.
  52. Dietrich Weller. Fair division of a measurable space. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 14(1):5–17, 1985.
  53. Bounded incentives in manipulating the probabilistic serial rule. In AAAI, pages 2276–2283. AAAI Press, 2020.
  54. Algorithms for manipulating sequential allocation. In AAAI, pages 2302–2309. AAAI Press, 2020.
  55. Reducing untruthful manipulation in envy-free pareto optimal resource allocation. In IAT, pages 391–398. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2010.
Citations (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets