Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Truthful and Almost Envy-Free Mechanism of Allocating Indivisible Goods: the Power of Randomness (2407.13634v1)

Published 18 Jul 2024 in cs.GT

Abstract: We study the problem of fairly and truthfully allocating $m$ indivisible items to $n$ agents with additive preferences. Specifically, we consider truthful mechanisms outputting allocations that satisfy EF${+u}_{-v}$, where, in an EF${+u}_{-v}$ allocation, for any pair of agents $i$ and $j$, agent $i$ will not envy agent $j$ if $u$ items were added to $i$'s bundle and $v$ items were removed from $j$'s bundle. Previous work easily indicates that, when restricted to deterministic mechanisms, truthfulness will lead to a poor guarantee of fairness: even with two agents, for any $u$ and $v$, EF${+u}_{-v}$ cannot be guaranteed by truthful mechanisms when the number of items is large enough. In this work, we focus on randomized mechanisms, where we consider ex-ante truthfulness and ex-post fairness. For two agents, we present a truthful mechanism that achieves EF${+0}_{-1}$ (i.e., the well-studied fairness notion EF$1$). For three agents, we present a truthful mechanism that achieves EF${+1}_{-1}$. For $n$ agents in general, we show that there exist truthful mechanisms that achieve EF${+u}_{-v}$ for some $u$ and $v$ that depend only on $n$ (not $m$). We further consider fair and truthful mechanisms that also satisfy the standard efficiency guarantee: Pareto-optimality. We provide a mechanism that simultaneously achieves truthfulness, EF$1$, and Pareto-optimality for bi-valued utilities (where agents' valuation on each item is either $p$ or $q$ for some $p>q\geq0$). For tri-valued utilities (where agents' valuations on each item belong to ${p,q,r}$ for some $p>q>r\geq0$) and any $u,v$, we show that truthfulness is incompatible with EF${+u}_{-v}$ and Pareto-optimality even for two agents.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (82)
  1. Breaking the 3/4 barrier for approximate maximin share. In Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 74–91. SIAM, 2024.
  2. EFX: a simpler approach and an (almost) optimal guarantee via rainbow cycle number. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 61–61, 2023.
  3. Noga Alon. Splitting necklaces. Advances in Mathematics, 63(3):247–253, 1987.
  4. On truthful mechanisms for maximin share allocations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 31–37, 2016.
  5. Truthful allocation mechanisms without payments: Characterization and implications on fairness. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 545–562, 2017a.
  6. Approximation algorithms for computing maximin share allocations. ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG), 13(4):1–28, 2017b.
  7. Allocating indivisible goods to strategic agents: Pure nash equilibria and fairness. In WINE, volume 13112 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2021.
  8. Fair division of indivisible goods: A survey. In Lud De Raedt, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Survey Track (IJCAI-22), pages 5385–5393. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, July 2022. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2022/756. URL https://ijcai-22.org/. The 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 25th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-ECAI 2022 ; Conference date: 23-07-2022 Through 29-07-2022.
  9. Fair division of indivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artificial Intelligence, page 103965, 2023a.
  10. Round-robin beyond additive agents: Existence and fairness of approximate equilibria. In EC, pages 67–87. ACM, 2023b.
  11. Cake cutting: An envy-free and truthful mechanism with a small number of cuts. In 31st International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2020). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020.
  12. Cake cutting algorithms for piecewise constant and piecewise uniform valuations. In International conference on web and internet economics, pages 1–14. Springer, 2014.
  13. A polynomial-time algorithm for computing a pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation. Operations Research Letters, 48(5):573–578, 2020.
  14. Best of both worlds: Ex ante and ex post fairness in resource allocation. Operations Research, 2023.
  15. Fair and truthful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 5119–5126, 2021.
  16. On best-of-both-worlds fair-share allocations. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 237–255. Springer, 2022.
  17. Truthful and fair mechanisms for matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 4801–4808, 2022.
  18. Cake cutting: Envy and truth. In IJCAI, pages 3625–3631, 2017.
  19. Truthful fair division without free disposal. Social Choice and Welfare, 55(3):523–545, 2020.
  20. The incentive guarantees behind nash welfare in divisible resources allocation. In WINE, volume to apear of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, page to appear. Springer, 2023.
  21. Almost full EFX exists for four agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 4826–4833, 2022.
  22. A new solution to the random assignment problem. Journal of Economic theory, 100(2):295–328, 2001.
  23. Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  24. Better ways to cut a cake. Notices of the AMS, 53(11):1314–1321, 2006.
  25. Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  26. A dictatorship theorem for cake cutting. IJCAI, pages 482–488, 2015.
  27. On existence of truthful fair cake cutting mechanisms. Artificial Intelligence, 319:103904, 2023.
  28. Eric Budish. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119(6):1061–1103, 2011.
  29. Designing random allocation mechanisms: Theory and applications. American economic review, 103(2):585–623, 2013.
  30. On low-envy truthful allocations. In Algorithmic Decision Theory: First International Conference, ADT 2009, Venice, Italy, October 20-23, 2009. Proceedings 1, pages 111–119. Springer, 2009.
  31. The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 305–322, 2016.
