Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userApproximately EFX Allocations for Indivisible Chores
144
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Shengwei Zhou
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this paper we study how to fairly allocate a set of m indivisible chores to a group of n agents, each of which has a general additive cost function on the items. Since envy-free (EF) allocation is not guaranteed to exist, we consider the notion of envy-freeness up to any item (EFX). In contrast to the fruitful results regarding the (approximation of) EFX allocations for goods, very little is known for the allocation of chores. Prior to our work, for the allocation of chores, it is known that EFX allocations always exist for two agents, or general number of agents with IDO cost functions. For general instances, no non-trivial approximation result regarding EFX allocation is known. In this paper we make some progress in this direction by showing that for three agents we can always compute a 5-approximation of EFX allocation in polynomial time. For n>=4 agents, our algorithm always computes an allocation that achieves an approximation ratio of O(n^2) regarding EFX.
rate research
Read More
In this paper, we consider how to fairly allocate $m$ indivisible chores to a set of $n$ (asymmetric) agents. As exact fairness cannot be guaranteed, motivated by the extensive study of EF1, EFX and PROP1 allocations, we propose and study {em proportionality up to any item} (PROPX), and show that a PROPX allocation always exists. We argue that PROPX might be a more reliable relaxation for proportionality in practice than the commonly studied maximin share fairness (MMS) by the facts that (1) MMS allocations may not exist even with three agents, but PROPX allocations always exist even for the weighted case when agents have unequal obligation shares; (2) any PROPX allocation ensures 2-approximation for MMS, but an MMS allocation can be as bad as $Theta(n)$-approximation to PROPX. We propose two algorithms to compute PROPX allocations and each of them has its own merits. Our first algorithm is based on a recent refinement for the well-known procedure -- envy-cycle elimination, where the returned allocation is simultaneously PROPX and $4/3$-approximate MMS. A by-product result is that an exact EFX allocation for indivisible chores exists if all agents have the same ordinal preference over the chores, which might be of independent interest. The second algorithm is called bid-and-take, which applies to the weighted case. Furthermore, we study the price of fairness for (weighted) PROPX allocations, and show that the algorithm computes allocations with the optimal guarantee on the approximation ratio to the optimal social welfare without fairness constraints.
The leximin solution -- which selects an allocation that maximizes the minimum utility, then the second minimum utility, and so forth -- is known to provide EFX (envy-free up to any good) fairness guarantee in some contexts when allocating indivisible goods. However, it remains unknown how fair the leximin solution is when used to allocate indivisible chores. In this paper, we demonstrate that the leximin solution can be modified to also provide compelling fairness guarantees for the allocation of indivisible chores. First, we generalize the definition of the leximin solution. Then, we show that the leximin solution finds a PROP1 (proportional up to one good) and PO (Pareto-optimal) allocation for 3 or 4 agents in the context of chores allocation with additive distinct valuations. Additionally, we prove that the leximin solution is EFX for combinations of goods and chores for agents with general but identical valuations.
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 study the problem of distributing a set of indivisible items among agents with additive valuations in a $mathit{fair}$ manner. The fairness notion under consideration is Envy-freeness up to any item (EFX). Despite significant efforts by many researchers for several years, the existence of EFX allocations has not been settled beyond the simple case of two agents. In this paper, we show constructively that an EFX allocation always exists for three agents. Furthermore, we falsify the conjecture by Caragiannis et al. by showing an instance with three agents for which there is a partial EFX allocation (some items are not allocated) with higher Nash welfare than that of any complete EFX allocation.
We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among $n$ agents with additive valuations. Envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) is arguably the most compelling fairness notion in this context. However, the existence of EFX allocations has not been settled and is one of the most important problems in fair division. Towards resolving this problem, many impressive results show the existence of its relaxations, e.g., the existence of $0.618$-EFX allocations, and the existence of EFX at most $n-1$ unallocated goods. The latter result was recently improved for three agents, in which the two unallocated goods are allocated through an involved procedure. Reducing the number of unallocated goods for arbitrary number of agents is a systematic way to settle the big question. In this paper, we develop a new approach, and show that for every $varepsilon in (0,1/2]$, there always exists a $(1-varepsilon)$-EFX allocation with sublinear number of unallocated goods and high Nash welfare. For this, we reduce the EFX problem to a novel problem in extremal graph theory. We introduce the notion of rainbow cycle number $R(cdot)$. For all $d in mathbb{N}$, $R(d)$ is the largest $k$ such that there exists a $k$-partite digraph $G =(cup_{i in [k]} V_i, E)$, in which 1) each part has at most $d$ vertices, i.e., $lvert V_i rvert leq d$ for all $i in [k]$, 2) for any two parts $V_i$ and $V_j$, each vertex in $V_i$ has an incoming edge from some vertex in $V_j$ and vice-versa, and 3) there exists no cycle in $G$ that contains at most one vertex from each part. We show that any upper bound on $R(d)$ directly translates to a sublinear bound on the number of unallocated goods. We establish a polynomial upper bound on $R(d)$, yielding our main result. Furthermore, our approach is constructive, which also gives a polynomial-time algorithm for finding such an allocation.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
