PROPm Allocations of Indivisible Goods to Multiple Agents

Type: Preprint
Publication Date: 2021-05-24
Citations: 0

Abstract

We study the classic problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among a group of agents, and focus on the notion of approximate proportionality known as PROPm. Prior work showed that there exists an allocation that satisfies this notion of fairness for instances involving up to five agents, but fell short of proving that this is true in general. We extend this result to show that a PROPm allocation is guaranteed to exist for all instances, independent of the number of agents or goods. Our proof is constructive, providing an algorithm that computes such an allocation and, unlike prior work, the running time of this algorithm is polynomial in both the number of agents and the number of goods.

Locations

  • arXiv (Cornell University)

Similar Works

We study the classic problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among a group of agents, and focus on the notion of approximate proportionality known as PROPm. Prior … We study the classic problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among a group of agents, and focus on the notion of approximate proportionality known as PROPm. Prior work showed that there exists an allocation that satisfies this notion of fairness for instances involving up to five agents, but fell short of proving that this is true in general. We extend this result to show that a PROPm allocation is guaranteed to exist for all instances, independent of the number of agents or goods. Our proof is constructive, providing an algorithm that computes such an allocation and, unlike prior work, the running time of this algorithm is polynomial in both the number of agents and the number of goods.
We study the classic problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among a group of agents, and focus on the notion of approximate proportionality known as PROPm. Prior … We study the classic problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among a group of agents, and focus on the notion of approximate proportionality known as PROPm. Prior work showed that there exists an allocation that satisfies this notion of fairness for instances involving up to five agents, but fell short of proving that this is true in general. We extend this result to show that a PROPm allocation is guaranteed to exist for all instances, independent of the number of agents or goods. Our proof is constructive, providing an algorithm that computes such an allocation and, unlike prior work, the running time of this algorithm is polynomial in both the number of agents and the number of goods.
We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to multiple agents and focus on the proportionality, which is one of the classical fairness notions. Since proportional … We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to multiple agents and focus on the proportionality, which is one of the classical fairness notions. Since proportional allocations do not always exist when goods are indivisible, approximate concepts of proportionality have been considered in the previous work. Among them, proportionality up to the maximin good (PROPm) has been the best approximate notion of proportionality that can be achieved for all instances. In this paper, we introduce the notion of proportionality up to the least valued good on average (PROPavg), which is a stronger notion than PROPm, and show that a PROPavg allocation always exists for all instances and can be computed in polynomial time. %% for all instances. Our results establish PROPavg as a notable non-trivial fairness notion that can be achieved for all instances. Our proof is constructive, and based on a new technique that generalizes the cut-and-choose protocol and uses a recursive technique.
We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial … We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial obstacles to achieving fairness, and a very vibrant line of research has aimed to circumvent them using appropriate notions of approximate fairness. Recent work has established that even approximate versions of proportionality (PROPx) may be impossible to achieve even for small instances, while the best known achievable approximations (PROP1) are much weaker. We introduce the notion of proportionality up to the maximin item (PROPm) and show how to reach an allocation satisfying this notion for any instance involving up to five agents with additive valuations. PROPm provides a well-motivated middle-ground between PROP1 and PROPx, while also capturing some elements of the well-studied maximin share (MMS) benchmark: another relaxation of proportionality that has attracted a lot of attention.
We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial … We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial obstacles to achieving fairness, and a very vibrant line of research has aimed to circumvent them using appropriate notions of approximate fairness. Recent work has established that even approximate versions of proportionality (PROPx) may be impossible to achieve even for small instances, while the best known achievable approximations (PROP1) are much weaker. We introduce the notion of proportionality up to the maximin item (PROPm) and show how to reach an allocation satisfying this notion for any instance involving up to five agents with additive valuations. PROPm provides a well-motivated middle-ground between PROP1 and PROPx, while also capturing some elements of the well-studied maximin share (MMS) benchmark: another relaxation of proportionality that has attracted a lot of attention.
