Fair division has long been an important problem in the economics literature. In this note, we consider the existence of proportionally fair allocations of indivisible goods, i.e., allocations of indivisible goods in which every agent gets at least her proportionally fair share according to her own utility function. We show that when utilities are additive and utilities for individual goods are drawn independently at random from a distribution, proportionally fair allocations exist with high probability if the number of goods is a multiple of the number of agents or if the number of goods grows asymptotically faster than the number of agents.
@cite_11 considered asymptotic existence and nonexistence of envy-free allocations. They showed that under additive utilities, envy-free allocations are unlikely to exist even when the number of goods is larger than the number of agents by a linear fraction. On the other hand, they proved that when the number of goods is larger than the number of agents by a logarithmic factor, such allocations are likely to exist under certain technical conditions on the probability distribution. @cite_14 and @cite_8 considered allocations that gives each agent a maximin share guarantee and showed that such allocations exist with high probability when utilities are additive. Asymptotic statements have been considered in other areas of economics as well. For instance, Manea @cite_3 established that the allocation obtained by the random serial dictatorship mechanism is ordinally inefficient with high probability when agents' preference profiles are drawn at random. Incentives and stability in large matching markets have also been considered in the literature @cite_7 @cite_5 .
@cite_14 @cite_7 @cite_8 @cite_3 @cite_5 @cite_11
2050330935 2949121341 2403056628 2121240598 2592030152 2889292676 2027956524 1542025417 176406899 2901391097 2555059222 2063004177 2084685902 49938292 2132069171 2971548201 2949883232 2593819652 2808072441 2107435
Abstract Consider a heterogeneous but divisible commodity, bundles of which are represented by the (measurable) subsets of the good. One such commodity might be land. The mathematics literature has considered agents with utilities that are nonatomic measures over the commodity (and hence are additive). The existence of ‘α-fair’ allocations, in which each agent receives a utility proportional to his utility of the endowment of the entire economy, was demonstrated there. Here we extend these existence results to α-fair efficient allocations, envy-free allocations, envy-free efficient allocations, group envy-free and nicely shaped allocations of these types. We examine utilities that are not additive and relate the mathematics literature to the economics literature. We find sufficient conditions for the existence of egalitarian-equivalent efficient allocations. Finally, we consider the problem of allocating a time interval (uses of a facility). Existence of an envy-free allocation had been demonstrated in earlier literature. We show that any envy-free allocation is efficient as well as group envy-free. We extend this last result to a more general setting. We study the problem of fair allocation for indivisible goods. We use the the maxmin share paradigm introduced by Budish as a measure for fairness. Procacciafirst (EC'14) were first to investigate this fundamental problem in the additive setting. In contrast to what real-world experiments suggest, they show that a maxmin guarantee (1- @math allocation) is not always possible even when the number of agents is limited to 3. While the existence of an approximation solution (e.g. a @math - @math allocation) is quite straightforward, improving the guarantee becomes subtler for larger constants. Procaccia provide a proof for existence of a @math - @math allocation and leave the question open for better guarantees. Our main contribution is an answer to the above question. We improve the result of ! to a @math factor in the additive setting. The main idea for our @math - @math allocation method is clustering the agents. To this end, we introduce three notions and techniques, namely reducibility, matching allocation, and cycle-envy-freeness, and prove the approximation guarantee of our algorithm via non-trivial applications of these techniques. Our analysis involves coloring and double counting arguments that might be of independent interest. One major shortcoming of the current studies on fair allocation is the additivity assumption on the valuations. We alleviate this by extending our results to the case of submodular, fractionally subadditive, and subadditive settings. More precisely, we give constant approximation guarantees for submodular and XOS agents, and a logarithmic approximation for the case of subadditive agents. Furthermore, we complement our results by providing close upper bounds for each class of valuation functions. Finally, we present algorithms to find such allocations for additive, submodular, and XOS settings in polynomial time. The fair division of indivisible goods has long been an important topic in economics and, more recently, computer science. We investigate the existence of envyfree allocations of indivisible goods, that is, allocations where each player values her own allocated set of goods at least as highly as any other player's allocated set of goods. Under additive valuations, we show that even when the number of goods is larger than the number of agents by a linear fraction, envy-free allocations are unlikely to exist.We then show that when the number of goods is larger by a logarithmic factor, such allocations exist with high probability. We support these results experimentally and show that the asymptotic