Computer Science - Computer Science and Game Theory
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,
there is no truthful and deterministic mechanism that guarantees 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
overcome the aforementioned barriers that DSIC mechanisms face 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. En
route to our results on BIC mechanisms, we also strengthen the state of the art
in terms of negative results for DSIC mechanisms.
Metrics
8 Record Views
Details
Title
Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division