57 research outputs found
Deterministic, Strategyproof, and Fair Cake Cutting
We study the classic cake cutting problem from a mechanism design
perspective, in particular focusing on deterministic mechanisms that are
strategyproof and fair. We begin by looking at mechanisms that are non-wasteful
and primarily show that for even the restricted class of piecewise constant
valuations there exists no direct-revelation mechanism that is strategyproof
and even approximately proportional. Subsequently, we remove the non-wasteful
constraint and show another impossibility result stating that there is no
strategyproof and approximately proportional direct-revelation mechanism that
outputs contiguous allocations, again, for even the restricted class of
piecewise constant valuations. In addition to the above results, we also
present some negative results when considering an approximate notion of
strategyproofness, show a connection between direct-revelation mechanisms and
mechanisms in the Robertson-Webb model when agents have piecewise constant
valuations, and finally also present a (minor) modification to the well-known
Even-Paz algorithm that has better incentive-compatible properties for the
cases when there are two or three agents.Comment: A shorter version of this paper will appear at IJCAI 201
An Algorithmic Framework for Strategic Fair Division
We study the paradigmatic fair division problem of allocating a divisible
good among agents with heterogeneous preferences, commonly known as cake
cutting. Classical cake cutting protocols are susceptible to manipulation. Do
their strategic outcomes still guarantee fairness?
To address this question we adopt a novel algorithmic approach, by designing
a concrete computational framework for fair division---the class of Generalized
Cut and Choose (GCC) protocols}---and reasoning about the game-theoretic
properties of algorithms that operate in this model. The class of GCC protocols
includes the most important discrete cake cutting protocols, and turns out to
be compatible with the study of fair division among strategic agents. In
particular, GCC protocols are guaranteed to have approximate subgame perfect
Nash equilibria, or even exact equilibria if the protocol's tie-breaking rule
is flexible. We further observe that the (approximate) equilibria of
proportional GCC protocols---which guarantee each of the agents a
-fraction of the cake---must be (approximately) proportional. Finally, we
design a protocol in this framework with the property that its Nash equilibrium
allocations coincide with the set of (contiguous) envy-free allocations
Cake Cutting Algorithms for Piecewise Constant and Piecewise Uniform Valuations
Cake cutting is one of the most fundamental settings in fair division and
mechanism design without money. In this paper, we consider different levels of
three fundamental goals in cake cutting: fairness, Pareto optimality, and
strategyproofness. In particular, we present robust versions of envy-freeness
and proportionality that are not only stronger than their standard
counter-parts but also have less information requirements. We then focus on
cake cutting with piecewise constant valuations and present three desirable
algorithms: CCEA (Controlled Cake Eating Algorithm), MEA (Market Equilibrium
Algorithm) and CSD (Constrained Serial Dictatorship). CCEA is polynomial-time,
robust envy-free, and non-wasteful. It relies on parametric network flows and
recent generalizations of the probabilistic serial algorithm. For the subdomain
of piecewise uniform valuations, we show that it is also group-strategyproof.
Then, we show that there exists an algorithm (MEA) that is polynomial-time,
envy-free, proportional, and Pareto optimal. MEA is based on computing a
market-based equilibrium via a convex program and relies on the results of
Reijnierse and Potters [24] and Devanur et al. [15]. Moreover, we show that MEA
and CCEA are equivalent to mechanism 1 of Chen et. al. [12] for piecewise
uniform valuations. We then present an algorithm CSD and a way to implement it
via randomization that satisfies strategyproofness in expectation, robust
proportionality, and unanimity for piecewise constant valuations. For the case
of two agents, it is robust envy-free, robust proportional, strategyproof, and
polynomial-time. Many of our results extend to more general settings in cake
cutting that allow for variable claims and initial endowments. We also show a
few impossibility results to complement our algorithms.Comment: 39 page
Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract
Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning
have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for
autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call
for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and
accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI
and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and
maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human
stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept
of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and
interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call
society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with
mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI
systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, `SITL = HITL +
Social Contract.'Comment: (in press), Ethics of Information Technology, 201
- …