We study the problem of approximating maximum Nash social welfare (NSW) when allocating
In this article, we extend our understanding of the
Furthermore, we show that the
This content will become publicly available on June 27, 2024
We study the problem of approximating maximum Nash social welfare (NSW) when allocating
In this article, we extend our understanding of the
Furthermore, we show that the
We study fair division of indivisible chores among n agents with additive disutility functions. Two well-studied fairness notions for indivisible items are envy-freeness up to one/any item (EF1/EFX) and the standard notion of economic efficiency is Pareto optimality (PO). There is a noticeable gap between the results known for both EF1 and EFX in the goods and chores settings. The case of chores turns out to be much more challenging. We reduce this gap by providing slightly relaxed versions of the known results on goods for the chores setting. Interestingly, our algorithms run in polynomial time, unlike their analogous versions in the goods setting.We introduce the concept of k surplus in the chores setting which means that up to k more chores are allocated to the agents and each of them is a copy of an original chore. We present a polynomial-time algorithm which gives EF1 and PO allocations with n-1 surplus.We relax the notion of EFX slightly and define tEFX which requires that the envy from agent i to agent j is removed upon the transfer of any chore from the i's bundle to j's bundle. We give a polynomial-time algorithm that in the chores case for 3 agents returns an allocation which is either proportional or tEFX. Note that proportionality is a very strong criterion in the case of indivisible items, and hence both notions we guarantee are desirable.
For the fundamental problem of fairly dividing a set of indivisible items among agents, envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) and maximin fairness (MMS) are arguably the most compelling fairness concepts proposed till now. Unfortunately, despite significant efforts over the past few years, whether EFX allocations always exist is still an enigmatic open problem, let alone their efficient computation. Furthermore, today we know that MMS allocations are not always guaranteed to exist. These facts weaken the usefulness of both EFX and MMS, albeit their appealing conceptual characteristics.We propose two alternative fairness concepts—called epistemic EFX (EEFX) and minimum EFX value fairness (MXS)---inspired by EFX and MMS. For both, we explore their relationships to well-studied fairness notions and, more importantly, prove that EEFX and MXS allocations always exist and can be computed efficiently for additive valuations. Our results justify that the new fairness concepts are excellent alternatives to EFX and MMS.