An official website of the United States government
We here address the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods or chores to n agents with weights that define their entitlement to the set of indivisible resources. Stemming from well-studied fairness concepts such as envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) for agents with equal entitlements, we present, in this study, the first set of impossibility results alongside algorithmic guarantees for fairness among agents with unequal entitlements.Within this paper, we expand the concept of envy-freeness up to any good or chore to the weighted context (WEFX and XWEF respectively), demonstrating that these allocations are not guaranteed to exist for two or three agents. Despite these negative results, we develop a WEFX procedure for two agents with integer weights, and furthermore, we devise an approximate WEFX procedure for two agents with normalized weights. We further present a polynomial-time algorithm that guarantees a weighted envy-free allocation up to one chore (1WEF) for any number of agents with additive cost functions. Our work underscores the heightened complexity of the weighted fair division problem when compared to its unweighted counterpart.
more »
« less
Fair Division of Time: Multi-layered Cake Cutting
We initiate the study of multi-layered cake cutting with the goal of fairly allocating multiple divisible resources (layers of a cake) among a set of agents. The key requirement is that each agent can only utilize a single resource at each time interval. Several real-life applications exhibit such restrictions on overlapping pieces, for example, assigning time intervals over multiple facilities and resources or assigning shifts to medical professionals. We investigate the existence and computation of envy-free and proportional allocations. We show that envy-free allocations that are both feasible and contiguous are guaranteed to exist for up to three agents with two types of preferences, when the number of layers is two. We further devise an algorithm for computing proportional allocations for any number of agents when the number of layers is factorable to three and/or some power of two.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10281473
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 182 to 188
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The classical house allocation problem involves assigning n houses (or items) to n agents according to their preferences. A key criteria in such problems is satisfying some fairness constraints such as envy-freeness. We consider a generalization of this problem wherein the agents are placed along the vertices of a graph (corresponding to a social network), and each agent can only experience envy towards its neighbors. Our goal is to minimize the aggregate envy among the agents as a natural fairness objective, i.e., the sum of the envy value over all edges in a social graph. When agents have identical and evenly-spaced valuations, our problem reduces to the well-studied problem of linear arrangements. For identical valuations with possibly uneven spacing, we show a number of deep and surprising ways in which our setting is a departure from this classical problem. More broadly, we contribute several structural and computational results for various classes of graphs, including NP-hardness results for disjoint unions of paths, cycles, stars, or cliques; we also obtain fixed-parameter tractable (and, in some cases, polynomial-time) algorithms for paths, cycles, stars, cliques, and their disjoint unions. Additionally, a conceptual contribution of our work is the formulation of a structural property for disconnected graphs that we call separability which results in efficient parameterized algorithms for finding optimal allocations.more » « less
-
We analyze the run-time complexity of computing allocations that are both fair and maximize the utilitarian social welfare, defined as the sum of agents’ utilities. We focus on two tractable fairness concepts: envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) and proportionality up to one item (PROP1). We consider two computational problems: (1) Among the utilitarian-maximal allocations, decide whether there exists one that is also fair; (2) among the fair allocations, compute one that maximizes the utilitarian welfare. We show that both problems are strongly NP-hard when the number of agents is variable, and remain NP-hard for a fixed number of agents greater than two. For the special case of two agents, we find that problem (1) is polynomial-time solvable, while problem (2) remains NP-hard. Finally, with a fixed number of agents, we design pseudopolynomial-time algorithms for both problems. We extend our results to the stronger fairness notions envy-freeness up to any item (EFx) and proportionality up to any item (PROPx).more » « less
-
We study fair resource allocation with strategic agents. It is well-known that, across multiple fundamental problems in this domain, truthfulness and fairness are incompatible. For example, when allocating indivisible goods, no truthful and deterministic mechanism can guarantee envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), even for two agents with additive valuations. Or, in cake-cutting, no truthful and deterministic mechanism always outputs a proportional allocation, even for two agents with piecewise constant valuations. Our work stems from the observation that, in the context of fair division, truthfulness is used as a synonym for Dominant Strategy Incentive Compatibility (DSIC), requiring that an agent prefers reporting the truth, no matter what other agents report.In this paper, we instead focus on Bayesian Incentive Compatible (BIC) mechanisms, requiring that agents are better off reporting the truth in expectation over other agents' reports. We prove that, when agents know a bit less about each other, a lot more is possible: using BIC mechanisms we can achieve fairness notions that are unattainable by DSIC mechanisms in both the fundamental problems of allocation of indivisible goods and cake-cutting. We prove that this is the case even for an arbitrary number of agents, as long as the agents' priors about each others' types satisfy a neutrality condition. Notably, for the case of indivisible goods, we significantly strengthen the state-of-the-art negative result for efficient DSIC mechanisms, while also highlighting the limitations of BIC mechanisms, by showing that a very general class of welfare objectives is incompatible with Bayesian Incentive Compatibility. Combined, these results give a near-complete picture of the power and limitations of BIC and DSIC mechanisms for the problem of allocating indivisible goods.more » « less
-
The classic house allocation problem is primarily concerned with finding a matching between a set of agents and a set of houses that guarantees some notion of economic efficiency (e.g. utilitarian welfare). While recent works have shifted focus on achieving fairness (e.g. minimizing the number of envious agents), they often come with notable costs on efficiency notions such as utilitarian or egalitarian welfare. We investigate the trade-offs between these welfare measures and several natural fairness measures that rely on the number of envious agents, the total (aggregate) envy of all agents, and maximum total envy of an agent. In particular, by focusing on envy-free allocations, we first show that, should one exist, finding an envy-free allocation with maximum utilitarian or egalitarian welfare is computationally tractable. We highlight a rather stark contrast between utilitarian and egalitarian welfare by showing that finding utilitarian welfare maximizing allocations that minimize the aforementioned fairness measures can be done in polynomial time while their egalitarian counterparts remain intractable (for the most part) even under binary valuations. We complement our theoretical findings by giving insights into the relationship between the different fairness measures and by conducting empirical analysis.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2020/26
