从一般收入看竞争均衡下的公平分配

Moshe Babaioff, N. Nisan, Inbal Talgam-Cohen
{"title":"从一般收入看竞争均衡下的公平分配","authors":"Moshe Babaioff, N. Nisan, Inbal Talgam-Cohen","doi":"10.1145/3287560.3287582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two food banks catering to populations of different sizes with different needs must divide among themselves a donation of food items. What constitutes a \"fair\" allocation of the items among them? Competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (CEEI) is a classic solution to the problem of fair and efficient allocation of goods among equally entitled agents [Foley 1967, Varian 1974]. Every agent (foodbank) receives an equal endowment of artificial currency with which to \"purchase\" bundles of goods (food items). Prices for the goods are set high enough such that the agents can simultaneously get their favorite within-budget bundle, and low enough such that all goods are allocated (no waste). A CEEI satisfies mathematical notions of fairness like fair-share, and also has built-in transparency -- prices can be published so the agents can verify they're being treated equally. However, a CEEI is not guaranteed to exist when the items are indivisible. We study competitive equilibrium from generic incomes (CEGI), which is based on the idea of slightly perturbed endowments, and enjoys similar fairness, efficiency and transparency properties as CEEI. We show that when the two agents have almost equal endowments and additive preferences for the items, a CEGI always exists. We then consider agents who are a priori non-equal (like different-sized foodbanks); we formulate a new notion of fair allocation among non-equals satisfied by CEGI, and show existence in cases of interest (like when the agents have identical preferences). Experiments on simulated and Spliddit data (a popular fair division website) indicate more general existence. Our results open opportunities for future research on fairness through generic endowments, and on fair treatment of non-equals.","PeriodicalId":20573,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fair Allocation through Competitive Equilibrium from Generic Incomes\",\"authors\":\"Moshe Babaioff, N. Nisan, Inbal Talgam-Cohen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3287560.3287582\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two food banks catering to populations of different sizes with different needs must divide among themselves a donation of food items. What constitutes a \\\"fair\\\" allocation of the items among them? Competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (CEEI) is a classic solution to the problem of fair and efficient allocation of goods among equally entitled agents [Foley 1967, Varian 1974]. Every agent (foodbank) receives an equal endowment of artificial currency with which to \\\"purchase\\\" bundles of goods (food items). Prices for the goods are set high enough such that the agents can simultaneously get their favorite within-budget bundle, and low enough such that all goods are allocated (no waste). A CEEI satisfies mathematical notions of fairness like fair-share, and also has built-in transparency -- prices can be published so the agents can verify they're being treated equally. However, a CEEI is not guaranteed to exist when the items are indivisible. We study competitive equilibrium from generic incomes (CEGI), which is based on the idea of slightly perturbed endowments, and enjoys similar fairness, efficiency and transparency properties as CEEI. We show that when the two agents have almost equal endowments and additive preferences for the items, a CEGI always exists. We then consider agents who are a priori non-equal (like different-sized foodbanks); we formulate a new notion of fair allocation among non-equals satisfied by CEGI, and show existence in cases of interest (like when the agents have identical preferences). Experiments on simulated and Spliddit data (a popular fair division website) indicate more general existence. Our results open opportunities for future research on fairness through generic endowments, and on fair treatment of non-equals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287582\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

两个食物银行为不同规模、不同需求的人口提供服务,它们之间必须分配捐赠的食物。怎样才能“公平”地分配这些物品呢?平等收入的竞争均衡(CEEI)是解决平等权利主体之间公平有效分配商品问题的经典方法[Foley 1967, Varian 1974]。每个代理(食物库)都获得相同的人工货币,用来“购买”成捆的商品(食物)。商品的价格设定得足够高,这样代理们就可以同时在预算范围内获得他们最喜欢的商品,同时又设定得足够低,这样所有的商品都能得到分配(没有浪费)。CEEI满足公平的数学概念,比如公平分享,而且还具有内置的透明度——价格可以公布,这样代理就可以验证他们受到了平等对待。但是,当项目不可分割时,不能保证存在CEEI。本文从一般收入(CEGI)的角度研究竞争均衡,它基于微扰动禀赋的思想,具有与一般收入相似的公平性、效率和透明度。我们证明了当两个智能体对物品具有几乎相等的禀赋和附加偏好时,一个CEGI总是存在的。然后我们考虑先天不相等的代理(比如不同规模的食物银行);我们提出了一个新的概念,即在CEGI满足的不平等之间公平分配,并证明了利益情况下的存在性(比如当代理具有相同的偏好时)。在模拟和Spliddit(一个流行的公平划分网站)数据上的实验表明,这种情况更为普遍。我们的研究结果为未来研究通用捐赠的公平性以及对不平等者的公平待遇提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fair Allocation through Competitive Equilibrium from Generic Incomes
Two food banks catering to populations of different sizes with different needs must divide among themselves a donation of food items. What constitutes a "fair" allocation of the items among them? Competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (CEEI) is a classic solution to the problem of fair and efficient allocation of goods among equally entitled agents [Foley 1967, Varian 1974]. Every agent (foodbank) receives an equal endowment of artificial currency with which to "purchase" bundles of goods (food items). Prices for the goods are set high enough such that the agents can simultaneously get their favorite within-budget bundle, and low enough such that all goods are allocated (no waste). A CEEI satisfies mathematical notions of fairness like fair-share, and also has built-in transparency -- prices can be published so the agents can verify they're being treated equally. However, a CEEI is not guaranteed to exist when the items are indivisible. We study competitive equilibrium from generic incomes (CEGI), which is based on the idea of slightly perturbed endowments, and enjoys similar fairness, efficiency and transparency properties as CEEI. We show that when the two agents have almost equal endowments and additive preferences for the items, a CEGI always exists. We then consider agents who are a priori non-equal (like different-sized foodbanks); we formulate a new notion of fair allocation among non-equals satisfied by CEGI, and show existence in cases of interest (like when the agents have identical preferences). Experiments on simulated and Spliddit data (a popular fair division website) indicate more general existence. Our results open opportunities for future research on fairness through generic endowments, and on fair treatment of non-equals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信