We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial … We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial obstacles to achieving fairness, and a very vibrant line of research has aimed to circumvent them using appropriate notions of approximate fairness. Recent work has established that even approximate versions of proportionality (PROPx) may be impossible to achieve even for small instances, while the best known achievable approximations (PROP1) are much weaker. We introduce the notion of proportionality up to the maximin item (PROPm) and show how to reach an allocation satisfying this notion for any instance involving up to five agents with additive valuations. PROPm provides a well-motivated middle-ground between PROP1 and PROPx, while also capturing some elements of the well-studied maximin share (MMS) benchmark: another relaxation of proportionality that has attracted a lot of attention.
The theory of algorithmic fair allocation is within the center of multi-agent systems and economics in the last decade due to its industrial and social importance. At a high level, … The theory of algorithmic fair allocation is within the center of multi-agent systems and economics in the last decade due to its industrial and social importance. At a high level, the problem is to assign a set of items that are either goods or chores to a set of agents so that every agent is happy with what she obtains. Particularly, in this survey, we focus on indivisible items, for which absolute fairness such as envy-freeness and proportionality cannot be guaranteed. One main theme in the recent research agenda is about designing algorithms that approximately achieve the fairness criteria. We aim at presenting a comprehensive survey of recent progresses through the prism of algorithms, highlighting the ways to relax fairness notions and common techniques to design algorithms, as well as the most interesting questions for future research.
Fair resource allocation is an important problem in many real-world scenarios, where resources such as goods and chores must be allocated among agents. In this survey, we delve into the … Fair resource allocation is an important problem in many real-world scenarios, where resources such as goods and chores must be allocated among agents. In this survey, we delve into the intricacies of fair allocation, focusing specifically on the challenges associated with indivisible resources. We define fairness and efficiency within this context and thoroughly survey existential results, algorithms, and approximations that satisfy various fairness criteria, including envyfreeness, proportionality, MMS, and their relaxations. Additionally, we discuss algorithms that achieve fairness and efficiency, such as Pareto Optimality and Utilitarian Welfare. We also study the computational complexity of these algorithms, the likelihood of finding fair allocations, and the price of fairness for each fairness notion. We also cover mixed instances of indivisible and divisible items and investigate different valuation and allocation settings. By summarizing the state-of-the-art research, this survey provides valuable insights into fair resource allocation of indivisible goods and chores, highlighting computational complexities, fairness guarantees, and trade-offs between fairness and efficiency. It serves as a foundation for future advancements in this vital field.
Fairly allocating indivisible items among agents is an important and well-studied problem. However, fairness does not have a single universally agreed-upon definition, and so, many different definitions of fairness have … Fairly allocating indivisible items among agents is an important and well-studied problem. However, fairness does not have a single universally agreed-upon definition, and so, many different definitions of fairness have been proposed and studied. Some of these definitions are considered more fair than others, although stronger fairness notions are also more difficult to guarantee. In this work, we study 21 different notions of fairness and arrange them in a hierarchy. Formally, we say that a fairness notion $F_1$ implies another notion $F_2$ if every $F_1$-fair allocation is also an $F_2$-fair allocation. We give a near-complete picture of implications among fairness notions: for almost every pair of notions, we either prove that one notion implies the other, or we give a counterexample, i.e., an allocation that is fair by one notion but not by the other. Although some of these results are well-known, many of them are new. We give results for many different settings: allocating goods, allocating chores, and allocating mixed manna. We believe our work clarifies the relative merits of different fairness notions, and provides a foundation for further research in fair allocation. Moreover, we developed an inference engine to automate part of our work. This inference engine is implemented as a user-friendly web application and is not restricted to fair division scenarios, so it holds potential for broader use.