behavior of the theory holds even when the number of goods and agents is quite small. We demonstrate that there is a sharp phase transition from nonexistence to existence of envy-free allocations, and that on average the computational problem is hardest at that transition. We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of people from an algorithmic perspective. fair division has been a central topic in the economic literature and several concepts of fairness have been suggested. The criterion that we focus on is envy-freeness. In our model, a monotone utility function is associated with every player specifying the value of each subset of the goods for the player. An allocation is envy-free if every player prefers her own share than the share of any other player. When the goods are divisible, envy-free allocations always exist. In the presence of indivisibilities, we show that there exist allocations in which the envy is bounded by the maximum marginal utility, and present a simple algorithm for computing such allocations. We then look at the optimization problem of finding an allocation with minimum possible envy. In the general case the problem is not solvable or approximable in polynomial time unless P = NP. We consider natural special cases (e.g.additive utilities) which are closely related to a class of job scheduling problems. Approximation algorithms as well as inapproximability results are obtained. Finally we investigate the problem of designing truthful mechanisms for producing allocations with bounded envy. We consider the problem of dividing indivisible goods fairly among n agents who have additive and submodular valuations for the goods. Our fairness guarantees are in terms of the maximin share, that is defined to be the maximum value that an agent can ensure for herself, if she were to partition the goods into n bundles, and then receive a minimum valued bundle. Since maximin fair allocations (i.e., allocations in which each agent gets at least her maximin share) do not always exist, prior work has focussed on approximation results that aim to find allocations in which the value of the bundle allocated to each agent is (multiplicatively) as close to her maximin share as possible. In particular, Procaccia and Wang (2014) along with (2015) have shown that under additive valuations a 2 3-approximate maximin fair allocation always exists and can be found in polynomial time. We complement these results by developing a simple and efficient algorithm that achieves the same approximation guarantee. Furthermore, we initiate the study of approximate maximin fair division under submodular valuations. Specifically, we show that when the valuations of the agents are nonnegative, monotone, and submodular, then a 1 10-approximate maximin fair allocation is guaranteed to exist. In fact, we show that such an allocation can be efficiently found by using a simple round-robin algorithm. A technical contribution of the paper is to analyze the performance of this combinatorial algorithm by employing the concept of multilinear extensions. We study the existence of allocations of indivisible goods that are envy-free up to one good (EF1), under the additional constraint that each bundle needs to be connected in an underlying item graph G. When the items are arranged in a path, we show that EF1 allocations are guaranteed to exist for arbitrary monotonic utility functions over bundles, provided that either there are at most four agents, or there are any number of agents but they all have identical utility functions. Our existence proofs are based on classical arguments from the divisible cake-cutting setting, and involve discrete analogues of cut-and-choose, of Stromquist's moving-knife protocol, and of the Su-Simmons argument based on Sperner's lemma. Sperner's lemma can also be used to show that on a path, an EF2 allocation exists for any number of agents. Except for the results using Sperner's lemma, all of our procedures can be implemented by efficient algorithms. Our positive results for paths imply the existence of connected EF1 or EF2 allocations whenever G is traceable, i.e., contains a Hamiltonian path. For the case of two agents, we completely characterize the class of graphs @math that guarantee the existence of EF1 allocations as the class of graphs whose biconnected components are arranged in a path. This class is strictly larger than the class of traceable graphs; one can be check in linear time whether a graph belongs to this class, and if so return an EF1 allocation. Our objective is to investigate the implications of the “replacement principle” for the fair allocation of an infinitely divisible commodity among agents with single-peaked preferences. The principle says that when one of the components of the data entering the description of the problem to be solved changes, all of the relevant agents should be affected in the same direction: they all gain or they all lose. We apply it to situations in which the preferences of one of the agents may change, under the name ofwelfare-domination under preference-replacement. We show that there is no selection from the no-envy and Pareto solution satisfying it. Then, we weaken it by limiting its application to situations in which the change is not so disruptive that it turns the economy from one in which there is “too little” of the commodity to one in which there is “too much,” or conversely. We show that there is only one selection from the no-envy and Pareto solution satisfying this property andreplication-invariance. It is the “uniform rule,” a solution that has played a central role in previous analyses of the problem.