Agents vote to choose a fair mixture of public outcomes; each agent likes or dislikes each outcome. We discuss three outstanding voting rules. The Conditional Utilitarian rule, a variant of the random dictator, is Strategyproof and guarantees to any group of like-minded agents an influence proportional to its size. It is easier to compute and more efficient than the familiar Random Priority rule. Its worst case (resp. average) inefficiency is provably (resp. in numerical experiments) low if the number of agents is low. The efficient Egalitarian rule protects similarly individual agents but not coalitions. It is Excludable Strategyproof: I do not want to lie if I cannot consume outcomes I claim to dislike. The efficient Nash Max Product rule offers the strongest welfare guarantees to coalitions, who can force any outcome with a probability proportional to their size. But it fails even the excludable form of Strategyproofness.
翻译:代理人投票选择公平的公共结果组合; 每一个代理人喜欢或不喜欢每个结果。 我们讨论三个未决的投票规则。 有条件的公用事业规则, 随机独裁者的变种, 是战略的防守和保证, 对任何具有相同想法的代理人群体来说, 其影响与其规模相称。 比熟悉的随机优先规则更容易计算, 效率更高。 如果代理人数量少, 其最差的情况( 平均) 效率低( 在数字实验中重复 ) 。 高效的英格利特规则 保护相似的个别代理人, 而不是联盟 。 这是可排除的战略 : 如果我不能消费结果, 我不愿说谎, 我声称不喜欢它。 高效的纳什 马克什产品规则为联盟提供了最强的福利保障, 他们可以以与其规模成正比的方式强迫取得任何结果。 但是它甚至没有达到可排除的战略防护形式 。