IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v76y2014i4p547-572.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair division of indivisible items between two players: design parameters for Contested Pile methods

Author

Listed:
  • Rudolf Vetschera
  • D. Kilgour

Abstract

Contested Pile methods are two-phase procedures for the fair allocation of indivisible items to two players. In the Generation Phase, items over which the players’ preferences differ widely enough are allocated. “Contested” items are placed in the Contested Pile, which is then allocated in the Splitting Phase. Each phase can be carried out using several different techniques; we perform a comprehensive analysis of the resulting design variants using a computational model. The properties of fairness and efficiency, generally achieved in the Generation Phase, must be traded off against robustness to manipulation. We find that the recently developed Undercut procedure for the Splitting Phase outperforms alternative methods in both fairness and efficiency. In general, procedures that keep the Contested Pile relatively small and incorporate the Undercut procedure score well in both fairness and efficiency, but are prone to manipulation. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Rudolf Vetschera & D. Kilgour, 2014. "Fair division of indivisible items between two players: design parameters for Contested Pile methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 547-572, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:76:y:2014:i:4:p:547-572
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-013-9385-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-013-9385-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-013-9385-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    2. Beersma, Bianca & De Dreu, Carsten K. W., 2002. "Integrative and Distributive Negotiation in Small Groups: Effects of Task Structure, Decision Rule, and Social Motive," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 227-252, March.
    3. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2012. "The undercut procedure: an algorithm for the envy-free division of indivisible items," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 615-631, July.
    4. Dall'Aglio, Marco & Mosca, Raffaele, 2007. "How to allocate hard candies fairly," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 218-237, December.
    5. Tripp, Thomas M. & Sondak, Harris, 1992. "An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 273-295, March.
    6. Rudolf Vetschera & D. Marc Kilgour, 2013. "Strategic Behavior in Contested-Pile Methods for Fair Division of Indivisible Items," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 299-319, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Klamler, Christian, 2013. "Two-Person Fair Division of Indivisible Items: An Efficient, Envy-Free Algorithm," MPRA Paper 47400, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Klamler, Christian, 2013. "Two-Person Fair Division of Indivisible Items: An Efficient, Envy-Free Algorithm," MPRA Paper 47400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Gregory E. Kersten & Tomasz Wachowicz & Margaret Kersten, 2016. "Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 693-722, July.
    3. Rudolf Vetschera & D. Marc Kilgour, 2013. "Strategic Behavior in Contested-Pile Methods for Fair Division of Indivisible Items," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 299-319, March.
    4. Michael Filzmoser & Patrick Hippmann & Rudolf Vetschera, 2016. "Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1169-1188, November.
    5. Backhaus, & Pesch,, 2018. "Verhandlungen – Spiegeln die Lehrbücher den Stand der Forschung wider?," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 72(1), pages 3-26.
    6. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    8. Haris Aziz, 2015. "A note on the undercut procedure," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 723-728, December.
    9. Grant Savage & Michele Bunn & Barbara Gray & Qian Xiao & Sijun Wang & Elizabeth Wilson & Eric Williams, 2010. "Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 21-26, August.
    10. Yuan Sun & Shuyue Fang & Yujong Hwang, 2019. "Investigating Privacy and Information Disclosure Behavior in Social Electronic Commerce," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-27, June.
    11. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    12. Jos Timmermans, 2008. "Punctuated equilibrium in a non-linear system of action," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 350-375, December.
    13. RAMAEKERS, Eve, 2010. "Fair allocation of indivisible goods among two agents," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2010087, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.
    15. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.
    16. Schippers, M.C., 2020. "Majority Decision Making Works Best under Conditions of Leadership Ambiguity and Shared Task Representations," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2020-011-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    17. Mouzas, Stefanos & Ford, David, 2006. "Managing relationships in showery weather: The role of umbrella agreements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(12), pages 1248-1256, November.
    18. Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    19. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    20. Rufo, M.J. & Martín, J. & Pérez, C.J., 2016. "A Bayesian negotiation model for quality and price in a multi-consumer context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 132-141.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:76:y:2014:i:4:p:547-572. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.