skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: Dynamic Fair Division with Partial Information
Fair and Efficient Allocation Algorithms Do Not Require Knowing Exact Item Values Food rescue organizations are tasked with allocating often-unpredictable donations to recipients who need it. For a large class of recipient valuation functions, this can be done in a fair and efficient manner as long as each recipient reports their value for each arriving donation. In practice, however, such valuations are rarely elicited. In “Dynamic Fair Division with Partial Information,” Benadè, Halpern, and Psomas ask whether simultaneous fairness and efficiency remain possible when the allocator receives limited information about recipient valuations, even as little as a single binary signal. For recipients with i.i.d. or correlated values, the paper provides an algorithm which is envy-free and 1-epsilon welfare-maximizing with high probability. Asymptotically tight results are also established for independent, nonidentical agents. This shows that fair and efficient online allocation algorithms do not critically rely on recipients being able to precisely report their utility functions.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2144208
PAR ID:
10582029
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
INFORMS
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Operations Research
ISSN:
0030-364X
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Vorobeychik, Y; Das, S; Nowe, A (Ed.)
    We study the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items when agents have ternary additive valuations --- each agent values each item at some fixed integer values a, b, or c that are common to all agents. The notions of fairness we consider are max Nash welfare (MNW), when a, b, and c are non-negative, and max egalitarian welfare (MEW). We show that for any distinct non-negative a, b, and c, maximizing Nash welfare is APX-hard --- i.e., the problem does not admit a PTAS unless P = NP. We also show that for any distinct a, b, and c, maximizing egalitarian welfare is APX-hard except for a few cases when b = 0 that admit efficient algorithms. These results make significant progress towards completely characterizing the complexity of computing exact MNW allocations and MEW allocations. En route, we resolve open questions left by prior work regarding the complexity of computing MNW allocations under bivalued valuations, and MEW allocations under ternary mixed manna. 
    more » « less
  2. We study fair distribution of a collection of m indivisible goods among a group of n agents, using the widely recognized fairness principles of Maximin Share (MMS) and Any Price Share (APS). These principles have undergone thorough investigation within the context of additive valuations. We explore these notions for valuations that extend beyond additivity.First, we study approximate MMS under the separable (piecewise-linear) concave (SPLC) valuations, an important class generalizing additive, where the best known factor was 1/3-MMS. We show that 1/2-MMS allocation exists and can be computed in polynomial time, significantly improving the state-of-the-art.We note that SPLC valuations introduce an elevated level of intricacy in contrast to additive. For instance, the MMS value of an agent can be as high as her value for the entire set of items. We use a relax-and-round paradigm that goes through competitive equilibrium and LP relaxation. Our result extends to give (symmetric) 1/2-APS, a stronger guarantee than MMS.APS is a stronger notion that generalizes MMS by allowing agents with arbitrary entitlements. We study the approximation of APS under submodular valuation functions. We design and analyze a simple greedy algorithm using concave extensions of submodular functions. We prove that the algorithm gives a 1/3-APS allocation which matches the best-known factor. Concave extensions are hard to compute in polynomial time and are, therefore, generally not used in approximation algorithms. Our approach shows a way to utilize it within analysis (while bypassing its computation), and hence might be of independent interest. 
    more » « less
  3. We study fair allocation of indivisible goods and chores among agents with lexicographic preferences---a subclass of additive valuations. In sharp contrast to the goods-only setting, we show that an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) could fail to exist for a mixture of objective goods and chores. To our knowledge, this negative result provides the first counterexample for EFX over (any subdomain of) additive valuations. To complement this non-existence result, we identify a class of instances with (possibly subjective) mixed items where an EFX and Pareto optimal allocation always exists and can be efficiently computed. When the fairness requirement is relaxed to maximin share (MMS), we show positive existence and computation for any mixed instance. More broadly, our work examines the existence and computation of fair and efficient allocations both for mixed items as well as chores-only instances, and highlights the additional difficulty of these problems vis-à-vis their goods-only counterparts. 
    more » « less
  4. We study the fair and efficient allocation of a set of indivisible goods among agents, where each good has several copies, and each agent has an additively separable concave valuation function with a threshold. These valuations capture the property of diminishing marginal returns, and they are more general than the well-studied case of additive valuations. We present a polynomial-time algorithm that approximates the optimal Nash social welfare (NSW) up to a factor of e1/e ≈ 1.445. This matches with the state-of-the-art approximation factor for additive valuations. The computed allocation also satisfies the popular fairness guarantee of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) up to a factor of 2 + ε. For instances without thresholds, it is also approximately Pareto-optimal. For instances satisfying a large market property, we show an improved approximation factor. Lastly, we show that the upper bounds on the optimal NSW introduced in Cole and Gkatzelis (2018) and Barman et al. (2018) have the same value. 
    more » « less
  5. 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