Scoring Rules for the Allocation of Indivisible Goods

被引:9
作者
Baumeister, Dorothea [1 ]
Bouveret, Sylvain [2 ]
Lang, Jerome [3 ]
Nhan-Tam Nguyen [1 ]
Trung Thanh Nguyen [4 ]
Rothe, Joerg [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
[2] Grenoble INP, LIG, Grenoble, France
[3] Univ Paris 09, LAMSADE, Paris, France
[4] Masdar Inst Sci & Technol, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates
来源
21ST EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ECAI 2014) | 2014年 / 263卷
关键词
FAIR DIVISION; ENVY;
D O I
10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-75
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
We define a family of rules for dividing m indivisible goods among agents, parameterized by a scoring vector and a social welfare aggregation function. We assume that agents' preferences over sets of goods are additive, but that the input is ordinal: each agent simply ranks single goods. Similarly to (positional) scoring rules in voting, a scoring vector s = (s(1),..., s(m)) consists of m nonincreasing nonnegative weights, where si is the score of a good assigned to an agent who ranks it in position i. The global score of an allocation for an agent is the sum of the scores of the goods assigned to her. The social welfare of an allocation is the aggregation of the scores of all agents, for some aggregation function star such as, typically, + or min. The rule associated with s and star maps a profile to (one of) the allocation(s) maximizing social welfare. After defining this family of rules, and focusing on some key examples, we investigate some of the social-choice-theoretic properties of this family of rules, such as various kinds of monotonicity, separability, envy-freeness, and Pareto efficiency.
引用
收藏
页码:75 / +
页数:2
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], THEORY DECISION
[2]   False-Name Manipulations in Weighted Voting Games [J].
Aziz, Haris ;
Bachrach, Yoram ;
Elkind, Edith ;
Paterson, Mike .
JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH, 2011, 40 :57-93
[3]  
Bansal N., 2006, STOC'06. Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, P31, DOI 10.1145/1132516.1132522
[4]  
Bouveret S., 2011, IJCAI, P73
[5]   Fair Division under Ordinal Preferences: Computing Envy-Free Allocations of Indivisible Goods [J].
Bouveret, Sylvain ;
Endriss, Ulle ;
Lang, Jerome .
ECAI 2010 - 19TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2010, 215 :387-392
[6]  
Brams S., 2002, HDB SOCIAL CHOICE WE, V1, P173, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1574-0110(02)80008-X
[7]  
Brams S. J., 1996, Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution
[8]   Efficient fair division - Help the worst off or avoid envy? [J].
Brams, SJ ;
King, DL .
RATIONALITY AND SOCIETY, 2005, 17 (04) :387-421
[9]   Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication [J].
Caragiannis, Ioannis ;
Procaccia, Ariel D. .
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2011, 175 (9-10) :1655-1671
[10]  
Conitzer V, 2008, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V5385, P295, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-92185-1_36