An official website of the United States government
We study fair resource allocation with strategic agents. It is well-known that, across multiple fundamental problems in this domain, truthfulness and fairness are incompatible. For example, when allocating indivisible goods, no truthful and deterministic mechanism can guarantee envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), even for two agents with additive valuations. Or, in cake-cutting, no truthful and deterministic mechanism always outputs a proportional allocation, even for two agents with piecewise constant valuations. Our work stems from the observation that, in the context of fair division, truthfulness is used as a synonym for Dominant Strategy Incentive Compatibility (DSIC), requiring that an agent prefers reporting the truth, no matter what other agents report.In this paper, we instead focus on Bayesian Incentive Compatible (BIC) mechanisms, requiring that agents are better off reporting the truth in expectation over other agents' reports. We prove that, when agents know a bit less about each other, a lot more is possible: using BIC mechanisms we can achieve fairness notions that are unattainable by DSIC mechanisms in both the fundamental problems of allocation of indivisible goods and cake-cutting. We prove that this is the case even for an arbitrary number of agents, as long as the agents' priors about each others' types satisfy a neutrality condition. Notably, for the case of indivisible goods, we significantly strengthen the state-of-the-art negative result for efficient DSIC mechanisms, while also highlighting the limitations of BIC mechanisms, by showing that a very general class of welfare objectives is incompatible with Bayesian Incentive Compatibility. Combined, these results give a near-complete picture of the power and limitations of BIC and DSIC mechanisms for the problem of allocating indivisible goods.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 10, 2025
Plant-and-Steal: Truthful Fair Allocations via Predictions
We study truthful mechanisms for approximating the Maximin-Share (MMS) allocation of agents with additive valuations for indivisible goods. Algorithmically, constant factor approximations exist for the problem for any number of agents. When adding incentives to the mix, a jarring result by Amanatidis, Birmpas, Christodoulou, and Markakis [EC 2017] shows that the best possible approximation for two agents and m items is ⌊m2⌋. We adopt a learning-augmented framework to investigate what is possible when some prediction on the input is given. For two agents, we give a truthful mechanism that takes agents' ordering over items as prediction. When the prediction is accurate, we give a 2-approximation to the MMS (consistency), and when the prediction is off, we still get an ⌈m2⌉-approximation to the MMS (robustness). We further show that the mechanism's performance degrades gracefully in the number of mistakes" in the prediction; i.e., we interpolate (up to constant factors) between the two extremes: when there are no mistakes, and when there is a maximum number of mistakes. We also show an impossibility result on the obtainable consistency for mechanisms with finite robustness. For the general case of n≥2 agents, we give a 2-approximation mechanism for accurate predictions, with relaxed fallback guarantees. Finally, we give experimental results which illustrate when different components of our framework, made to insure consistency and robustness, come into play.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2310818
- PAR ID:
- 10577204
- Publisher / Repository:
- Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024)
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Suppose that we have $$n$$ agents and $$n$$ items which lie in a shared metric space. We would like to match the agents to items such that the total distance from agents to their matched items is as small as possible. However, instead of having direct access to distances in the metric, we only have each agent's ranking of the items in order of distance. Given this limited information, what is the minimum possible worst-case approximation ratio (known as the \emph{distortion}) that a matching mechanism can guarantee? Previous work by \citet{CFRF+16} proved that the (deterministic) Serial Dictatorship mechanism has distortion at most $$2^n - 1$. We improve this by providing a simple deterministic mechanism that has distortion $O(n^2)$. We also provide the first nontrivial lower bound on this problem, showing that any matching mechanism (deterministic or randomized) must have worst-case distortion $$\Omega(\log n)$$. In addition to these new bounds, we show that a large class of truthful mechanisms derived from Deferred Acceptance all have worst-case distortion at least $2^n - 1$, and we find an intriguing connection between \emph{thin matchings} (analogous to the well-known thin trees conjecture) and the distortion gap between deterministic and randomized mechanisms.