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: D51, D63, D70. We study the problem of computing maximin share allocations, a recently introduced fairness notion. Given a set of n agents and a set of goods, the maximin share of an agent is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she is allowed to partition the goods in any way she prefers, into n bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find a partition, where each agent is guaranteed her maximin share. Such allocations do not always exist, hence we resort to approximation algorithms. Our main result is a 2 3-approximation that runs in polynomial time for any number of agents and goods. This improves upon the algorithm of Procaccia and Wang (2014), which is also a 2 3-approximation but runs in polynomial time only for a constant number of agents. To achieve this, we redesign certain parts of the algorithm in Procaccia and Wang (2014), exploiting the construction of carefully selected matchings in a bipartite graph representation of the problem. Furthermore, motivated by the apparent difficulty in establishing lower bounds, we undertake a probabilistic analysis. We prove that in randomly generated instances, maximin share allocations exist with high probability. This can be seen as a justification of previously reported experimental evidence. Finally, we provide further positive results for two special cases arising from previous works. The first is the intriguing case of three agents, where we provide an improved 7 8-approximation. The second case is when all item values belong to 0, 1, 2 , where we obtain an exact algorithm. In this paper we study the problem of allocating divisible items to agents without payments. We assume no prior knowledge about the agents. The utility of an agent is additive. The social welfare of a mechanism is defined as the overall utility of all agents. This model is first defined by Guo and Conitzer [7]. Here we are interested in strategy-proof mechanisms that have a good competitive ratio, that is, those that are able to achieve social welfare close to the maximal social welfare in all cases. First, for the setting of n agents and m items, we prove that there is no (1 m+e)-competitive strategy-proof mechanism, for any e>0. And, no mechanism can achieve a competitive ratio better than @math , when @math . Next we study the setting of two agents and m items, which is also the focus of [7]. We prove that the competitive ratio of any swap-dictatorial mechanism is no greater than @math . Then we give a characterization result: for the case of 2 items, if the mechanism is strategy-proof, symmetric and second order continuously differentiable, then it is always swap-dictatorial. In the end we consider a setting where an agent's valuation of each item is bounded by C m, where C is an arbitrary constant. We show a mechanism that is (1 2+e(C))-competitive, where e(C)>0. We study Fisher markets that admit equilibria wherein each good is integrally assigned to some agent. While strong existence and computational guarantees are known for equilibria of Fisher markets with additive valuations, such equilibria, in general, assign goods fractionally to agents. Hence, Fisher markets are not directly applicable in the context of indivisible goods. In this work we show that one can always bypass this hurdle and, up to a bounded change in agents' budgets, obtain markets that admit an integral equilibrium. We refer to such markets as pure markets and show that, for any given Fisher market (with additive valuations), one can efficiently compute a "near-by," pure market with an accompanying integral equilibrium. Our work on pure markets leads to novel algorithmic results for fair division of indivisible goods. Prior work in discrete fair division has shown that, under additive valuations, there always exist allocations that simultaneously achieve the seemingly incompatible properties of fairness and efficiency; here fairness refers to envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and efficiency corresponds to Pareto efficiency. However, polynomial-time algorithms are not known for finding such allocations. Considering relaxations of proportionality and EF1, respectively, as our notions of fairness, we show that fair and Pareto efficient allocations can be computed in strongly polynomial time. We study cake cutting on a graph, where agents can only evaluate their shares relative to their neighbors. This is an extension of the classical problem of fair division to incorporate the notion of social comparison from the social sciences. We say an allocation is locally envy-free if no agent envies a neighbor's allocation, and locally proportional if each agent values its own allocation as much as the average value of its neighbors' allocations. We generalize the classical Cut and Choose" protocol for two agents to this setting, by fully characterizing the set of graphs for which an oblivious single-cutter protocol can give locally envy-free (thus also locally-proportional) allocations. We study the price of envy-freeness , which compares the total value of an optimal allocation with that of an optimal, locally envy-free allocation. Surprisingly, a lower bound of @math on the price of envy-freeness for global allocations also holds for local envy-freeness in any connected graph, so sparse graphs do not provide more flexibility asymptotically with respect to the quality of envy-free allocations. We study the House Allocation problem (also known as the Assignment problem), i.e., the problem of allocating a set of objects among a set of agents, where each agent has ordinal preferences (possibly involving ties) over a subset of the objects. We focus on truthful mechanisms without monetary transfers for