IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2104.14347.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Picking Sequences and Monotonicity in Weighted Fair Division

Author

Listed:
  • Mithun Chakraborty
  • Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin
  • Warut Suksompong

Abstract

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible items to agents with different entitlements, which captures, for example, the distribution of ministries among political parties in a coalition government. Our focus is on picking sequences derived from common apportionment methods, including five traditional divisor methods and the quota method. We paint a complete picture of these methods in relation to known envy-freeness and proportionality relaxations for indivisible items as well as monotonicity properties with respect to the resource, population, and weights. In addition, we provide characterizations of picking sequences satisfying each of the fairness notions, and show that the well-studied maximum Nash welfare solution fails resource- and population-monotonicity even in the unweighted setting. Our results serve as an argument in favor of using picking sequences in weighted fair division problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Mithun Chakraborty & Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Picking Sequences and Monotonicity in Weighted Fair Division," Papers 2104.14347, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2104.14347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.14347
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven J. Brams & Todd R. Kaplan, 2002. "Dividing the Indivisible: Procedures for Allocating Cabinet Ministries to Political Parties in a Parliamentary System," Discussion Papers 0202, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    2. Erel Segal-Halevi & Balázs R. Sziklai, 2019. "Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 363-401, September.
    3. Steven J. Brams & Todd R. Kaplan, 2004. "Dividing the Indivisible," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 143-173, April.
    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. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2023. "Weighted Fair Division with Matroid-Rank Valuations: Monotonicity and Strategyproofness," Papers 2303.14454, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    2. Mithun Chakraborty & Erel Segal-Halevi & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Weighted Fairness Notions for Indivisible Items Revisited," Papers 2112.04166, arXiv.org.
    3. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2022. "On Maximum Weighted Nash Welfare for Binary Valuations," Papers 2204.03803, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    4. Jonathan Scarlett & Nicholas Teh & Yair Zick, 2023. "For One and All: Individual and Group Fairness in the Allocation of Indivisible Goods," Papers 2302.06958, arXiv.org.

    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. Haris Aziz, 2016. "A generalization of the AL method for fair allocation of indivisible objects," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 4(2), pages 307-324, October.
    3. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    4. Josué Ortega & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2022. "Obvious manipulations in cake-cutting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(4), pages 969-988, November.
    5. Xiaohui Bei & Xinhang Lu & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Truthful Cake Sharing," Papers 2112.05632, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    6. Harald Wiese, 2007. "Measuring The Power Of Parties Within Government Coalitions," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 307-322.
    7. 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.
    8. T. Clark Durant & Michael Weintraub, 2014. "How to make democracy self-enforcing after civil war: Enabling credible yet adaptable elite pacts," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(5), pages 521-540, November.
    9. Suksompong, Warut, 2023. "A characterization of maximum Nash welfare for indivisible goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    10. Alejandro Ecker & Thomas M. Meyer, 2019. "Fairness and qualitative portfolio allocation in multiparty governments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 309-330, December.
    11. Erel Segal-Halevi & Shmuel Nitzan & Avinatan Hassidim & Yonatan Aumann, 2020. "Envy-Free Division of Land," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 896-922, August.
    12. Steven J. Brams & Daniel L. King, 2005. "Efficient Fair Division," Rationality and Society, , vol. 17(4), pages 387-421, November.
    13. Segal-Halevi, Erel & Sziklai, Balázs R., 2018. "Resource-monotonicity and population-monotonicity in connected cake-cutting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 19-30.
    14. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2022. "On Maximum Weighted Nash Welfare for Binary Valuations," Papers 2204.03803, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    15. Bhardwaj, Bhavook & Kumar, Rajnish & Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Fairness and efficiency in cake-cutting with single-peaked preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2104.14347. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.