Fair Allocation Of Indivisible Goods Research Articles

Weighted Envy-Freeness for Submodular Valuations

We investigate the fair allocation of indivisible goods to agents with possibly different entitlements represented by weights. Previous work has shown that guarantees for additive valuations with existing envy-based notions cannot be extended to the case where agents have matroid-rank (i.e., binary submodular) valuations. We propose two families of envy-based notions for matroid-rank and general submodular valuations, one based on the idea of transferability and the other on marginal values. We show that our notions can be satisfied via generalizations of rules such as picking sequences and maximum weighted Nash welfare. In addition, we introduce welfare measures based on harmonic numbers, and show that variants of maximum weighted harmonic welfare offer stronger fairness guarantees than maximum weighted Nash welfare under matroid-rank valuations.

Maxileximin Envy Allocations and Connected Goods

Fair allocation of indivisible goods presents intriguing challenges from both a social choice perspective and an algorithmic standpoint. Due to the indivisibility of goods, it is common for one agent to envy the bundle of goods assigned to another agent and, indeed, envy-free solutions do not exist in general. In line with the classical game-theoretic concept of Nucleolus in coalitional games, we propose that a fair allocation should minimize the agents’ dissatisfaction profile in a lexicographic manner, where the dissatisfaction of an agent is defined as her maximum envy towards other agents. Therefore, we seek allocations that minimize the maximum envy. In cases where multiple solutions have an equal maximum value, we minimize the second-worst value, and so on. Additionally, as is customary in fair division problems, we also consider an efficiency requirement: among the allocations with the best agents’ dissatisfaction profile, we prioritize those that maximize the sum of agents’ utilities, known as maximum social welfare. Such allocations, referred to as maxileximin allocations, always exist. In this study, we analyze the computational properties of maxileximin allocations in the context of fair allocation problems with constraints. Specifically, we focus on the Connected Fair Division problem, where goods correspond to the nodes of a graph, and a bundle of goods is allowed if the subgraph formed by those goods is connected. We demonstrate that the problem is F∆P2 -complete, even for instances with simple graphical structures such as path and star graphs. However, we identify islands of tractability for instances with more intricate graphs, such as those having bounded treewidth, provided that the number of agents is bounded by a fixed number and utility functions use small values.

Fair-Share Allocations for Agents with Arbitrary Entitlements

We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible goods to n agents with no transfers. When agents have equal entitlements, the well-established notion of the maximin share (MMS) serves as an attractive fairness criterion for which, to qualify as fair, an allocation needs to give every agent at least a substantial fraction of the agent’s MMS. In this paper, we consider the case of arbitrary (unequal) entitlements. We explain shortcomings in previous attempts that extend the MMS to unequal entitlements. Our conceptual contribution is the introduction of a new notion of a share, the AnyPrice share (APS), that is appropriate for settings with arbitrary entitlements. Even for the equal entitlements case, this notion is new and satisfies [Formula: see text], for which the inequality is sometimes strict. We present two equivalent definitions for the APS (one as a minimization problem, the other as a maximization problem) and provide comparisons between the APS and previous notions of fairness. Our main result concerns additive valuations and arbitrary entitlements, for which we provide a polynomial-time algorithm that gives every agent at least a [Formula: see text] - fraction of the agent’s APS. This algorithm can also be viewed as providing strategies in a certain natural bidding game, and these strategies secure each agent at least a [Formula: see text] - fraction of the agent’s APS. Funding: T. Ezra’s research is partially supported by the European Research Council Advanced [Grant 788893] AMDROMA “Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” and MIUR PRIN project ALGADIMAR “Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets.” U. Feige’s research is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation [Grant 1122/22].

