-
Hardness Results for Consensus-Halving
Authors:
Aris Filos-Ratsikas,
Soren Kristoffer Stiil Frederiksen,
Paul W. Goldberg,
Jie Zhang
Abstract:
We study the consensus-halving problem of dividing an object into two portions, such that each of $n$ agents has equal valuation for the two portions. The $ε$-approximate consensus-halving problem allows each agent to have an $ε$ discrepancy on the values of the portions. We prove that computing $ε$-approximate consensus-halving solution using $n$ cuts is in PPA, and is PPAD-hard, where $ε$ is som…
▽ More
We study the consensus-halving problem of dividing an object into two portions, such that each of $n$ agents has equal valuation for the two portions. The $ε$-approximate consensus-halving problem allows each agent to have an $ε$ discrepancy on the values of the portions. We prove that computing $ε$-approximate consensus-halving solution using $n$ cuts is in PPA, and is PPAD-hard, where $ε$ is some positive constant; the problem remains PPAD-hard when we allow a constant number of additional cuts. It is NP-hard to decide whether a solution with $n-1$ cuts exists for the problem. As a corollary of our results, we obtain that the approximate computational version of the Continuous Necklace Splitting Problem is PPAD-hard when the number of portions $t$ is two.
△ Less
Submitted 8 August, 2018; v1 submitted 16 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
-
Truthful Facility Assignment with Resource Augmentation: An Exact Analysis of Serial Dictatorship
Authors:
Ioannis Caragiannis,
Aris Filos-Ratsikas,
Soren Kristoffer Stiil Frederiksen,
Kristoffer Arnsfelt Hansen,
Zihan Tan
Abstract:
We study the truthful facility assignment problem, where a set of agents with private most-preferred points on a metric space are assigned to facilities that lie on the metric space, under capacity constraints on the facilities. The goal is to produce such an assignment that minimizes the social cost, i.e., the total distance between the most-preferred points of the agents and their corresponding…
▽ More
We study the truthful facility assignment problem, where a set of agents with private most-preferred points on a metric space are assigned to facilities that lie on the metric space, under capacity constraints on the facilities. The goal is to produce such an assignment that minimizes the social cost, i.e., the total distance between the most-preferred points of the agents and their corresponding facilities in the assignment, under the constraint of truthfulness, which ensures that agents do not misreport their most-preferred points.
We propose a resource augmentation framework, where a truthful mechanism is evaluated by its worst-case performance on an instance with enhanced facility capacities against the optimal mechanism on the same instance with the original capacities. We study a very well-known mechanism, Serial Dictatorship, and provide an exact analysis of its performance. Although Serial Dictatorship is a purely combinatorial mechanism, our analysis uses linear programming; a linear program expresses its greedy nature as well as the structure of the input, and finds the input instance that enforces the mechanism have its worst-case performance. Bounding the objective of the linear program using duality arguments allows us to compute tight bounds on the approximation ratio. Among other results, we prove that Serial Dictatorship has approximation ratio $g/(g-2)$ when the capacities are multiplied by any integer $g \geq 3$. Our results suggest that even a limited augmentation of the resources can have wondrous effects on the performance of the mechanism and in particular, the approximation ratio goes to 1 as the augmentation factor becomes large. We complement our results with bounds on the approximation ratio of Random Serial Dictatorship, the randomized version of Serial Dictatorship, when there is no resource augmentation.
△ Less
Submitted 5 October, 2016; v1 submitted 25 February, 2016;
originally announced February 2016.
-
The Adjusted Winner Procedure: Characterizations and Equilibria
Authors:
Haris Aziz,
Simina Brânzei,
Aris Filos-Ratsikas,
Søren Kristoffer Stiil Frederiksen
Abstract:
The Adjusted Winner procedure is an important fair division mechanism proposed by Brams and Taylor for allocating goods between two parties. It has been used in practice for divorce settlements and analyzing political disputes. Assuming truthful declaration of the valuations, it computes an allocation that is envy-free, equitable and Pareto optimal.
We show that Adjusted Winner admits several el…
▽ More
The Adjusted Winner procedure is an important fair division mechanism proposed by Brams and Taylor for allocating goods between two parties. It has been used in practice for divorce settlements and analyzing political disputes. Assuming truthful declaration of the valuations, it computes an allocation that is envy-free, equitable and Pareto optimal.
We show that Adjusted Winner admits several elegant characterizations, which further shed light on the outcomes reached with strategic agents. We find that the procedure may not admit pure Nash equilibria in either the discrete or continuous variants, but is guaranteed to have $ε$-Nash equilibria for each $ε$ > 0. Moreover, under informed tie-breaking, exact pure Nash equilibria always exist, are Pareto optimal, and their social welfare is at least 3/4 of the optimal.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2017; v1 submitted 23 March, 2015;
originally announced March 2015.
-
Social Welfare in One-Sided Matching Mechanisms
Authors:
George Christodoulou,
Aris Filos-Ratsikas,
Soren Kristoffer Stiil Frederiksen,
Paul W. Goldberg,
Jie Zhang,
**shan Zhang
Abstract:
We study the Price of Anarchy of mechanisms for the well-known problem of one-sided matching, or house allocation, with respect to the social welfare objective. We consider both ordinal mechanisms, where agents submit preference lists over the items, and cardinal mechanisms, where agents may submit numerical values for the items being allocated. We present a general lower bound of $Ω(\sqrt{n})$ on…
▽ More
We study the Price of Anarchy of mechanisms for the well-known problem of one-sided matching, or house allocation, with respect to the social welfare objective. We consider both ordinal mechanisms, where agents submit preference lists over the items, and cardinal mechanisms, where agents may submit numerical values for the items being allocated. We present a general lower bound of $Ω(\sqrt{n})$ on the Price of Anarchy, which applies to all mechanisms. We show that two well-known mechanisms, Probabilistic Serial, and Random Priority, achieve a matching upper bound. We extend our lower bound to the Price of Stability of a large class of mechanisms that satisfy a common proportionality property, and show stronger bounds on the Price of Anarchy of all deterministic mechanisms.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2016; v1 submitted 12 February, 2015;
originally announced February 2015.
-
Social welfare in one-sided matchings: Random priority and beyond
Authors:
Aris Filos-Ratsikas,
Søren Kristoffer Stiil Frederiksen,
Jie Zhang
Abstract:
We study the problem of approximate social welfare maximization (without money) in one-sided matching problems when agents have unrestricted cardinal preferences over a finite set of items. Random priority is a very well-known truthful-in-expectation mechanism for the problem. We prove that the approximation ratio of random priority is Theta(n^{-1/2}) while no truthful-in-expectation mechanism can…
▽ More
We study the problem of approximate social welfare maximization (without money) in one-sided matching problems when agents have unrestricted cardinal preferences over a finite set of items. Random priority is a very well-known truthful-in-expectation mechanism for the problem. We prove that the approximation ratio of random priority is Theta(n^{-1/2}) while no truthful-in-expectation mechanism can achieve an approximation ratio better than O(n^{-1/2}), where n is the number of agents and items. Furthermore, we prove that the approximation ratio of all ordinal (not necessarily truthful-in-expectation) mechanisms is upper bounded by O(n^{-1/2}), indicating that random priority is asymptotically the best truthful-in-expectation mechanism and the best ordinal mechanism for the problem.
△ Less
Submitted 5 May, 2014; v1 submitted 6 March, 2014;
originally announced March 2014.
