We revisit the problem of designing strategyproof mechanisms for allocating divisible items among two agents who have linear utilities, where payments are disallowed and there is no prior information on the agents' preferences. The objective is to design strategyproof mechanisms which are competitive against the most efficient (but not strategyproof) mechanism. For the case with two items: (1) We provide a set of sufficient conditions for strategyproofness. (2) We use an analytic approach to derive strategyproof mechanisms which are more competitive than all prior strategyproof mechanisms. (3) We improve the linear-program-based proof of Guo and Conitzer to show new upper bounds on competitive ratios. (4) We provide the first "mathematical" upper bound proof. For the cases with any number of items: (1) We build on the Partial Allocation mechanisms introduced by to design a strategyproof mechanism which is 0.67776-competitive, breaking the 2 3 barrier. (2) We propose a new subclass of strategyproof mechanisms called Dynamical-Increasing-Price mechanisms, where each agent purchases the items using virtual money, and the prices of the items depend on other agents' preferences.
In this paper we study the problem of allocating divisible items to agents without payments. We assume no prior knowledge about the agents. The utility of an agent is additive. The social welfare of a mechanism is defined as the overall utility of all agents. This model is first defined by Guo and Conitzer [7]. Here we are interested in strategy-proof mechanisms that have a good competitive ratio, that is, those that are able to achieve social welfare close to the maximal social welfare in all cases. First, for the setting of n agents and m items, we prove that there is no (1 m+e)-competitive strategy-proof mechanism, for any e>0. And, no mechanism can achieve a competitive ratio better than @math , when @math . Next we study the setting of two agents and m items, which is also the focus of [7]. We prove that the competitive ratio of any swap-dictatorial mechanism is no greater than @math . Then we give a characterization result: for the case of 2 items, if the mechanism is strategy-proof, symmetric and second order continuously differentiable, then it is always swap-dictatorial. In the end we consider a setting where an agent's valuation of each item is bounded by C m, where C is an arbitrary constant. We show a mechanism that is (1 2+e(C))-competitive, where e(C)>0.