Recently, the problem of allocating one resource per agent with initial endowments () has seen a renewed interest: indeed, while in the general domain Top Trading Cycle is known to be the only procedure guaranteeing Pareto-optimality, individual rationality, and strategy proofness, the situation differs in single-peaked domains. Bade (2019) presented the Crawler, an alternative procedure enjoying the same properties (with the additional advantage of being implementable in obviously dominant strategies); while (2015) showed that allowing mutually beneficial swap-deals among the agents was already enough to guarantee Pareto-optimality. In this paper we significantly deepen our understanding of this decentralized procedures: we show in particular that the single-peaked domains happen to be maximal'' if one wishes to guarantee this convergence property. Interestingly, we also observe that the set of allocations reachable by swap-deals always contains the outcome of the Crawler. To further investigate how these different mechanisms compare, we pay special attention to the average and minimum rank of the resource obtained by the agents in the outcome allocation. We provide theoretical bounds on the loss potentially induced by these procedures with respect to these criteria, and complement these results with an extensive experimental study which shows how different variants of swap dynamics behave. In fact, even the simplest dynamics exhibit very good results, and it is possible to further guide the process towards our objectives, if one is ready to sacrifice a bit in terms of decentralization. On our way, we also show that a simple variant of the Crawler allows to check efficiently that an allocation is Pareto-optimal in single-peaked domains.
@cite_9 defined a set of Pareto-efficient procedures generalizing the TTC algorithm when allowing for indifferences, which however include procedures that are not strategy-proof. @cite_20 and @cite_37 independently proposed general frameworks for efficient and strategy-proof generalization of the TTC procedure with indifferences.
@cite_9 @cite_37 @cite_20
2053487230 2140361507 2142270691 2038897673
We consider the problem of reallocating indivisible objects amongst a set of agents when the preference ordering of each agent may contain indifferences. The same model, but with strict preferences, goes back to the seminal work of Shapley and Scarf in 1974. When preferences are strict, we now know that the Top-Trading Cycles (TTC) mechanism invented by Gale is Pareto efficient, strategy-proof, and finds a core allocation, and that it is the only mechanism satisfying these properties. In the extensive literature on this problem since then, the TTC mechanism has been characterized in multiple ways, establishing its central role within the class of all allocation mechanisms. The question motivating our work is the extent to which these results can be generalized to the setting with indifferences. Our main contribution is a general framework to design strategyproof mechanisms that find a Pareto optimal allocation in the weak-core. Along the way, we establish a sufficient condition for a mechanism (within a broad class of mechanisms) to be strategyproof and use this condition to design fast algorithms for finding a "good" reallocation. Our results generalize and unify two (different) mechanisms for the reallocation problem derived, independently of each other, by Manjunath and Jaramillo, and Alcalde-Unzu and Molis. Matching a set of agents to a set of objects has many real applications. One well-studied framework is that of priority-based matching, in which each object is assumed to have a priority order over the agents. The Deferred Acceptance (DA) and Top-Trading-Cycle (TTC) mechanisms are the best-known strategy-proof mechanisms. However, in highly anonymous environments, the set of agents is not known a priori, and it is more natural for objects to instead have priorities over characteristics (e.g., the student's GPA or home address). In this paper, we extend the model so that each agent reports not only its preferences over objects, but also its characteristic. We derive results for various notions of strategy-proofness and false-name-proofness, corresponding to whether agents can only report weaker characteristics or also incomparable or stronger ones, and whether agents can only claim objects allocated to their true accounts or also those allocated to their fake accounts. Among other results, we show that DA and TTC satisfy a weak version of false-name-proofness. Furthermore, DA also satisfies a strong version of false-name-proofness, while TTC fails to satisfy it without an acyclicity assumption on priorities. In this article, we are interested in general techniques for designing mechanisms that approximate the social welfare in the presence of selfish rational behavior. We demonstrate our results in the setting of Combinatorial Auctions (CA). Our first result is a general deterministic technique to decouple the algorithmic allocation problem from the strategic aspects, by a procedure that converts any algorithm to a dominant-strategy ascending mechanism. This technique works for any single value domain, in which each agent has the same value for each desired outcome, and this value is the only private information. In particular, for “single-value CAs”, where each player desires any one of several different bundles but has the same value for each of them, our technique converts any approximation algorithm to a dominant strategy mechanism that almost preserves the original approximation ratio. Our second result provides the first computationally efficient deterministic mechanism for the case of single-value multi-minded bidders (with private value and private desired bundles). The mechanism achieves an approximation to the social welfare which is close to the best possible in polynomial time (unless PeNP). This mechanism is an algorithmic implementation in undominated strategies, a notion that we define and justify, and is of independent interest. Computational efficiency is a central concern in the design of knowledge representation systems. In order to obtain efficient systems, it has been suggested that one should limit the form of the statements in the knowledge base or use an incomplete inference mechanism. The former approach is often too restrictive for practical applications, whereas the latter leads to uncertainty about exactly what can and cannot be inferred from the knowledge base. We present a third alternative, in which knowledge given in a general representation language is translated (compiled) into a tractable form—allowing for efficient subsequent query answering. We show how propositional logical theories can be compiled into Horn theories that approximate the original information. The approximations bound the original theory from below and above in terms of logical strength. The procedures are extended to other tractable languages (for example, binary clauses) and to the first-order case. Finally, we demonstrate the generality of our approach by compiling concept descriptions in a general frame-based language into a tractable form.