In this work, we revisit the problem of fairly allocating a number of indivisible items that are located on a line to multiple agents. A feasible allocation requires that the … In this work, we revisit the problem of fairly allocating a number of indivisible items that are located on a line to multiple agents. A feasible allocation requires that the allocated items to each agent are connected on the line. The items can be goods on which agents have non-negative utilities, or chores on which the utilities are non-positive. Our objective is to understand the extent to which welfare is inevitably sacrificed by enforcing the allocations to be fair, i.e., price of fairness (PoF). We study both egalitarian and utilitarian welfare. Previous works by Suksompong [Discret. Appl. Math., 2019] and H\"ohne and van Stee [Inf. Comput., 2021] have studied PoF regarding the notions of envy-freeness and proportionality. However, these fair allocations barely exist for indivisible items, and thus in this work, we focus on the relaxations of maximin share fairness and proportionality up to one item, which are guaranteed to be satisfiable. For most settings, we give (almost) tight ratios of PoF and all the upper bounds are proved by designing polynomial time algorithms.
We consider a multi-agent resource allocation setting in which an agent's utility may decrease or increase when an item is allocated. We take the group envy-freeness concept that is well-established … We consider a multi-agent resource allocation setting in which an agent's utility may decrease or increase when an item is allocated. We take the group envy-freeness concept that is well-established in the literature and present stronger and relaxed versions that are especially suitable for the allocation of indivisible items. Of particular interest is a concept called group envy-freeness up to one item (GEF1). We then present a clear taxonomy of the fairness concepts. We study which fairness concepts guarantee the existence of a fair allocation under which preference domain. For two natural classes of additive utilities, we design polynomial-time algorithms to compute a GEF1 allocation. We also prove that checking whether a given allocation satisfies GEF1 is coNP-complete when there are either only goods, only chores or both.
We consider a multi-agent resource allocation setting in which an agent's utility may decrease or increase when an item is allocated. We take the group envy-freeness concept that is well-established … We consider a multi-agent resource allocation setting in which an agent's utility may decrease or increase when an item is allocated. We take the group envy-freeness concept that is well-established in the literature and present stronger and relaxed versions that are especially suitable for the allocation of indivisible items. Of particular interest is a concept called group envy-freeness up to one item (GEF1). We then present a clear taxonomy of the fairness concepts. We study which fairness concepts guarantee the existence of a fair allocation under which preference domain. For two natural classes of additive utilities, we design polynomial-time algorithms to compute a GEF1 allocation. We also prove that checking whether a given allocation satisfies GEF1 is coNP-complete when there are either only goods, only chores or both.
We consider the problem of fairly allocating a combination of divisible and indivisible goods. While fairness criteria like envy-freeness (EF) and proportionality (PROP) can always be achieved for divisible goods, … We consider the problem of fairly allocating a combination of divisible and indivisible goods. While fairness criteria like envy-freeness (EF) and proportionality (PROP) can always be achieved for divisible goods, only their relaxed versions, such as the “up to one” relaxations EF1 and PROP1, can be satisfied when the goods are indivisible. The “up to one” relaxations require the fairness conditions to be satisfied provided that one good can be completely eliminated or added in the comparison. In this work, we bridge the gap between the two extremes and propose “up to a fraction” relaxations for the allocation of mixed divisible and indivisible goods. The fraction is determined based on the proportion of indivisible goods, which we call the indivisibility ratio. The new concepts also introduce asymmetric conditions that are customized for individuals with varying indivisibility ratios. We provide both upper and lower bounds on the fractions of the modified item in order to satisfy the fairness criterion. Our results are tight up to a constant for EF and asymptotically tight for PROP.
