We propose the PeerRank method for peer assessment. This constructs a grade for an agent based on the grades proposed by the agents evaluating the agent. Since the grade of an agent is a measure of their ability to grade correctly, the PeerRank method weights grades by the grades of the grading agent. The PeerRank method also provides an incentive for agents to grade correctly. As the grades of an agent depend on the grades of the grading agents, and as these grades themselves depend on the grades of other agents, we define the PeerRank method by a fixed point equation similar to the PageRank method for ranking web-pages. We identify some formal properties of the PeerRank method (for example, it satisfies axioms of unanimity, no dummy, no discrimination and symmetry), discuss some examples, compare with related work and evaluate the performance on some synthetic data. Our results show considerable promise, reducing the error in grade predictions by a factor of 2 or more in many cases over the natural baseline of averaging peer grades.
A closely related problem is the division of cash between a group of partners @cite_11 . Each partner cares selfishly about their share but is supposed to be disinterested about the distribution of the money that he or she does not get. Partners rate the relative contributions of the other partners. With four or more partners, there exist symmetric and impartial division rules. By comparison, whilst our PeerRank rule is symmetric, it is not designed to be impartial. The grades assigned by an agent can definitely influence their final grade.
@cite_11
2091152488 2156641215 2971548201 2964250178 1577069963 2592030152 2022749618 2887778757 2555059222 2088605609 2012400407 1925706653 2950051380 1542025417 2084685902 2963668580 2964436851 2130293309 2883410524 2949883232
For impartial division, each participant reports only her opinion about the fair relative shares of the other participants, and this report has no effect on her own share. If a specific division is compatible with all reports, it is implemented. We propose a family of natural methods meeting these requirements, for a division among four or more participants. No such method exists for a division among three participants. We propose a procedure for dividing indivisible items between two players in which each player ranks the items from best to worst. It ensures that each player receives a subset of items that it values more than the other player's complementary subset, given that such an envy-free division is possible. We show that the possibility of one player's undercutting the other's proposal, and implementing the reduced subset for himself or herself, makes the proposer "reasonable" and generally leads to an envy-free division, even when the players rank items exactly the same. Although the undercut procedure is manipulable, each player's maximin strategy is to be truthful. Applications of the undercut procedure are briefly discussed. Abstract We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to groups of agents. Agents in the same group share the same set of goods even though they may have different preferences. Previous work has focused on unanimous fairness, in which all agents in each group must agree that their group's share is fair. Under this strict requirement, fair allocations exist only for small groups. We introduce the concept of democratic fairness, which aims to satisfy a certain fraction of the agents in each group. This concept is better suited to large groups such as cities or countries. We present protocols for democratic fair allocation among two or more arbitrarily large groups of agents with monotonic, additive, or binary valuations. For two groups with arbitrary monotonic valuations, we give an efficient protocol that guarantees envy-freeness up to one good for at least 1 2 of the agents in each group, and prove that the 1 2 fraction is optimal. We also present other protocols that make weaker fairness guarantees to more agents in each group, or to more groups. Our protocols combine techniques from different fields, including combinatorial game theory, cake cutting, and voting. The goal of fair division is to distribute resources among competing players in a "fair" way. Envy-freeness is the most extensively studied fairness notion in fair division. Envy-free allocations do not always exist with indivisible goods, motivating the study of relaxed versions of envy-freeness. We study the envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) property, which states that no player prefers the bundle of another player following the removal of any single good, and prove the first general results about this property. We use the leximin solution to show existence of EFX allocations in several contexts, sometimes in conjunction with Pareto optimality. For two players with valuations obeying a mild assumption, one of these results provides stronger guarantees than the currently deployed algorithm on Spliddit, a popular fair division website. Unfortunately, finding the leximin solution can require exponential time. We show that this is necessary by proving an exponential lower bound on the number of value queries needed to identify an EFX allocation, even for two players with identical valuations. We consider both additive and more general valuations, and our work suggests that there is a rich landscape of problems to explore in the fair division of indivisible goods with different classes of player valuations. The concept of fair division is as old as civil society itself. Aristotle's "equal treatment of equals" was the first step toward a formal definition of distributive fairness. The