  32. Envy-freeness up to any item with high Nash welfare: The virtue of donating items. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 527–545, 2019a.
  33. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 7(3):1–32, 2019b.
  34. EFX exists for three agents. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 1–19, 2020.
  35. A little charity guarantees almost envy-freeness. SIAM Journal on Computing, 50(4):1336–1358, 2021.
  36. 1/2-approximate mms allocation for separable piecewise linear concave valuations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 9590–9597, 2024.
  37. Incentive ratios of fisher markets. In ICALP (2), volume 7392 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 464–475. Springer, 2012.
  38. Incentive ratio: A game theoretical analysis of market equilibria. Information and Computation, 285:104875, 2022.
  39. Truth, justice, and cake cutting. Games and Economic Behavior, 77(1):284–297, 2013.
  40. Agent incentives of strategic behavior in resource exchange. Discret. Appl. Math., 264:15–25, 2019.
  41. Tightening up the incentive ratio for resource sharing over the rings. In IPDPS, pages 127–136. IEEE, 2020.
  42. Tight incentive analysis on sybil attacks to market equilibrium of resource exchange over general networks. In EC, pages 792–793. ACM, 2022.
  43. Fair and truthful allocations under leveled valuations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05891.
  44. Mechanism design for fair division: allocating divisible items without payments. In Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 251–268, 2013.
  45. Fair public decision making. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 629–646, 2017.
  46. On the power of randomization in algorithmic mechanism design. SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(6):2287–2304, 2013.
  47. Fairness and incentive compatibility via percentage fees. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 517–535, 2023.
  48. Breaking the envy cycle: Best-of-both-worlds guarantees for subadditive valuations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03706, 2023.
  49. Duncan Karl Foley. Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale Economics Essays, 7(1):45–98, 1967.
  50. An equivalence between fair division and wagering mechanisms. Management Science, 2023.
  51. Efficient mechanisms without money: Randomization won’t let you escape from dictatorships, 2022.
  52. Near fairness in matroids. In Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pages 393–398, 2014.
  53. Fair division with binary valuations: One rule to rule them all. In Web and Internet Economics: 16th International Conference, WINE 2020, Beijing, China, December 7–11, 2020, Proceedings 16, pages 370–383. Springer, 2020.
  54. Bounded incentives in manipulating the probabilistic serial rule. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 140:103491, 2024. ISSN 0022-0000. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2023.103491. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002200002300096X.
  55. When can the maximin share guarantee be guaranteed? In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 30, 2016.
  56. Almost envy-freeness in group resource allocation. Theoretical Computer Science, 841:110–123, 2020.
  57. Truthful cake cutting mechanisms with externalities: Do not make them care for others too much! In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015.
  58. Truthful fair mechanisms for allocating mixed divisible and indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2808–2816, 2023.
  59. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 125–131, 2004.
  60. Mixed fair division: A survey. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 22641–22649, 2024.
  61. Ryoga Mahara. Extension of additive valuations to general valuations on the existence of EFX. Mathematics of Operations Research, 2023.
  62. Incentive compatible two player cake cutting. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics, pages 170–183. Springer, 2012.
  63. Deterministic, strategyproof, and fair cake cutting. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 352–358, 2017.
  64. Takeshi Momi. Efficient and strategy-proof allocation mechanisms in economies with many goods. Theoretical Economics, 12(3):1267–1306, 2017.
  65. Truthful fair division. In International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pages 288–299. Springer, 2010.
  66. John F Nash Jr. The bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, pages 155–162, 1950.
  67. Obvious manipulations in cake-cutting. Social Choice and Welfare, pages 1–20, 2022.
  68. Almost envy-freeness with general valuations. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 34(2):1039–1068, 2020.
  69. Ariel D Procaccia. Cake cutting: Not just child’s play. Communications of the ACM, 56(7):78–87, 2013.
  70. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, pages 675–692, 2014.
  71. Fair and efficient allocations without obvious manipulations. In NeurIPS, 2022.
  72. Cake-cutting algorithms: Be fair if you can. CRC Press, 1998.
  73. Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms at differentiable points. The Review of Economic Studies, 48(4):587–597, 1981.
  74. Strategy-proof and envy-free mechanisms for house allocation. Journal of Economic Theory, 213:105712, 2023.
  75. Hugo Steinhaus. The problem of fair division. Econometrica, 16(1):101–104, 1948.
  76. Hugo Steinhaus. Sur la division pragmatique. Econometrica, 17:315–319, 1949.
  77. Strategyproof allocation mechanisms with endowments and m-convex distributional constraints. Artificial Intelligence, 315:103825, 2023.
  78. Lars-Gunnar Svensson. Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods. Social Choice and Welfare, 16:557–567, 1999.
  79. Biaoshuai Tao. On existence of truthful fair cake cutting mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 404–434, 2022.
  80. 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.
  81. Obvious manipulations. Journal of Economic Theory, 185:104970, 2020.
  82. Hal R Varian. Equity, envy, and efficiency. 1973.
Citations (1)

Summary

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