Equilibria in Sequential Allocation

Sequential allocation is a simple mechanism for sharing multiple indivisible items. We study strategic behavior in sequential allocation. In particular, we consider Nash dynamics, as well as the computation and Pareto optimality of pure equilibria, and Stackelberg strategies. We first demonstrate that, even for two agents, better responses can cycle. We then present a linear-time algorithm that returns a profile (which we call the "bluff profile") that is in pure Nash equilibrium. Interestingly, the outcome of the bluff profile is the same as that of the truthful profile and the profile is in pure Nash equilibrium for \emph{all} cardinal utilities consistent with the ordinal preferences. We show that the outcome of the bluff profile is Pareto optimal with respect to pairwise comparisons. In contrast, we show that an assignment may not be Pareto optimal with respect to pairwise comparisons even if it is a result of a preference profile that is in pure Nash equilibrium for all utilities consistent with ordinal preferences. Finally, we present a dynamic program to compute an optimal Stackelberg strategy for two agents, where the second agent has a constant number of distinct values for the items

Complexity of Manipulating Sequential Allocation

Sequential allocation is a simple allocation mechanism in which agents are given pre-specified turns and each agents gets the most preferred item that is still available. It has long been known that sequential allocation is not strategyproof. Bouveret and Lang (2014) presented a polynomial-time algorithm to compute a best response of an agent with respect to additively separable utilities and claimed that (1) their algorithm correctly finds a best response, and (2) each best response results in the same allocation for the manipulator. We show that both claims are false via an example. We then show that in fact the problem of computing a best response is NP-complete. On the other hand, the insights and results of Bouveret and Lang (2014) for the case of two agents still hold

Fair Allocation based on Diminishing Differences

Ranking alternatives is a natural way for humans to explain their preferences. It is being used in many settings, such as school choice, course allocations and residency matches. In some cases, several `items' are given to each participant. Without having any information on the underlying cardinal utilities, arguing about fairness of allocation requires extending the ordinal item ranking to ordinal bundle ranking. The most commonly used such extension is stochastic dominance (SD), where a bundle X is preferred over a bundle Y if its score is better according to all additive score functions. SD is a very conservative extension, by which few allocations are necessarily fair while many allocations are possibly fair. We propose to make a natural assumption on the underlying cardinal utilities of the players, namely that the difference between two items at the top is larger than the difference between two items at the bottom. This assumption implies a preference extension which we call diminishing differences (DD), where X is preferred over Y if its score is better according to all additive score functions satisfying the DD assumption. We give a full characterization of allocations that are necessarily-proportional or possibly-proportional according to this assumption. Based on this characterization, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a necessarily-DD-proportional allocation if it exists. Using simulations, we show that with high probability, a necessarily-proportional allocation does not exist but a necessarily-DD-proportional allocation exists, and moreover, that allocation is proportional according to the underlying cardinal utilities. We also consider chore allocation under the analogous condition --- increasing-differences.Comment: Revised version, based on very helpful suggestions of JAIR referees. Gaps in some proofs were filled, more experiments were done, and mor

Algorithms for Manipulating Sequential Allocation

Sequential allocation is a simple and widely studied mechanism to allocate indivisible items in turns to agents according to a pre-specified picking sequence of agents. At each turn, the current agent in the picking sequence picks its most preferred item among all items having not been allocated yet. This problem is well-known to be not strategyproof, i.e., an agent may get more utility by reporting an untruthful preference ranking of items. It arises the problem: how to find the best response of an agent? It is known that this problem is polynomially solvable for only two agents and NP-complete for arbitrary number of agents. The computational complexity of this problem with three agents was left as an open problem. In this paper, we give a novel algorithm that solves the problem in polynomial time for each fixed number of agents. We also show that an agent can always get at least half of its optimal utility by simply using its truthful preference as the response