concept of collective welfare, more than two centuries old, is a pillar of modern economic analysis. Reflecting fifty years of research, this book examines the contribution of modern microeconomic thinking to distributive justice. Taking the modern axiomatic approach, it compares normative arguments of distributive justice and their relation to efficiency and collective welfare. The book begins with the epistemological status of the axiomatic approach and the four classic principles of distributive justice: compensation, reward, exogenous rights, and fitness. It then presents the simple ideas of equal gains, equal losses, and proportional gains and losses. The book discusses three cardinal interpretations of collective welfare: Bentham's "utilitarian" proposal to maximize the sum of individual utilities, the Nash product, and the egalitarian leximin ordering. It also discusses the two main ordinal definitions of collective welfare: the majority relation and the Borda scoring method. The Shapley value is the single most important contribution of game theory to distributive justice. A formula to divide jointly produced costs or benefits fairly, it is especially useful when the pattern of externalities renders useless the simple ideas of equality and proportionality. The book ends with two versatile methods for dividing commodities efficiently and fairly when only ordinal preferences matter: competitive equilibrium with equal incomes and egalitarian equivalence. The book contains a wealth of empirical examples and exercises. We consider the problem of dividing indivisible goods fairly among n agents who have additive and submodular valuations for the goods. Our fairness guarantees are in terms of the maximin share, that is defined to be the maximum value that an agent can ensure for herself, if she were to partition the goods into n bundles, and then receive a minimum valued bundle. Since maximin fair allocations (i.e., allocations in which each agent gets at least her maximin share) do not always exist, prior work has focussed on approximation results that aim to find allocations in which the value of the bundle allocated to each agent is (multiplicatively) as close to her maximin share as possible. In particular, Procaccia and Wang (2014) along with (2015) have shown that under additive valuations a 2 3-approximate maximin fair allocation always exists and can be found in polynomial time. We complement these results by developing a simple and efficient algorithm that achieves the same approximation guarantee. Furthermore, we initiate the study of approximate maximin fair division under submodular valuations. Specifically, we show that when the valuations of the agents are nonnegative, monotone, and submodular, then a 1 10-approximate maximin fair allocation is guaranteed to exist. In fact, we show that such an allocation can be efficiently found by using a simple round-robin algorithm. A technical contribution of the paper is to analyze the performance of this combinatorial algorithm by employing the concept of multilinear extensions. Cutting a cake, dividing up the property in an estate, determining the borders in an international dispute - such problems of fair division are ubiquitous. Fair Division treats all these problems and many more through a rigorous analysis of a variety of procedures for allocating goods (or 'bads' like chores), or deciding who wins on what issues, when there are disputes. Starting with an analysis of the well-known cake-cutting procedure, 'I cut, you choose', the authors show how it has been adapted in a number of fields and then analyze fair-division procedures applicable to situations in which there are more than two parties, or there is more than one good to be divided. In particular they focus on procedures which provide 'envy-free' allocations, in which everybody thinks he or she has received the largest portion and hence does not envy anybody else. They also discuss the fairness of different auction and election procedures. We study the fair division problem consisting in allocating one item per agent so as to avoid (or minimize) envy, in a setting where only agents connected in a given social network may experience envy. In a variant of the problem, agents themselves can be located on the network by the central authority. These problems turn out to be difficult even on very simple graph structures, but we identify several tractable cases. We further provide practical algorithms and experimental insights. We study cake cutting on a graph, where agents can only evaluate their shares relative to their neighbors. This is an extension of the classical problem of fair division to incorporate the notion of social comparison from the social sciences. We say an allocation is locally envy-free if no agent envies a neighbor's allocation, and locally proportional if each agent values its own allocation as much as the average value of its neighbors' allocations. We generalize the classical Cut and Choose" protocol for two agents to this setting, by fully characterizing the set of graphs for which an oblivious single-cutter protocol can give locally envy-free (thus also locally-proportional) allocations. We study the price of envy-freeness , which compares the total value of an optimal allocation with that of an optimal, locally envy-free allocation. Surprisingly, a lower bound of @math on the price of envy-freeness for global allocations also holds for local envy-freeness in any connected graph, so sparse graphs do not provide more flexibility asymptotically with respect to the quality of envy-free allocations. We consider the problem of assigning indivisible goods among a