Finding Fair Allocations under Budget Constraints

We study the fair allocation of indivisible goods among agents with identical, additive valuations but individual budget constraints. Here, the indivisible goods--each with a specific size and value--need to be allocated such that the bundle assigned to each agent is of total size at most the agent's budget. Since envy-free allocations do not necessarily exist in the indivisible goods context, compelling relaxations--in particular, the notion of envy-freeness up to k goods (EFk)--have received significant attention in recent years. In an EFk allocation, each agent prefers its own bundle over that of any other agent, up to the removal of k goods, and the agents have similarly bounded envy against the charity (which corresponds to the set of all unallocated goods). It has been shown in prior work that an allocation that satisfies the budget constraints and maximizes the Nash social welfare is 1/4-approximately EF1. However, the computation (or even existence) of exact EFk allocations remained an intriguing open problem. We make notable progress towards this by proposing a simple, greedy, polynomial-time algorithm that computes EF2 allocations under budget constraints. Our algorithmic result implies the universal existence of EF2 allocations in this fair division context. The analysis of the algorithm exploits intricate structural properties of envy-freeness. Interestingly, the same algorithm also provides EF1 guarantees for important special cases. Specifically, we settle the existence of EF1 allocations for instances in which: (i) the value of each good is proportional to its size, (ii) all the goods have the same size, or (iii) all the goods have the same value. Our EF2 result even extends to the setting wherein the goods' sizes are agent specific.

On Fair Division under Heterogeneous Matroid Constraints

We study fair allocation of indivisible goods among additive agents with feasibility constraints. In these settings, every agent is restricted to get a bundle among a specified set of feasible bundles. Such scenarios have been of great interest to the AI community due to their applicability to real-world problems. Following some impossibility results, we restrict attention to matroid feasibility constraints that capture natural scenarios, such as the allocation of shifts to medical doctors and the allocation of conference papers to referees. We focus on the common fairness notion of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1). Previous algorithms for finding EF1 allocations are either restricted to agents with identical feasibility constraints or allow free disposal of items. An open problem is the existence of EF1 complete allocations among agents who differ both in their valuations and in their feasibility constraints. In this work, we make progress on this problem by providing positive and negative results for several matroid and valuation types. Among other results, we devise polynomial-time algorithms for finding EF1 allocations in the following settings: (i) n agents with heterogeneous (non-identical) binary valuations and partition matroids with heterogeneous capacities; (ii) two agents with heterogeneous additive valuations and partition matroids with heterogeneous capacities; and (iii) three agents with heterogeneous binary valuations and identical base-orderable matroid constraints.

Equitability and welfare maximization for allocating indivisible items

We study fair allocations of indivisible goods and chores in conjunction with system efficiency, measured by two social welfare functions, namely utilitarian and egalitarian welfare. To model preference, each agent is associated with a cardinal and additive valuation function. The fairness criteria we are concerned with are equitability up to any item (EQX) and equitability up to one item (EQ1). For the trade-off between fairness and efficiency, we investigate efficiency loss under these fairness constraints and establish the price of fairness. From the computational perspective, we provide a complete picture of the computational complexity of (i) deciding the existence of an EQX/EQ1 and welfare-maximizing allocation; (ii) computing a welfare maximizer among all EQX/EQ1 allocations.

Computing welfare-Maximizing fair allocations of indivisible goods

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).

Fair allocation of indivisible goods: Beyond additive valuations

We conduct a study on the problem of fair allocation of indivisible goods when maximin share[1] is used as the measure of fairness. Most of the current studies on this notion are limited to the case that the valuations are additive. In this paper, we go beyond additive valuations and consider the cases that the valuations are submodular, fractionally subadditive, and subadditive. We give constant approximation guarantees for agents with submodular and XOS valuations, and a logarithmic bound for the case of agents with subadditive valuations. 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 submodular and XOS settings in polynomial time.

Fair allocation of indivisible goods and chores

We consider the problem of fairly dividing a set of indivisible items. Much of the fair division literature assumes that the items are “goods” that yield positive utility for the agents. There is also some work in which the items are “chores” that yield negative utility for the agents. In this paper, we consider a more general scenario in which an agent may have positive or negative utility for each item. This framework captures, e.g., fair task assignment, where agents can experience both positive and negative utility for each task. We demonstrate that whereas some of the positive axiomatic and computational results extend to this more general setting, others do not. We present several new and efficient algorithms for finding fair allocations in this general setting. We also point out several gaps in the literature regarding the existence of allocations that satisfy certain fairness and efficiency properties and examine the complexity of computing such allocations.