We consider the problem of fairly allocating a combination of divisible and indivisible goods. While fairness criteria like envy-freeness (EF) and proportionality (PROP) can always be achieved for divisible goods, … We consider the problem of fairly allocating a combination of divisible and indivisible goods. While fairness criteria like envy-freeness (EF) and proportionality (PROP) can always be achieved for divisible goods, only their relaxed versions, such as the ''up to one'' relaxations EF1 and PROP1, can be satisfied when the goods are indivisible. The ''up to one'' relaxations require the fairness conditions to be satisfied provided that one good can be completely eliminated or added in the comparison. In this work, we bridge the gap between the two extremes and propose ''up to a fraction'' relaxations for the allocation of mixed divisible and indivisible goods. The fraction is determined based on the proportion of indivisible goods, which we call the indivisibility ratio. The new concepts also introduce asymmetric conditions that are customized for individuals with varying indivisibility ratios. We provide both upper and lower bounds on the fractions of the modified item in order to satisfy the fairness criterion. Our results are tight up to a constant for EF and asymptotically tight for PROP.
We study fair resource allocation when the resources contain a mixture of divisible and indivisible goods, focusing on the well-studied fairness notion of maximin share fairness (MMS). With only indivisible … We study fair resource allocation when the resources contain a mixture of divisible and indivisible goods, focusing on the well-studied fairness notion of maximin share fairness (MMS). With only indivisible goods, a full MMS allocation may not exist, but a constant multiplicative approximate allocation always does. We analyze how the MMS approximation guarantee would be affected when the resources to be allocated also contain divisible goods. In particular, we show that the worst-case MMS approximation guarantee with mixed goods is no worse than that with only indivisible goods. However, there exist problem instances to which adding some divisible resources would strictly decrease the MMS approximation ratios of the instances. On the algorithmic front, we propose a constructive algorithm that will always produce an \alpha-MMS allocation for any number of agents, where \alpha takes values between 1/2 and 1 and is a monotonically increasing function determined by how agents value the divisible goods relative to their MMS values.
We study fair allocation of indivisible chores (i.e., items with non-positive value) among agents with additive valuations. An allocation is deemed fair if it is (approximately) equitable, which means that … We study fair allocation of indivisible chores (i.e., items with non-positive value) among agents with additive valuations. An allocation is deemed fair if it is (approximately) equitable, which means that the disutilities of the agents are (approximately) equal. Our main theoretical contribution is to show that there always exists an allocation that is simultaneously equitable up to one chore (EQ1) and Pareto optimal (PO), and to provide a pseudopolynomial-time algorithm for computing such an allocation. In addition, we observe that the Leximin solution---which is known to satisfy a strong form of approximate equitability in the goods setting---fails to satisfy even EQ1 for chores. It does, however, satisfy a novel fairness notion that we call equitability up to any duplicated chore. Our experiments on synthetic as well as real-world data obtained from the Spliddit website reveal that the algorithms considered in our work satisfy approximate fairness and efficiency properties significantly more often than the algorithm currently deployed on Spliddit.
We consider the fair allocation problem of indivisible items. Most previous work focuses on fairness and/or efficiency among agents given agents' preferences. However, besides the agents, the allocator as the … We consider the fair allocation problem of indivisible items. Most previous work focuses on fairness and/or efficiency among agents given agents' preferences. However, besides the agents, the allocator as the resource owner may also be involved in many real-world scenarios, e.g., heritage division. The allocator has the inclination to obtain a fair or efficient allocation based on her own preference over the items and to whom each item is allocated. In this paper, we propose a new model and focus on the following two problems: 1) Is it possible to find an allocation that is fair for both the agents and the allocator? 2) What is the complexity of maximizing the allocator's social welfare while satisfying the agents' fairness? We consider the two fundamental fairness criteria: envy-freeness and proportionality. For the first problem, we study the existence of an allocation that is envy-free up to $c$ goods (EF-$c$) or proportional up to $c$ goods (PROP-$c$) from both the agents' and the allocator's perspectives, in which such an allocation is called doubly EF-$c$ or doubly PROP-$c$ respectively. When the allocator's utility depends exclusively on the items (but not to whom an item is allocated), we prove that a doubly EF-$1$ allocation always exists. For the general setting where the allocator has a preference over the items and to whom each item is allocated, we prove that a doubly EF-$1$ allocation always exists for two agents, a doubly PROP-$2$ allocation always exists for binary valuations, and a doubly PROP-$O(\log n)$ allocation always exists in general. For the second problem, we provide various (in)approximability results in which the gaps between approximation and inapproximation ratios are asymptotically closed under most settings. Most results are based on novel technical tools including the chromatic numbers of the Kneser graphs and linear programming-based analysis.
