Axiomatic and Computational Aspects of Scoring Allocation Rules for Indivisible Goods

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 = (s1, . . . ,sm) 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 ⋆ such as, typically, + or min. The rule associated with s and ⋆ 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. Then we focus on the computation and approximation of winning allocations.

[1]  T. Tideman,et al.  Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules , 1987 .

[2]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  Fair division - from cake-cutting to dispute resolution , 1998 .

[3]  Clemens Puppe,et al.  A simple procedure for finding equitable allocations of indivisible goods , 2002, Soc. Choice Welf..

[4]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Fair division and collective welfare , 2003 .

[5]  D. Golovin Max-min fair allocation of indivisible goods , 2005 .

[6]  Makoto Yokoo Pseudonymous Bidding in Combinatorial Auctions , 2005 .

[7]  Nikhil Bansal,et al.  The Santa Claus problem , 2006, STOC '06.

[8]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Optimal False-Name-Proof Voting Rules with Costly Voting , 2008, AAAI.

[9]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Anonymity-Proof Voting Rules , 2008, WINE.

[10]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Fair Division under Ordinal Preferences: Computing Envy-Free Allocations of Indivisible Goods , 2010, ECAI.

[11]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Cloning in Elections: Finding the Possible Winners , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[13]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  A General Elicitation-Free Protocol for Allocating Indivisible Goods , 2011, IJCAI.

[14]  Edith Elkind,et al.  False-Name Manipulations in Weighted Voting Games , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[15]  William Thomson,et al.  Consistency and its converse: an introduction , 2011 .

[16]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Strategic Behavior in a Decentralized Protocol for Allocating Indivisible Good , 2012 .

[17]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Fully Proportional Representation as Resource Allocation: Approximability Results , 2012, IJCAI.

[18]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Properties of multiwinner voting rules , 2014, Social Choice and Welfare.

[19]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  False-Name Manipulation in Weighted Voting Games Is Hard for Probabilistic Polynomial Time , 2013, LATIN.

[20]  P. Fishburn,et al.  Voting Procedures , 2022 .