Fair allocation of indivisible goods with minimum inequality or minimum envy

We provide a new mathematical framework for the classic problem of fair allocation of indivisible goods, showing that it can be formulated as the problem of finding an optimal column rearrangement of multiple matrices. Based on this formulation, we design two novel algorithms called MinCov and MinCovTarget to find optimal allocations under the newly introduced notion of minimum social inequality, and the popular notion of minimum envy. Numerical illustrations show an excellent performance of the newly developed algorithms also with respect to other allocation criteria, in particular for the maximum Nash welfare.

On Fair Division under Heterogeneous Matroid Constraints

We study fair allocation of indivisible goods among additive agents with feasibility constraints. In these settings, every agent is restricted to get a bundle among a specified set of feasible bundles. Such scenarios have been of great interest to the AI community due to their applicability to real-world problems. Following some impossibility results, we restrict attention to matroid feasibility constraints that capture natural scenarios, such as the allocation of shifts to medical doctors, and the allocation of conference papers to referees. We focus on the common fairness notion of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1). Previous algorithms for finding EF1 allocations are either restricted to agents with identical feasibility constraints, or allow free disposal of items. An open problem is the existence of EF1 complete allocations among heterogeneous agents, where the heterogeneity is both in the agents' feasibility constraints and in their valuations. In this work, we make progress on this problem by providing positive and negative results for different matroid and valuation types. Among other results, we devise poly-time algorithms for finding EF1 allocations in the following settings: (i) n agents with heterogeneous partition matroids and heterogeneous binary valuations, (ii) 2 agents with heterogeneous partition matroids and heterogeneous valuations, and (iii) at most 3 agents with heterogeneous binary valuations and identical base-orderable matroids.

Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods: Improvement

We study the problem of fair allocation for indivisible goods. We use the maximin share paradigm introduced by Budish [Budish E (2011) The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. J. Political Econom. 119(6):1061–1103.] as a measure of fairness. Kurokawa et al. [Kurokawa D, Procaccia AD, Wang J (2018) Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. J. ACM 65(2):8.] were the first to investigate this fundamental problem in the additive setting. They showed that in delicately constructed examples, not everyone can obtain a utility of at least her maximin value. They mitigated this impossibility result with a beautiful observation: no matter how the utility functions are made, we always can allocate the items to the agents to guarantee each agent’s utility is at least 2/3 of her maximin value. They left open whether this bound can be improved. Our main contribution answers this question in the affirmative. We improve their approximation result to a 3/4 factor guarantee.

The Price of Fairness for Indivisible Goods

We investigate the efficiency of fair allocations of indivisible goods using the well-studied price of fairness concept. Previous work has focused on classical fairness notions such as envy-freeness, proportionality, and equitability. However, these notions cannot always be satisfied for indivisible goods, leading to certain instances being ignored in the analysis. In this paper, we focus instead on notions with guaranteed existence, including envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), balancedness, maximum Nash welfare (MNW), and leximin. We also introduce the concept of strong price of fairness, which captures the efficiency loss in the worst fair allocation as opposed to that in the best fair allocation as in the price of fairness. We mostly provide tight or asymptotically tight bounds on the worst-case efficiency loss for allocations satisfying these notions, for both the price of fairness and the strong price of fairness.

Obtaining a Proportional Allocation by Deleting Items

We consider the following control problem on fair allocation of indivisible goods. Given a set I of items and a set of agents, each having strict linear preferences over the items, we ask for a minimum subset of the items whose deletion guarantees the existence of a proportional allocation in the remaining instance; we call this problem Proportionality by Item Deletion (PID). Our main result is a polynomial-time algorithm that solves PID for three agents. By contrast, we prove that PID is computationally intractable when the number of agents is unbounded, even if the number k of item deletions allowed is small—we show that the problem is {mathsf {W}}[3]-hard with respect to the parameter k. Additionally, we provide some tight lower and upper bounds on the complexity of PID when regarded as a function of |I| and k. Considering the possibilities for approximation, we prove a strong inapproximability result for PID. Finally, we also study a variant of the problem where we are given an allocation pi in advance as part of the input, and our aim is to delete a minimum number of items such that pi is proportional in the remainder; this variant turns out to be {{mathsf {N}}}{{mathsf {P}}}-hard for six agents, but polynomial-time solvable for two agents, and we show that it is mathsf {W[2]}-hard when parameterized by the number k of

