Knowledge (XXG)

Random priority item allocation

Source đź“ť

278:
choose his favorite alternative(s) among the remaining alternatives. If more than one alternative remains after taking the preferences of all agents into account, RSD uniformly randomizes over those alternatives. In the item division setting mentioned earlier, the alternatives correspond to the allocations of items to agents. Each agent has large equivalence classes in his preference, since he is indifferent between all the allocations in which he gets the same item.
171:
RSD gives a 1/3 chance of every object to each agent (because their preferences over sure objects coincide), and a profile of expected utility vector (0.6, 0.4, 0.4). But assigning item y to Alice for sure and items x,z randomly between Bob and Carl yields the expected utility vector (0.8, 0.5, 0.5).
277:
RSD can be defined for the more general setting in which the group has to select a single alternative from a set of alternatives. In this setting, RSD works as follows: First, randomly permute the agents. Starting with the set of all alternatives, ask each agent in the order of the permutation to
70:(or fewer) different items among them. Since the items are indivisible, some partners will necessarily get the less-preferred items (or no items at all). RSD attempts to insert fairness into this situation in the following way. Draw a 281:
In this general setting, if all agents have strict preferences over the alternatives, then RSD reduces to drawing a random agent and choosing the alternative that the agent likes best. This procedure is known as
86:
when the number of items is at most the number of agents, since you only have one opportunity to pick an item, and the obviously dominant strategy in this opportunity is to pick the best available item.
186:
When the rankings of the agents over the objects are drawn uniformly at random, the probability that the allocation given by RSD is ex-ante PE approaches zero as the number of agents grows.
246:
One way is to define a quota for each agent (such that the sum of quotas equals the number of objects), and let each agent in turn pick items up to his/her quota. This procedure remains
290:
when preferences are strict. When agents can have weak preferences, however, no procedure that extends RD (which includes RSD) satisfies both efficiency and strategyproofness.
253:
Another way is to let each agent pick a single object, and then do another round in which each agent picks a single object, until all objects are taken; this leads to the
74:
of the agents from the uniform distribution. Then, let them successively choose an object in that order (so the first agent in the ordering gets first pick and so on).
240: 68: 48: 373:
Abdulkadiroglu, Atila; Sonmez, Tayfun (1998). "Random Serial Dictatorship and the Core from Random Endowments in House Allocation Problems".
94:(PE) outcome. Moreover, in an assignment problem, every deterministic PE assignment is the outcome of SD for some ordering of the agents. 506:
Brandl, Florian; Brandt, Felix; Suksompong, Warut (2016). "The impossibility of extending random dictatorship to weak preferences".
98: 562: 557: 197:(which implies ex-ante envy-freeness), but it is not truthful. It is impossible to enjoy the advantages of both mechanisms: 109:
than ex-post Pareto-efficiency). As an example, suppose there are three agents, three items and the VNM utilities are:
254: 304: 190: 311: 300: 24: 242:
objects, some agents may get more than one object. There are several ways to extend RSD to this case.
465: 533: 515: 488: 390: 83: 71: 258: 201:
With cardinal additive utility functions, no mechanism is symmetric, truthful and ex-ante PE.
525: 480: 446: 417: 382: 355: 339: 265: 173: 91: 205: 101:
over random allocations, i.e., lotteries over objects (Note that ex-ante envy-freeness is
343: 314:
describes RSD is a general rule for social choice - not necessarily for item allocation.
225: 53: 33: 408:
Manea, Mihai (2009). "Asymptotic ordinal inefficiency of random serial dictatorship".
551: 450: 287: 247: 194: 180: 537: 179:
Moreover, when agents have ordinal rankings, RSD fails even the weaker property of
529: 208:
functions, no mechanism is sd-efficient, strategyproof, and treats equals equally.
437:
Zhou, Lin (1990). "On a conjecture by gale about one-sided matching problems".
359: 303:
compares RSD to other procedures for solving the same problem, such as the
422: 492: 394: 484: 386: 520: 105:
than ex-post envy-freeness, but ex-ante Pareto-efficiency is
346:(2001). "A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem". 286:(RD), and is the unique procedure that is efficient and 466:"Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance" 228: 56: 36: 193:, is sd-efficient (which implies ex-post PE) and sd- 97:
However, RSD is not ex-ante PE when the agents have
257:procedure. This procedure is fairer, but it is not 234: 62: 42: 27:- dividing indivisible items fairly among people. 8: 519: 421: 227: 55: 35: 111: 324: 264:Both procedures are special cases of a 334: 332: 330: 328: 172:So the original utility vector is not 7: 14: 99:Von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities 1: 530:10.1016/j.econlet.2016.01.028 90:RSD always yields an ex-post 451:10.1016/0022-0531(90)90070-Z 255:round-robin item allocation 579: 439:Journal of Economic Theory 348:Journal of Economic Theory 23:(RSD), is a procedure for 21:Random serial dictatorship 305:probabilistic-serial rule 222:When there are more than 191:probabilistic-serial rule 189:An alternative rule, the 250:, but it is very unfair. 218:More objects than agents 50:partners have to divide 563:Fair division protocols 464:Gibbard, Allan (1977). 273:General decision-making 360:10.1006/jeth.2000.2710 312:dictatorship mechanism 301:fair random assignment 236: 64: 44: 25:fair random assignment 558:Randomized algorithms 410:Theoretical Economics 237: 65: 45: 226: 54: 34: 284:random dictatorship 232: 84:truthful mechanism 72:random permutation 60: 40: 19:(RP), also called 508:Economics Letters 340:Bogomolnaia, Anna 235:{\displaystyle n} 169: 168: 63:{\displaystyle n} 43:{\displaystyle n} 570: 542: 541: 523: 503: 497: 496: 470: 461: 455: 454: 434: 428: 427: 425: 405: 399: 398: 370: 364: 363: 336: 266:picking sequence 241: 239: 238: 233: 174:Pareto efficient 112: 92:Pareto efficient 69: 67: 66: 61: 49: 47: 46: 41: 578: 577: 573: 572: 571: 569: 568: 567: 548: 547: 546: 545: 505: 504: 500: 485:10.2307/1911681 468: 463: 462: 458: 436: 435: 431: 407: 406: 402: 387:10.2307/2998580 372: 371: 367: 338: 337: 326: 321: 296: 275: 224: 223: 220: 215: 213:Generalizations 206:ordinal utility 80: 52: 51: 32: 31: 17:Random priority 12: 11: 5: 576: 574: 566: 565: 560: 550: 549: 544: 543: 498: 479:(3): 665–681. 456: 429: 416:(2): 165–197. 400: 365: 323: 322: 320: 317: 316: 315: 308: 295: 292: 274: 271: 270: 269: 262: 251: 231: 219: 216: 214: 211: 210: 209: 202: 167: 166: 163: 160: 157: 153: 152: 149: 146: 143: 139: 138: 135: 132: 129: 125: 124: 121: 118: 115: 79: 76: 59: 39: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 575: 564: 561: 559: 556: 555: 553: 539: 535: 531: 527: 522: 517: 513: 509: 502: 499: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 467: 460: 457: 452: 448: 444: 440: 433: 430: 424: 419: 415: 411: 404: 401: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 369: 366: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 344:Moulin, HervĂ© 341: 335: 333: 331: 329: 325: 318: 313: 309: 306: 302: 298: 297: 293: 291: 289: 288:strategyproof 285: 279: 272: 267: 263: 260: 259:strategyproof 256: 252: 249: 248:strategyproof 245: 244: 243: 229: 217: 212: 207: 203: 200: 199: 198: 196: 192: 187: 184: 182: 181:sd-efficiency 177: 175: 164: 161: 158: 155: 154: 150: 147: 144: 141: 140: 136: 133: 130: 127: 126: 122: 119: 116: 114: 113: 110: 108: 104: 100: 95: 93: 88: 85: 77: 75: 73: 57: 37: 28: 26: 22: 18: 511: 507: 501: 476: 473:Econometrica 472: 459: 442: 438: 432: 423:10419/150127 413: 409: 403: 378: 375:Econometrica 374: 368: 351: 347: 310:The page on 299:The page on 283: 280: 276: 221: 188: 185: 178: 170: 106: 102: 96: 89: 81: 29: 20: 16: 15: 445:: 123–135. 552:Categories 521:1510.07424 381:(3): 689. 354:(2): 295. 319:References 78:Properties 514:: 44–47. 195:envy-free 82:RSD is a 294:See also 107:stronger 30:Suppose 538:4917725 493:1911681 395:2998580 123:Item z 536:  491:  393:  120:Item y 117:Item x 103:weaker 534:S2CID 516:arXiv 489:JSTOR 469:(PDF) 391:JSTOR 204:With 128:Alice 156:Carl 526:doi 512:141 481:doi 447:doi 418:hdl 383:doi 356:doi 352:100 162:0.2 148:0.2 142:Bob 134:0.8 554:: 532:. 524:. 510:. 487:. 477:45 475:. 471:. 443:52 441:. 412:. 389:. 379:66 377:. 350:. 342:; 327:^ 183:. 176:. 165:0 151:0 137:0 540:. 528:: 518:: 495:. 483:: 453:. 449:: 426:. 420:: 414:4 397:. 385:: 362:. 358:: 307:. 268:. 261:. 230:n 159:1 145:1 131:1 58:n 38:n

Index

fair random assignment
random permutation
truthful mechanism
Pareto efficient
Von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities
Pareto efficient
sd-efficiency
probabilistic-serial rule
envy-free
ordinal utility
strategyproof
round-robin item allocation
strategyproof
picking sequence
strategyproof
fair random assignment
probabilistic-serial rule
dictatorship mechanism




Bogomolnaia, Anna
Moulin, Hervé
doi
10.1006/jeth.2000.2710
doi
10.2307/2998580
JSTOR
2998580

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