In this paper, we study how to fairly allocate m indivisible chores to n (asymmetric) agents. We consider (weighted) proportionality up to any item (PROPX) and show that a (weighted) … In this paper, we study how to fairly allocate m indivisible chores to n (asymmetric) agents. We consider (weighted) proportionality up to any item (PROPX) and show that a (weighted) PROPX allocation always exists and can be computed efficiently. For chores, we argue that PROPX might be a more reliable relaxation for proportionality by the facts that any PROPX allocation ensures 2-approximation of maximin share (MMS) fairness [Budish, 2011] for symmetric agents and of anyprice share (APS) fairness [Babaioff et al, 2021] for asymmetric agents. APS allocations for chores have not been studied before the current work, and our result implies a 2-approximation algorithm. Another by-product result is that an EFX and a weighted EF1 allocation for indivisible chores exist if all agents have the same ordinal preference, which might be of independent interest. We then consider the partial information setting and design algorithms that only use agents' ordinal preferences to compute approximately PROPX allocations. Our algorithm achieves a 2-approximation for both symmetric and asymmetric agents, and the approximation ratio is optimal. Finally, we study the price of fairness (PoF), i.e., the loss in social welfare by enforcing allocations to be (weighted) PROPX. We prove that the tight ratio for PoF is Theta(n) for symmetric agents and unbounded for asymmetric agents.
We study fair allocation of indivisible goods to agents with unequal entitlements. Fair allocation has been the subject of many studies in both divisible and indivisible settings. Our emphasis is … We study fair allocation of indivisible goods to agents with unequal entitlements. Fair allocation has been the subject of many studies in both divisible and indivisible settings. Our emphasis is on the case where the goods are indivisible and agents have unequal entitlements. This problem is a generalization of the work by Procaccia and Wang (2014) wherein the agents are assumed to be symmetric with respect to their entitlements. Although Procaccia and Wang show an almost fair (constant approximation) allocation exists in their setting, our main result is in sharp contrast to their observation. We show that, in some cases with n agents, no allocation can guarantee better than 1/n approximation of a fair allocation when the entitlements are not necessarily equal. Furthermore, we devise a simple algorithm that ensures a 1/n approximation guarantee.
 Our second result is for a restricted version of the problem where the valuation of every agent for each good is bounded by the total value he wishes to receive in a fair allocation. Although this assumption might seem without loss of generality, we show it enables us to find a 1/2 approximation fair allocation via a greedy algorithm. Finally, we run some experiments on real-world data and show that, in practice, a fair allocation is likely to exist. We also support our experiments by showing positive results for two stochastic variants of the problem, namely stochastic agents and stochastic items.
In this paper, we study how to fairly allocate a set of indivisible chores to a number of (asymmetric) agents with additive cost functions. We consider the fairness notion of … In this paper, we study how to fairly allocate a set of indivisible chores to a number of (asymmetric) agents with additive cost functions. We consider the fairness notion of (weighted) proportionality up to any item (PROPX), and show that a (weighted) PROPX allocation always exists and can be computed efficiently. We also consider the partial information setting, where the algorithms can only use agents' ordinal preferences. We design algorithms that achieve 2-approximate (weighted) PROPX, and the approximation ratio is optimal. We complement the algorithmic results by investigating the relationship between (weighted) PROPX and other fairness notions such as maximin share and AnyPrice share, and bounding the social welfare loss by enforcing the allocations to be (weighted) PROPX.

