Fair Division Flashcards

1
Q

Pareto Efficiency

A

An agreement is Pareto efficient/optimal if there is no other feasible agreement that would make at least one agent strictly better off while not making the others worse off

=> there exists no other feasible agreement A’ such that A is Pareto dominated by A’

no intensity about preferences needed, just simple preference orderings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Pareto Dominance

A

PARETO DOMINANCE: Agreement A is Pareto dominated by agreement A’ if ui(A)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Welfarist Approach

A

> To judge fairness, the only information we should use are the utility levels of the individual agents.

> Rather than looking at allocations and assessing their relative fairness, we only need to look at and compare the utility vectors 〈u_1,…,u_n 〉∈R^n they induce.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Social Welfare Orderings

A

A binary relation ≼ over utility vectors

> transitive
reflexive
complete

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Collective Utility Functions

A

SWO: u ≼ v ⟺ SW(u) ≤ SW(u)

1) UTILITARIAN SOCIAL WELFARE (SW):
Mapping each utility vector to the sum of individual utilities
> Satisfies ZI

2) EGALITARIAN SW:
mapping each utility vector to the minimum individual utility*

5) NASH SW:
mapping to the product
> combines efficiency and fairness
> Scale Independent

6) LEXIMIN ORDERING:
Natural refinement of egalitarian SW

> satisfies pigou dalton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Social Welfare Ordering AXIOMS

A
  1. ANONYMITY / Symmetry
    States that It states that all agents should be treated equally. All SWOs listed satisfy anonymity
  2. UNANIMITY
    All listed SWOS are unanimous
  3. PIGOU-DALTON PRINCIPLE
    - Central intuition about fairness
    > Satisfied by Leximin and Utaltarian ordering
  4. SCALE INDEPENDENCE
    SWO is independent by the individually used utility scales
    > Satisfied by Nash Product
  5. ZERO INDEPENDENCE
    u Satisfied by Utilitarian SWO
  6. Seperability
    social welfare judgments should be independent of non-concerned agents. An SWO ≼ is separable if u ≼ v entails (u + w) ≼ (v + w)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Additive Utility Function

A

The utility of a bundle is the sum of the utilities of the parts of the bundle.

The function is additive only if it is both, subadditive and superadditive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Subadditive Utility Function

A

The sum of utilities of two disjoint bundles will be less or equal to the utility assigned to their union.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Superadditive Utility Function

A

The sum of utilities of two disjoint bundles will be more or equal to the utility assigned to their union.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Envy Freeness

A

An allocation is envy-free if no agent STRICTLY prefers one of the bundles assigned to another agent to their own bundle.

If an allocation is complete (=every good needs to be allocated to some agent), then envy-free allocations do not exist for some combinations of utility functions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Cut-and-choose

A

One player cuts (a divisible good) in to two parts he considers to be of equal value
The other one chooses the piece

> Envy free
Pareto efficient
Proportional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Steinhaus Procedure (3 Players)

A

1) Player 1 cuts into three equal (as judged by her) pieces

2) Player 2 passes (or labels two of them as bad.)
Players 3,2,1 choose –> we are done

3) If players did not pass then player 3 can choose between passing and labelling
Then choosing in 2,3,1

4) If neither 2 or 3 passes then player 1 has to take the piece that the other players labelled as bad

> Ensures proportional outcomes
> No guarantee for envy-freeness
> No referee required
> Pieces may not be contiguous
> Algorithm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Operational Properties in the cake cutting procedure

A

Contigous procedures (minimizes cuts and preference for contigous slice)

minimal cuts
complexity
active referee needed?
algorithm (clearly defined sequence of queries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Banach-Knaster Procedure (last diminisher)

A

1) player 1 cuts one piece off (she considers as 1/n)
2) That piece is passed around the players
- -> option to pass or trim down further
3) After that the last player has to cut something off (the last diminished)
4) The remaining including trimmings is divided amongst the rest of the players

> Proportional
not envy-free
no external referee
can be made a contiguous procedure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Dubins-Spanier Procedure (moving knife procedure)

A

1) The referee moves the knife slowly across the cake until any players shouts stop
- -> that player receives the pieces

2) Continueing with rest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Selfridge Conway procedure (3players)

A

1) players 1 cuts into three pieces (as judged equally by her)

2) Players 2 passes or trims
Passes_ 3,2,1

3) If player 2 trimmed than still 3,2,1 but 2 has to take the trimmed piece
4) Divide the trimmings

> eny-free

17
Q

Stromquist Procedure

A

moving knife procedure
Referee plus Knifes of the players

> envy-free and
proportional outcomes
referee required

18
Q

fair division Preferences

A

Are assumed to be cardinal not ordinal

Choices have a specific utility value not just a ranking

19
Q

social welfare

A

the sum of the individual utilities.

Maximising this function amounts to maximising average utility.

20
Q

C- Steinhaus Procedure

A
\+ proportional
\+ No referee
\+ 
- Not envy free
- Number of cuts not minimal
- May not be contiguous
21
Q

C- Banach Knaster (Last diminisher)

A

+ Proportional Outcomes
+ No referee
+ number of cuts is bounded
+ Can be a contiguous procedure

  • Not envy-free
22
Q

C- Dubins Spanier Proceudre

A

+ Proportional outcomes
+ COntiguous slice
+ Referee required

  • Not envy-free
  • Rests on the assumption that player 1 receives a 1/n because he is risk averse
23
Q

C- Selfridge-Conway

A

+ Envy-free
+ Proportionality
+ No referee required
+ Max. five cuts required

  • Not always a contiguous slice
24
Q

C. Stromquist Procedure

A

+ Envy-free
+ Proportionality
- Referee required