group of agents with lotteries when the preference profile is single-peaked. Unfortunately, even on this restricted domain of preferences, equal treatment of equals, stochastic dominance efficiency, and stochastic dominance strategy-proofness are incompatible. This paper studies the classical land division problem formalized by Steinhaus (Econometrica 16 (1948) 101–104) in a multi-profile context. We propose a notion of an allocation rule for this setting. We discuss several examples of rules and properties they may satisfy. Central among these properties is division independence: a parcel may be partitioned into smaller parcels, these smaller parcels allocated according to the rule, leaving a recommended allocation for the original parcel. In conjunction with two other normative properties, division independence is shown to imply the principle of utilitarianism. We propose the PeerRank method for peer assessment. This constructs a grade for an agent based on the grades proposed by the agents evaluating the agent. Since the grade of an agent is a measure of their ability to grade correctly, the PeerRank method weights grades by the grades of the grading agent. The PeerRank method also provides an incentive for agents to grade correctly. As the grades of an agent depend on the grades of the grading agents, and as these grades themselves depend on the grades of other agents, we define the PeerRank method by a fixed point equation similar to the PageRank method for ranking web-pages. We identify some formal properties of the PeerRank method (for example, it satisfies axioms of unanimity, no dummy, no discrimination and symmetry), discuss some examples, compare with related work and evaluate the performance on some synthetic data. Our results show considerable promise, reducing the error in grade predictions by a factor of 2 or more in many cases over the natural baseline of averaging peer grades. We propose the PeerRank method for peer assessment. This constructs a grade for an agent based on the grades proposed by the agents evaluating the agent. Since the grade of an agent is a measure of their ability to grade correctly, the PeerRank method weights grades by the grades of the grading agent. The PeerRank method also provides an incentive for agents to grade correctly. As the grades of an agent depend on the grades of the grading agents, and as these grades themselves depend on the grades of other agents, we define the PeerRank method by a fixed point equation similar to the PageRank method for ranking web-pages. We identify some formal properties of the PeerRank method (for example, it satisfies axioms of unanimity, no dummy, no discrimination and symmetry), discuss some examples, compare with related work and evaluate the performance on some synthetic data. Our results show considerable promise, reducing the error in grade predictions by a factor of 2 or more in many cases over the natural baseline of averaging peer grades. We study the problem of computing maximin share allocations, a recently introduced fairness notion. Given a set of n agents and a set of goods, the maximin share of an agent is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she is allowed to partition the goods in any way she prefers, into n bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find a partition, where each agent is guaranteed her maximin share. Such allocations do not always exist, hence we resort to approximation algorithms. Our main result is a 2 3-approximation that runs in polynomial time for any number of agents and goods. This improves upon the algorithm of Procaccia and Wang (2014), which is also a 2 3-approximation but runs in polynomial time only for a constant number of agents. To achieve this, we redesign certain parts of the algorithm in Procaccia and Wang (2014), exploiting the construction of carefully selected matchings in a bipartite graph representation of the problem. Furthermore, motivated by the apparent difficulty in establishing lower bounds, we undertake a probabilistic analysis. We prove that in randomly generated instances, maximin share allocations exist with high probability. This can be seen as a justification of previously reported experimental evidence. Finally, we provide further positive results for two special cases arising from previous works. The first is the intriguing case of three agents, where we provide an improved 7 8-approximation. The second case is when all item values belong to 0, 1, 2 , where we obtain an exact algorithm. We revisit the classic problem of fair division from a mechanism design perspective and provide an elegant truthful mechanism that yields surprisingly good approximation guarantees for the widely used solution of Proportional Fairness. This solution, which is closely related to Nash bargaining and the competitive equilibrium, is known to be not implementable in a truthful fashion, which has been its main drawback. To alleviate this issue, we propose a new mechanism, which we call the Partial Allocation mechanism, that discards a carefully chosen fraction of the allocated resources in order to incentivize the agents to be truthful in reporting their valuations. This mechanism introduces a way to implement interesting truthful outcomes in settings where monetary payments are not an option. For a multi-dimensional domain with an arbitrary number of agents and items, and for the very large class of homogeneous valuation functions, we prove that our mechanism provides every agent with at least a 1 e ≈ 0.368 fraction of her Proportionally Fair valuation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first result that gives a constant factor