finding large Pareto optimal matchings. It is straightforward to show that no deterministic truthful mechanism can approximate a maximum cardinality Pareto optimal matching with ratio better than 2. We thus consider randomized mechanisms. We give a natural and explicit extension of the classical Random Serial Dictatorship Mechanism (RSDM) specifically for the House Allocation problem where preference lists can include ties. We thus obtain a universally truthful randomized mechanism for finding a Pareto optimal matching and show that it achieves an approximation ratio of eovere-1. The same bound holds even when agents have priorities (weights) and our goal is to find a maximum weight (as opposed to maximum cardinality) Pareto optimal matching. On the other hand we give a lower bound of 18 over 13 on the approximation ratio of any universally truthful Pareto optimal mechanism in settings with strict preferences. In the case that the mechanism must additionally be non-bossy, an improved lower bound of eovere-1 holds. This lower bound is tight given that RSDM for strict preference lists is non-bossy. We moreover interpret our problem in terms of the classical secretary problem and prove that our mechanism provides the best randomized strategy of the administrator who interviews the applicants. We revisit the classic problem of fair division from a mechanism design perspective and provide an elegant truthful mechanism that yields surprisingly good approximation guarantees for the widely used solution of Proportional Fairness. This solution, which is closely related to Nash bargaining and the competitive equilibrium, is known to be not implementable in a truthful fashion, which has been its main drawback. To alleviate this issue, we propose a new mechanism, which we call the Partial Allocation mechanism, that discards a carefully chosen fraction of the allocated resources in order to incentivize the agents to be truthful in reporting their valuations. This mechanism introduces a way to implement interesting truthful outcomes in settings where monetary payments are not an option. For a multi-dimensional domain with an arbitrary number of agents and items, and for the very large class of homogeneous valuation functions, we prove that our mechanism provides every agent with at least a 1 e ≈ 0.368 fraction of her Proportionally Fair valuation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first result that gives a constant factor approximation to every agent for the Proportionally Fair solution. To complement this result, we show that no truthful mechanism can guarantee more than 0.5 approximation, even for the restricted class of additive linear valuations. In addition to this, we uncover a connection between the Partial Allocation mechanism and VCG-based mechanism design. We also ask whether better approximation ratios are possible in more restricted settings. In particular, motivated by the massive privatization auction in the Czech republic in the early 90s we provide another mechanism for additive linear valuations that works really well when all the items are highly demanded. We investigate the problem of allocating items (private goods) among competing agents in a setting that is both prior-free and payment-free. Specificall, we focus on allocating multiple heterogeneous items between two agents with additive valuation functions. Our objective is to design strategy-proof mechanisms that are competitive against the most efficien (first-best allocation. We introduce the family of linear increasing-price (LIP) mechanisms. The LIP mechanisms are strategy-proof, prior-free, and payment-free, and they are exactly the increasing-price mechanisms satisfying a strong responsiveness property. We show how to solve for competitive mechanisms within the LIP family. For the case of two items, we fin a LIP mechanism whose competitive ratio is near optimal (the achieved competitive ratio is 0.828, while any strategy-proof mechanism is at most 0.841-competitive). As the number of items goes to infinit, we prove a negative result that any increasing-price mechanism (linear or nonlinear) has a maximal competitive ratio of 0.5. Our results imply that in some cases, it is possible to design good allocation mechanisms without payments and without priors. A natural requirement of a resource allocation system is to guarantee fairness to its participants. Fair allocation can be achieved either by distributed protocols known as cake-cutting algorithms or by centralized approaches, which first collect the agents’ preferences and then decide on the allocation. Compared with cake-cutting algorithms, centralized approaches ageless restricted and can therefore achieve more favorable allocations. Our work uses as a starting point a recent centralized algorithm that achieves an envy-free (i.e., fair) and Pareto optimal (i.e., efficient) allocation of multiple divisible goods. In fair allocation algorithms, agents who do not follow the protocol cannot prevent other agents from being allocated a fair share, but in certain situations, agents can increase their own allocation by submitting untruthful preferences. A recent article has shown that the only mechanisms that do not allow such manipulations(i.e., the only incentive-compatible mechanisms) are dictatorial. Nevertheless, we present a method that reduces possible gains from untruthful manipulation. Our mechanism uses a heuristic to approximate optimal manipulations, and compensates agents who submitted suboptimal preferences by increasing their allocation. We empirically demonstrate that when our method is used, the additional benefit that agents can achieve by untruthful manipulation is insignificant, hence they