Simon Rey

Sirin Botan, Simon Rey, Zoi Terzopoulou

We study settings in which agents with incomplete preferences need to make a collective decision. We focus on a process of majority dynamics where issues are addressed one at a time and undecided agents follow the opinion of the majority. We assess the effects of this process on various consensus notions -- such as the Condorcet winner -- and show that in the worst case, myopic adherence to the majority damages existing consensus; yet, simulation experiments indicate that the damage is often mild. We also examine scenarios where the chair of the decision process can control the existence (or the identity) of consensus, by determining the order in which the issues are discussed.

Aurélie Beynier, Nicolas Maudet, Simon Rey et al.

Recently, the problem of allocating one resource per agent with initial endowments (house markets) has seen a renewed interest: indeed, while in the domain of strict preferences the Top Trading Cycle algorithm is known to be the only procedure guaranteeing Pareto-optimality, individual rationality, and strategy proofness. However, the situation differs in the single-peaked domain. Indeed, Bade presented the Crawler, an alternative procedure enjoying the same properties, with the additional advantage of being implementable in obviously dominant strategies. In this paper we further investigate the Crawler and propose the Diver, a variant which checks optimally whether an allocation is Pareto-optimal for single-peaked preferences, thus improving over known techniques used for checking Pareto-optimality in more general domains. We also prove that the Diver is asymptotically optimal in terms of communication complexity.

Haris Aziz, Simon Rey

We consider a multi-agent resource allocation setting in which an agent's utility may decrease or increase when an item is allocated. We take the group envy-freeness concept that is well-established in the literature and present stronger and relaxed versions that are especially suitable for the allocation of indivisible items. Of particular interest is a concept called group envy-freeness up to one item (GEF1). We then present a clear taxonomy of the fairness concepts. We study which fairness concepts guarantee the existence of a fair allocation under which preference domain. For two natural classes of additive utilities, we design polynomial-time algorithms to compute a GEF1 allocation. We also prove that checking whether a given allocation satisfies GEF1 is coNP-complete when there are either only goods, only chores or both.

Aurélie Beynier, Nicolas Maudet, Simon Rey et al.

This paper focuses on the problem of fairly and efficiently allocating resources to agents. We consider a specific setting, usually referred to as a housing market, where each agent must receive exactly one resource (and initially owns one). In this framework, in the domain of linear preferences, the Top Trading Cycle (TTC) algorithm is the only procedure satisfying Pareto-optimality, individual rationality and strategy-proofness. Under the restriction of single-peaked preferences, Crawler enjoys the same properties. These two centralized procedures might however involve long trading cycles. In this paper we focus instead on procedures involving the shortest cycles: bilateral swap-deals. In such swap dynamics, the agents perform pairwise mutually improving deals until reaching a swap-stable allocation (no improving swap-deal is possible). We prove that in the single-peaked domain every swap-stable allocation is Pareto-optimal, showing the efficiency of the swap dynamics. In fact, this domain turns out to be maximal when it comes to guaranteeing this property. Besides, both the outcome of TTC and Crawler can always be reached by sequences of swaps. However, some Pareto-optimal allocations are not reachable through improving swap-deals. We further analyze the outcome of swap dynamics through social welfare notions, in our context the average or minimum rank of the resources obtained by agents in the final allocation. We start by providing a worst-case analysis of these procedures. Finally, we present an extensive experimental study in which different versions of swap dynamics are compared to other existing allocation procedures. We show that they exhibit good results on average in this domain, under different cultures for generating synthetic data.

Aurélie Beynier, Sylvain Bouveret, Michel Lemaître et al.

In fair division of indivisible goods, using sequences of sincere choices (or picking sequences) is a natural way to allocate the objects. The idea is as follows: at each stage, a designated agent picks one object among those that remain. Another intuitive way to obtain an allocation is to give objects to agents in the first place, and to let agents exchange them as long as such "deals" are beneficial. This paper investigates these notions, when agents have additive preferences over objects, and unveils surprising connections between them, and with other efficiency and fairness notions. In particular, we show that an allocation is sequenceable iff it is optimal for a certain type of deals, namely cycle deals involving a single object. Furthermore, any Pareto-optimal allocation is sequenceable, but not the converse. Regarding fairness, we show that an allocation can be envy-free and non-sequenceable, but that every competitive equilibrium with equal incomes is sequenceable. To complete the picture, we show how some domain restrictions may affect the relations between these notions. Finally, we experimentally explore the links between the scales of efficiency and fairness.