approximation to every agent for the Proportionally Fair solution. To complement this result, we show that no truthful mechanism can guarantee more than 0.5 approximation, even for the restricted class of additive linear valuations. In addition to this, we uncover a connection between the Partial Allocation mechanism and VCG-based mechanism design. We also ask whether better approximation ratios are possible in more restricted settings. In particular, motivated by the massive privatization auction in the Czech republic in the early 90s we provide another mechanism for additive linear valuations that works really well when all the items are highly demanded. Single minded agents have strict preferences, in which a bundle is acceptable only if it meets a certain demand. Such preferences arise naturally in scenarios such as allocating computational resources among users, where the goal is to fairly serve as many requests as possible. In this paper we study the fair division problem for such agents, which is complex due to discontinuity and complementarities of preferences. Our solution concept--the competitive allocation from equal incomes (CAEI)--is inspired from market equilibria and implements fair outcomes through a pricing mechanism. We study existence and computation of CAEI for multiple divisible goods, discrete goods, and cake cutting. Our solution is useful more generally, when the players have a target set of goods, and very small positive values for any bundle other than their target set. We consider the problem of fairly dividing a collection of indivisible goods among a set of players. Much of the existing literature on fair division focuses on notions of individual fairness. For instance, envy-freeness requires that no player prefer the set of goods allocated to another player to her own allocation. We observe that an algorithm satisfying such individual fairness notions can still treat groups of players unfairly, with one group desiring the goods allocated to another. Our main contribution is a notion of group fairness, which implies most existing notions of individual fairness. Group fairness (like individual fairness) cannot be satisfied exactly with indivisible goods. Thus, we introduce two “up to one good” style relaxations. We show that, somewhat surprisingly, certain local optima of the Nash welfare function satisfy both relaxations and can be computed in pseudo-polynomial time by local search. Our experiments reveal faster computation and stronger fairness guarantees in practice. Procuring multiple agents with different ability levels to independently solve the same task is common in labor markets, crowdsourcing environments and research and development projects due to two reasons: some agents may fail to provide a satisfactory solution, and the redundancy increases the quality of the best solution found. However, incentivizing large number of agents to compete for one task is difficult; agents need fair ex-ante guaranteed payoffs that consider their ability levels and failure rates to exert efforts. We model such domains as a cooperative game called the Max-Game, where each agent has a weight representing its ability level, and the value of an agent coalition is the maximal weight of the agents in the coalition. When agents may fail, we redefine the value of a coalition as the expected maximal weight of its surviving members. We analyze the core, the Shapley value, and the Banzhaf index as methods of payoff division. Surprisingly, the latter two, which are usually computationally hard, can be computed in polynomial time. Finally, we initiate the study of a new form of sabotage where agents may be incentivized to influence the failure probabilities of their peers, and show that no such incentive is present in a restricted case of Max-Games. We consider the problem of fairly dividing a set of items. Much of the fair division literature assumes that the items are goods' i.e., they yield positive utility for the agents. There is also some work where the items are chores' that yield negative utility for the agents. In this paper, we consider a more general scenario where an agent may have negative or positive utility for each item. This framework captures, e.g., fair task assignment, where agents can have both positive and negative utilities for each task. We show that whereas some of the positive axiomatic and computational results extend to this more general setting, others do not. We present several new and efficient algorithms for finding fair allocations in this general setting. We also point out several gaps in the literature regarding the existence of allocations satisfying certain fairness and efficiency properties and further study the complexity of computing such allocations. The paper considers fair allocation of indivisible nondisposable items that generate disutility (chores). We assume that these items are placed in the vertices of a graph and each agent’s share has to form a connected subgraph of this graph. Although a similar model has been investigated before for goods, we show that the goods and chores settings are inherently different. In particular, it is impossible to derive the solution of the chores instance from the solution of its naturally associated fair division instance. We consider three common fair division solution concepts, namely proportionality, envy-freeness and equitability, and two individual disutility aggregation functions: additive and maximum based. We show that deciding the existence of a fair allocation is hard even if the underlying graph is a path or a star. We also present some efficiently solvable special cases for these graph topologies.