Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFinding Fair and Efficient Allocations When Valuations Dont Add Up
249
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Mithun Chakraborty
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this paper, we present new results on the fair and efficient allocation of indivisible goods to agents whose preferences correspond to {em matroid rank functions}. This is a versatile valuation class with several desirable properties (such as monotonicity and submodularity), which naturally lends itself to a number of real-world domains. We use these properties to our advantage; first, we show that when agent valuations are matroid rank functions, a socially optimal (i.e. utilitarian social welfare-maximizing) allocation that achieves envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) exists and is computationally tractable. We also prove that the Nash welfare-maximizing and the leximin allocations both exhibit this fairness/efficiency combination, by showing that they can be achieved by minimizing any symmetric strictly convex function over utilitarian optimal outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first valuation function class not subsumed by additive valuations for which it has been established that an allocation maximizing Nash welfare is EF1. Moreover, for a subclass of these valuation functions based on maximum (unweighted) bipartite matching, we show that a leximin allocation can be computed in polynomial time. Additionally, we explore possible extensions of our results to fairness criteria other than EF1 as well as to generalizations of the above valuation classes.
rate research
Read More
We study fair allocation of indivisible public goods subject to cardinality (budget) constraints. In this model, we have n agents and m available public goods, and we want to select $k leq m$ goods in a fair and efficient manner. We first establish fundamental connections between the models of private goods, public goods, and public decision making by presenting polynomial-time reductions for the popular solution concepts of maximum Nash welfare (MNW) and leximin. These mechanisms are known to provide remarkable fairness and efficiency guarantees in private goods and public decision making settings. We show that they retain these desirable properties even in the public goods case. We prove that MNW allocations provide fairness guarantees of Proportionality up to one good (Prop1), $1/n$ approximation to Round Robin Share (RRS), and the efficiency guarantee of Pareto Optimality (PO). Further, we show that the problems of finding MNW or leximin-optimal allocations are NP-hard, even in the case of constantly many agents, or binary valuations. This is in sharp contrast to the private goods setting that admits polynomial-time algorithms under binary valuations. We also design pseudo-polynomial time algorithms for computing an exact MNW or leximin-optimal allocation for the cases of (i) constantly many agents, and (ii) constantly many goods with additive valuations. We also present an O(n)-factor approximation algorithm for MNW which also satisfies RRS, Prop1, and 1/2-Prop.
We consider a multi-agent model for fair division of mixed manna (i.e. items for which agents can have positive, zero or negative utilities), in which agents have additive utilities for bundles of items. For this model, we give several general impossibility results and special possibility results for three common fairness concepts (i.e. EF1, EFX, EFX3) and one popular efficiency concept (i.e. PO). We also study how these interact with common welfare objectives such as the Nash, disutility Nash and egalitarian welfares. For example, we show that maximizing the Nash welfare with mixed manna (or minimizing the disutility Nash welfare) does not ensure an EF1 allocation whereas with goods and the Nash welfare it does. We also prove that an EFX3 allocation may not exist even with identical utilities. By comparison, with tertiary utilities, EFX and PO allocations, or EFX3 and PO allocations always exist. Also, with identical utilities, EFX and PO allocations always exist. For these cases, we give polynomial-time algorithms, returning such allocations and approximating further the Nash, disutility Nash and egalitarian welfares in special cases.
Simulations of infectious disease spread have long been used to understand how epidemics evolve and how to effectively treat them. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to understanding the fairness implications of different treatment strategies -- that is, how might such strategies distribute the expected disease burden differentially across various subgroups or communities in the population? In this work, we define the precision disease control problem -- the problem of optimally allocating vaccines in a social network in a step-by-step fashion -- and we use the ML Fairness Gym to simulate epidemic control and study it from both an efficiency and fairness perspective. We then present an exploratory analysis of several different environments and discuss the fairness implications of different treatment strategies.
We consider the problem of allocating a set on indivisible items to players with private preferences in an efficient and fair way. We focus on valuations that have dichotomous marginals, in which the added value of any item to a set is either 0 or 1, and aim to design truthful allocation mechanisms (without money) that maximize welfare and are fair. For the case that players have submodular valuations with dichotomous marginals, we design such a deterministic truthful allocation mechanism. The allocation output by our mechanism is Lorenz dominating, and consequently satisfies many desired fairness properties, such as being envy-free up to any item (EFX), and maximizing the Nash Social Welfare (NSW). We then show that our mechanism with random priorities is envy-free ex-ante, while having all the above properties ex-post. Furthermore, we present several impossibility results precluding similar results for the larger class of XOS valuations. To gauge the robustness of our positive results, we also study $epsilon$-dichotomous valuations, in which the added value of any item to a set is either non-positive, or in the range $[1, 1 + epsilon]$. We show several impossibility results in this setting, and also a positive result: for players that have additive $epsilon$-dichotomous valuations with sufficiently small $epsilon$, we design a randomized truthful mechanism with strong ex-post guarantees. For $rho = frac{1}{1 + epsilon}$, the allocations that it produces generate at least a $rho$-fraction of the maximum welfare, and enjoy $rho$-approximations for various fairness properties, such as being envy-free up to one item (EF1), and giving each player at least her maximin share.
We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items among $n$ agents with additive valuations, when agents have equal entitlements to the goods, and there are no transfers. Best-of-Both-Worlds (BoBW) fairness mechanisms aim to give all agents both an ex-ante guarantee (such as getting the proportional share in expectation) and an ex-post guarantee. Prior BoBW results have focused on ex-post guarantees that are based on the up to one item paradigm, such as envy-free up to one item (EF1). In this work we attempt to give every agent a high value ex-post, and specifically, a constant fraction of his maximin share (MMS). The up to one item paradigm fails to give such a guarantee, and it is not difficult to present examples in which previous BoBW mechanisms give agents only a $frac{1}{n}$ fraction of their MMS. Our main result is a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that computes a distribution over allocations that is ex-ante proportional, and ex-post, every allocation gives every agent at least his proportional share up to one item, and more importantly, at least half of his MMS. Moreover, this last ex-post guarantee holds even with respect to a more demanding notion of a share, introduced in this paper, that we refer to as the truncated proportional share (TPS). Our guarantees are nearly best possible, in the sense that one cannot guarantee agents more than their proportional share ex-ante, and one cannot guarantee agents more than a $frac{n}{2n-1}$ fraction of their TPS ex-post.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
