1,788 research outputs found
The Complexity of Fairness through Equilibrium
Competitive equilibrium with equal incomes (CEEI) is a well known fair
allocation mechanism; however, for indivisible resources a CEEI may not exist.
It was shown in [Budish '11] that in the case of indivisible resources there is
always an allocation, called A-CEEI, that is approximately fair, approximately
truthful, and approximately efficient, for some favorable approximation
parameters. This approximation is used in practice to assign students to
classes. In this paper we show that finding the A-CEEI allocation guaranteed to
exist by Budish's theorem is PPAD-complete. We further show that finding an
approximate equilibrium with better approximation guarantees is even harder:
NP-complete.Comment: Appeared in EC 201
Mechanism Design for Team Formation
Team formation is a core problem in AI. Remarkably, little prior work has
addressed the problem of mechanism design for team formation, accounting for
the need to elicit agents' preferences over potential teammates. Coalition
formation in the related hedonic games has received much attention, but only
from the perspective of coalition stability, with little emphasis on the
mechanism design objectives of true preference elicitation, social welfare, and
equity. We present the first formal mechanism design framework for team
formation, building on recent combinatorial matching market design literature.
We exhibit four mechanisms for this problem, two novel, two simple extensions
of known mechanisms from other domains. Two of these (one new, one known) have
desirable theoretical properties. However, we use extensive experiments to show
our second novel mechanism, despite having no theoretical guarantees,
empirically achieves good incentive compatibility, welfare, and fairness.Comment: 12 page
Partial Strategyproofness: Relaxing Strategyproofness for the Random Assignment Problem
We present partial strategyproofness, a new, relaxed notion of
strategyproofness for studying the incentive properties of non-strategyproof
assignment mechanisms. Informally, a mechanism is partially strategyproof if it
makes truthful reporting a dominant strategy for those agents whose preference
intensities differ sufficiently between any two objects. We demonstrate that
partial strategyproofness is axiomatically motivated and yields a parametric
measure for "how strategyproof" an assignment mechanism is. We apply this new
concept to derive novel insights about the incentive properties of the
probabilistic serial mechanism and different variants of the Boston mechanism.Comment: Working Pape
Equilibria Under the Probabilistic Serial Rule
The probabilistic serial (PS) rule is a prominent randomized rule for
assigning indivisible goods to agents. Although it is well known for its good
fairness and welfare properties, it is not strategyproof. In view of this, we
address several fundamental questions regarding equilibria under PS. Firstly,
we show that Nash deviations under the PS rule can cycle. Despite the
possibilities of cycles, we prove that a pure Nash equilibrium is guaranteed to
exist under the PS rule. We then show that verifying whether a given profile is
a pure Nash equilibrium is coNP-complete, and computing a pure Nash equilibrium
is NP-hard. For two agents, we present a linear-time algorithm to compute a
pure Nash equilibrium which yields the same assignment as the truthful profile.
Finally, we conduct experiments to evaluate the quality of the equilibria that
exist under the PS rule, finding that the vast majority of pure Nash equilibria
yield social welfare that is at least that of the truthful profile.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1401.6523, this paper
supersedes the equilibria section in our previous report arXiv:1401.652
Random assignment with multi-unit demands
We consider the multi-unit random assignment problem in which agents express
preferences over objects and objects are allocated to agents randomly based on
the preferences. The most well-established preference relation to compare
random allocations of objects is stochastic dominance (SD) which also leads to
corresponding notions of envy-freeness, efficiency, and weak strategyproofness.
We show that there exists no rule that is anonymous, neutral, efficient and
weak strategyproof. For single-unit random assignment, we show that there
exists no rule that is anonymous, neutral, efficient and weak
group-strategyproof. We then study a generalization of the PS (probabilistic
serial) rule called multi-unit-eating PS and prove that multi-unit-eating PS
satisfies envy-freeness, weak strategyproofness, and unanimity.Comment: 17 page
- …