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Peer prediction mechanisms incentivize agents to truthfully report their signals even in the absence of verification by comparing agents’ reports with those of their peers. In the detail-free multi-task setting, agents are asked to respond to multiple independent and identically distributed tasks, and the mechanism does not know the prior distribution of agents’ signals. The goal is to provide an epsilon-strongly truthful mechanism where truth-telling rewards agents “strictly” more than any other strategy profile (with epsilon additive error) even for heterogeneous agents, and to do so while requiring as few tasks as possible. We design a family of mechanisms with a scoring function that maps a pair of reports to a score. The mechanism is strongly truthful if the scoring function is “prior ideal”. Moreover, the mechanism is epsilon-strongly truthful as long as the scoring function used is sufficiently close to the ideal scoring function. This reduces the above mechanism design problem to a learning problem – specifically learning an ideal scoring function. Because learning the prior distribution is sufficient (but not necessary) to learn the scoring function, we can apply standard learning theory techniques that leverage side information about the prior (e.g., that it is close to some parametric model). Furthermore, we derive a variational representation of an ideal scoring function and reduce the learning problem into an empirical risk minimization. We leverage this reduction to obtain very general results for peer prediction in the multi-task setting. Specifically, Sample Complexity. We show how to derive good bounds on the number of tasks required for different types of priors–in some cases exponentially improving previous results. In particular, we can upper bound the required number of tasks for parametric models with bounded learning complexity. Furthermore, our reduction applies to myriad continuous signal space settings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first peer-prediction mechanism on continuous signals designed for the multi-task setting. Connection to Machine Learning. We show how to turn a soft-predictor of an agent’s signals (given the other agents’ signals) into a mechanism. This allows the practical use of machine learning algorithms that give good results even when many agents provide noisy information. Stronger Properties. In the finite setting, we obtain -strongly truthful mechanisms for any stochastically relevant prior. Prior works either only apply to more restrictive settings, or achieve a weaker notion of truthfulness (informed truthfulness).more » « less
-
Peer prediction refers to a collection of mechanisms for eliciting information from human agents when direct verification of the obtained information is unavailable. They are designed to have a game-theoretic equilibrium where everyone reveals their private information truthfully. This result holds under the assumption that agents are Bayesian and they each adopt a fixed strategy across all tasks. Human agents however are observed in many domains to exhibit learning behavior in sequential settings. In this paper, we explore the dynamics of sequential peer prediction mechanisms when participants are learning agents. We first show that the notion of no regret alone for the agents’ learning algorithms cannot guaran- tee convergence to the truthful strategy. We then focus on a family of learning algorithms where strategy updates only depend on agents’ cumulative rewards and prove that agents’ strategies in the popular Correlated Agreement (CA) mechanism converge to truthful reporting when they use algorithms from this family. This fam- ily of algorithms is not necessarily no-regret, but includes several familiar no-regret learning algorithms (e.g multiplicative weight update and Follow the Perturbed Leader) as special cases. Simulation of several algorithms in this family as well as the ε-greedy algorithm, which is outside of this family, shows convergence to the truthful strategy in the CA mechanism.more » « less
-
We initiate the study of information elicitation mechanisms for a crowd containing both self-interested agents, who respond to incentives, and adversarial agents, who may collude to disrupt the system. Our mechanisms work in the peer prediction setting where ground truth need not be accessible to the mechanism or even exist. We provide a meta-mechanism that reduces the design of peer prediction mechanisms to a related robust learning problem. The resulting mechanisms are ϵ-informed truthful, which means truth-telling is the highest paid ϵ-Bayesian Nash equilibrium (up to ϵ-error) and pays strictly more than uninformative equilibria. The value of ϵ depends on the properties of robust learning algorithm, and typically limits to 0 as the number of tasks and agents increase. We show how to use our meta-mechanism to design mechanisms with provable guarantees in two important crowdsourcing settings even when some agents are self-interested and others are adversarial.more » « less