Cited by (0)

References (9)

We generalize the classic problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to the problem of fair public decision making, in which a decision must be made on several social issues simultaneously, … We generalize the classic problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to the problem of fair public decision making, in which a decision must be made on several social issues simultaneously, and, unlike the classic setting, a decision can provide positive utility to multiple players. We extend the popular fairness notion of proportionality (which is not guaranteeable) to our more general setting, and introduce three novel relaxations --- proportionality up to one issue, round robin share, and pessimistic proportional share --- that are also interesting in the classic goods allocation setting. We show that the Maximum Nash Welfare solution, which is known to satisfy appealing fairness properties in the classic setting, satisfies or approximates all three relaxations in our framework. We also provide polynomial time algorithms and hardness results for finding allocations satisfying these axioms, with or without insisting on Pareto optimality.
We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible goods among a set of agents in a fair and efficient manner. An allocation is said to be fair if … We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible goods among a set of agents in a fair and efficient manner. An allocation is said to be fair if it is envy-free up to one good (EF1), which means that each agent prefers its own bundle over the bundle of any other agent up to the removal of one good. In addition, an allocation is deemed efficient if it satisfies Pareto efficiency. While each of these well-studied properties is easy to achieve separately, achieving them together is far from obvious. Recently, Caragiannis et al. (2016) established the surprising result that when agents have additive valuations for the goods, there always exists an allocation that simultaneously satisfies these two seemingly incompatible properties. Specifically, they showed that an allocation that maximizes the Nash social welfare objective is both EF1 and Pareto efficient. However, the problem of maximizing Nash social welfare is NP-hard. As a result, this approach does not provide an efficient algorithm for finding a fair and efficient allocation. In this paper, we bypass this barrier, and develop a pseudopolynomial time algorithm for finding allocations that are EF1 and Pareto efficient; in particular, when the valuations are bounded, our algorithm finds such an allocation in polynomial time. Furthermore, we establish a stronger existence result compared to Caragiannis et al. (2016): For additive valuations, there always exists an allocation that is EF1 and fractionally Pareto efficient. Another key contribution of our work is to show that our algorithm provides a polynomial-time 1.45-approximation to the Nash social welfare objective. This improves upon the best known approximation ratio for this problem (namely, the 2-approximation algorithm of Cole et al., 2017), and also matches the lower bound on the integrality gap of the convex program of Cole et al. (2017). Unlike many of the existing approaches, our algorithm is completely combinatorial, and relies on constructing integral Fisher markets wherein specific equilibria are not only efficient, but also fair.
The goal of division is to distribute resources among competing players in a fair way. Envy-freeness is the most extensively studied fairness notion in division. Envy-free allocations do not always … The goal of division is to distribute resources among competing players in a fair way. Envy-freeness is the most extensively studied fairness notion in division. Envy-free allocations do not always exist with indivisible goods, motivating the study of relaxed versions of envy-freeness. We study the envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) property, which states that no player prefers the bundle of another player following the removal of any single good, and prove the first general results about this property. We use the leximin solution to show existence of EFX allocations in several contexts, sometimes in conjunction with Pareto optimality. For two players with valuations obeying a mild assumption, one of these results provides stronger guarantees than the currently deployed algorithm on Spliddit, a popular division website. Unfortunately, finding the leximin solution can require exponential time. We show that this is necessary by proving an exponential lower bound on the number of value queries needed to identify an EFX allocation, even for two players with identical valuations. We consider both additive and more general valuations, and our work suggests that there is a rich landscape of problems to explore in the division of indivisible goods with different classes of player valuations.