Fairly Allocating Many Goods with Few Queries

We investigate the query complexity of the fair allocation of indivisible goods. For two agents with arbitrary monotonic utilities, we design an algorithm that computes an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), a relaxation of envy-freeness, using a logarithmic number of queries. We show that the logarithmic query complexity bound also holds for three agents with additive utilities, and that a polylogarithmic bound holds for three agents with monotonic utilities. These results suggest that it is possible to fairly allocate goods in practice even when the number of goods is extremely large. By contrast, we prove that computing an allocation satisfying envy-freeness and another of its relaxations, envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), requires a linear number of queries even when there are only two agents with identical additive utilities.

On the Optimal Rearrangement of Multiple Matrices

For the classic problem of fair allocation of indivisible goods, we introduce the notion of minimum social inequality allocations and discuss its connection to other fair allocation rules such as minimum envy. We show that a fair allocation problem can always be cast as the problem of finding an optimal rearrangement of multiple matrices. Based on this reformulation, we provide two novel algorithms to find allocations with a minimum level of social inequality or with a minimum level of envy. Numerical illustrations show the efficiency of the newly developed algorithms, especially in problems with a large number of objects/agents.

Maximin share guarantee for goods with positive externalities

One of the important yet insufficiently studied subjects in fair allocation is the externality effect among agents. For a resource allocation problem, externalities imply that the share allocated to an agent may affect the utilities of other agents. In this paper, we conduct a study of fair allocation of indivisible goods with positive externalities. Inspired by the models in the context of network diffusion, we present a simple and natural model, namely network externalities, to capture the externalities. To evaluate fairness in the network externalities model, we generalize the idea behind the notion of maximin-share ( $$\mathsf {MMS}$$ ) to achieve a new criterion, namely, extended-maximin-share ( $$\mathsf {EMMS}$$ ). Next, we consider two problems concerning our model. First, we discuss the computational aspects of finding the value of $$\mathsf {EMMS}$$ for every agent. For this, we introduce a generalized form of partitioning problem that includes many famous partitioning problems such as maximin, minimax, and leximin. We further show that a 1/2-approximation algorithm exists for this partitioning problem. Next, we investigate approximate $$\mathsf {EMMS}$$ allocations, i.e., allocations that guarantee each agent a utility of at least a fraction of his extended-maximin-share. We show that under a natural assumption that the agents are $$\alpha$$ -self-reliant, an $$\alpha /2$$ - $$\mathsf {EMMS}$$ allocation always exists. This, combined with the former result yields a polynomial-time $$\alpha /4$$ - $$\mathsf {EMMS}$$ allocation algorithm.

The Complexity of Computing Maximin Share Allocations on Graphs

Maximin share is a compelling notion of fairness proposed by Buddish as a relaxation of more traditional concepts for fair allocations of indivisible goods. In this paper we consider this notion within a setting where bundles of goods must induce connected subsets over an underlying graph. This setting received much attention in earlier literature, and our study answers a number of questions that were left open. First, we show that computing maximin share allocations is FΔ2P-complete, even when focusing on consistent scenarios, that is, where such allocations are a-priori guaranteed to exist. Moreover, the problem remains intractable if all agents have the same type, i.e., have the same utility functions, and if either the values returned by the utility functions are polynomially bounded, or the underlying graphs have a low degree of cyclicity (more precisely, have bounded treewidth). However, if these conditions hold all together, then computing maximin share allocations (or checking that none exists) becomes tractable. The result is established via machineries based on logspace alternating machines that use partial representations of connected bundles, which are interesting in their own.

Democratic fair allocation of indivisible goods

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.

Fairly Allocating Many Goods with Few Queries

We investigate the query complexity of the fair allocation of indivisible goods. For two agents with arbitrary monotonic valuations, we design an algorithm that computes an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), a relaxation of envy-freeness, using a logarithmic number of queries. We show that the logarithmic query complexity bound also holds for three agents with additive valuations. These results suggest that it is possible to fairly allocate goods in practice even when the number of goods is extremely large. By contrast, we prove that computing an allocation satisfying envyfreeness and another of its relaxations, envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), requires a linear number of queries even when there are only two agents with identical additive valuations.