have insignificant incentives to lie. Abstract We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to groups of agents. Agents in the same group share the same set of goods even though they may have different preferences. Previous work has focused on unanimous fairness, in which all agents in each group must agree that their group's share is fair. Under this strict requirement, fair allocations exist only for small groups. We introduce the concept of democratic fairness, which aims to satisfy a certain fraction of the agents in each group. This concept is better suited to large groups such as cities or countries. We present protocols for democratic fair allocation among two or more arbitrarily large groups of agents with monotonic, additive, or binary valuations. For two groups with arbitrary monotonic valuations, we give an efficient protocol that guarantees envy-freeness up to one good for at least 1 2 of the agents in each group, and prove that the 1 2 fraction is optimal. We also present other protocols that make weaker fairness guarantees to more agents in each group, or to more groups. Our protocols combine techniques from different fields, including combinatorial game theory, cake cutting, and voting. The paper considers fair allocation of indivisible nondisposable items that generate disutility (chores). We assume that these items are placed in the vertices of a graph and each agent’s share has to form a connected subgraph of this graph. Although a similar model has been investigated before for goods, we show that the goods and chores settings are inherently different. In particular, it is impossible to derive the solution of the chores instance from the solution of its naturally associated fair division instance. We consider three common fair division solution concepts, namely proportionality, envy-freeness and equitability, and two individual disutility aggregation functions: additive and maximum based. We show that deciding the existence of a fair allocation is hard even if the underlying graph is a path or a star. We also present some efficiently solvable special cases for these graph topologies. We consider Max-min Share (MmS) fair allocations of indivisible chores (items with negative utilities). We show that allocation of chores and classical allocation of goods (items with positive utilities) have some fundamental connections but also differences which prevent a straightforward application of algorithms for goods in the chores setting and viceversa. We prove that an MmS allocation does not need to exist for chores and computing an MmS allocation - if it exists - is strongly NP-hard. In view of these non-existence and complexity results, we present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm for MmS fairness for chores. We then introduce a new fairness concept called optimal MmS that represents the best possible allocation in terms of MmS that is guaranteed to exist. We use connections to parallel machine scheduling to give (1) a polynomial-time approximation scheme for computing an optimal MmS allocation when the number of agents is fixed and (2) an effective and efficient heuristic with an ex-post worst-case analysis. Finding an envy-free allocation of indivisible resources to agents is a central task in many multiagent systems. Often, non-trivial envy-free allocations do not exist, and finding them can be a computationally hard task. Classic envy-freeness requires that every agent likes the resources allocated to it at least as much as the resources allocated to any other agent. In many situations this assumption can be relaxed since agents often do not even know each other. We enrich the envy-freeness concept by taking into account (directed) social networks of the agents. Thus, we require that every agent likes its own allocation at least as much as those of all its (out)neighbors. This leads to a "more local'' concept of envy-freeness. We also consider a strong variant where every agent must like its own allocation more than those of all its (out)neighbors. We analyze the classic and the parameterized complexity of finding allocations that are envy-free with respect to one of the variants of our new concept, and that either are complete, are Pareto-efficient, or optimize the utilitarian social welfare. To this end, we study different restrictions of the agents' preferences and of the social network structure. We identify cases that become easier (from Σ^ _2 @math @math @math @math $-hard) when comparing classic envy-freeness with our graph-based envy-freeness. Furthermore, we spot cases where graph envy-freeness is easier to decide than strong graph envy-freeness, and vice versa. Consider the problem of allocating multiple divisible goods to two agents in a strategy-proof fashion without the use of payments or priors. Previous work has aimed at implementing allocations that are competitive with respect to an appropriately defined measure of social welfare. These results have mostly been negative, proving that no dictatorial mechanism can achieve an approximation factor better than 0.5, and leaving open the question of whether there exists a non-dictatorial mechanism that outperforms this bound. We provide a positive answer to this question by presenting an interesting non-dictatorial mechanism that achieves an approximation factor of 2 3 for this measure of social welfare. In proving this bound we also touch on the issue of fairness: we show that the proportionally fair solution, a well known fairness concept for money-free settings, is highly competitive with respect to social welfare. We then show how to use the proportionally fair solution to design our non-dictatorial strategy-proof mechanism.