Several relaxations of envy-freeness, tailored to fair division in settings with indivisible goods, have been introduced within the last decade. Due to the lack of general existence results for most … Several relaxations of envy-freeness, tailored to fair division in settings with indivisible goods, have been introduced within the last decade. Due to the lack of general existence results for most of these concepts, great attention has been paid to establishing approximation guarantees. In this work, we propose a simple algorithm that is universally fair in the sense that it returns allocations that have good approximation guarantees with respect to four such fairness notions at once. In particular, this is the first algorithm achieving a (φ−1)-approximation of envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) and a 2/φ+2 -approximation of groupwise maximin share fairness (GMMS), where φ is the golden ratio. The best known approximation factor, in polynomial time, for either one of these fairness notions prior to this work was 1/2. Moreover, the returned allocation achieves envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and a 2/3-approximation of pairwise maximin share fairness (PMMS). While EFX is our primary focus, we also exhibit how to fine-tune our algorithm and improve further the guarantees for GMMS or PMMS.Finally, we show that GMMS—and thus PMMS and EFX—allocations always exist when the number of goods does not exceed the number of agents by more than two.
Previous chapter Next chapter Full AccessProceedings Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)A Little Charity Guarantees Almost Envy-FreenessBhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Telikepalli Kavitha, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Alkmini SgouritsaBhaskar … Previous chapter Next chapter Full AccessProceedings Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)A Little Charity Guarantees Almost Envy-FreenessBhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Telikepalli Kavitha, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Alkmini SgouritsaBhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Telikepalli Kavitha, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Alkmini Sgouritsapp.2658 - 2672Chapter DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.162PDFBibTexSections ToolsAdd to favoritesExport CitationTrack CitationsEmail SectionsAboutAbstract Fair division of indivisible goods is a very well-studied problem. The goal of this problem is to distribute m goods to n agents in a “fair” manner, where every agent has a valuation for each subset of goods. We assume general valuations. Envy-freeness is the most extensively studied notion of fairness. However, envy-free allocations do not always exist when goods are indivisible. The notion of fairness we consider here is “envy-freeness up to any good” (EFX) where no agent envies another agent after the removal of any single good from the other agent's bundle. It is not known if such an allocation always exists even when n = 3. We show there is always a partition of the set of goods into n + 1 subsets (X1, …, Xn, P) where for i ϵ [n], Xi is the bundle allocated to agent i and the set P is unallocated (or donated to charity) such that we have: (1)envy-freeness up to any good,(2)no agent values P higher than her own bundle, and(3)fewer than n goods go to charity, i.e., |P| < n (typically m ≫ n). Our proof is constructive. When agents have additive valuations and |P| is large (i.e., when |P| is close to n), our allocation also has a good maximin share (MMS) guarantee. Moreover, a minor variant of our algorithm also shows the existence of an allocation which is 4/7 groupwise maximin share (GMMS): this is a notion of fairness stronger than MMS. This improves upon the current best bound of 1/2 known for an approximate GMMS allocation. Previous chapter Next chapter RelatedDetails Published:2020eISBN:978-1-61197-599-4 https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994Book Series Name:ProceedingsBook Code:PRDA20Book Pages:xxii + 3011
We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial … We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial obstacles to achieving fairness, and a very vibrant line of research has aimed to circumvent them using appropriate notions of approximate fairness. Recent work has established that even approximate versions of proportionality (PROPx) may be impossible to achieve even for small instances, while the best known achievable approximations (PROP1) are much weaker. We introduce the notion of proportionality up to the maximin item (PROPm) and show how to reach an allocation satisfying this notion for any instance involving up to five agents with additive valuations. PROPm provides a well-motivated middle-ground between PROP1 and PROPx, while also capturing some elements of the well-studied maximin share (MMS) benchmark: another relaxation of proportionality that has attracted a lot of attention.
Related DatabasesWeb of Science You must be logged in with an active subscription to view this.Article DataHistorySubmitted: 16 January 2020Accepted: 10 January 2021Published online: 15 April 2021Keywordsenvy-freeness, fair division, algorithms, … Related DatabasesWeb of Science You must be logged in with an active subscription to view this.Article DataHistorySubmitted: 16 January 2020Accepted: 10 January 2021Published online: 15 April 2021Keywordsenvy-freeness, fair division, algorithms, query complexityAMS Subject Headings68Q25, 91B32Publication DataISSN (print): 0895-4801ISSN (online): 1095-7146Publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied MathematicsCODEN: sjdmec