Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn Fair and Efficient Allocations of Indivisible Public Goods
155
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Pooja Kulkarni
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
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.
rate research
Read More
We consider the problem of fairly allocating indivisible public goods. We model the public goods as elements with feasibility constraints on what subsets of elements can be chosen, and assume that agents have additive utilities across elements. Our model generalizes existing frameworks such as fair public decision making and participatory budgeting. We study a groupwise fairness notion called the core, which generalizes well-studied notions of proportionality and Pareto efficiency, and requires that each subset of agents must receive an outcome that is fair relative to its size. In contrast to the case of divisible public goods (where fractional allocations are permitted), the core is not guaranteed to exist when allocating indivisible public goods. Our primary contributions are the notion of an additive approximation to the core (with a tiny multiplicative loss), and polynomial time algorithms that achieve a small additive approximation, where the additive factor is relative to the largest utility of an agent for an element. If the feasibility constraints define a matroid, we show an additive approximation of 2. A similar approach yields a constant additive bound when the feasibility constraints define a matching. More generally, if the feasibility constraints define an arbitrary packing polytope with mild restrictions, we show an additive guarantee that is logarithmic in the width of the polytope. Our algorithms are based on variants of the convex program for maximizing the Nash social welfare, but differ significantly from previous work in how it is used. Our guarantees are meaningful even when there are fewer elements than the number of agents. As far as we are aware, our work is the first to approximate the core in indivisible settings.
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.
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.
Competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (CEEI) is a classic solution to the problem of fair and efficient allocation of goods [Foley67, Varian74]. Every agent receives an equal budget of artificial currency with which to purchase goods, and prices match demand and supply. However, a CEEI is not guaranteed to exist when the goods are indivisible, even in the simple two-agent, single-item market. Yet, it is easy to see that once the two budgets are slightly perturbed (made generic), a competitive equilibrium does exist. In this paper we aim to extend this approach beyond the single-item case, and study the existence of equilibria in markets with two agents and additive preferences over multiple items. We show that for agents with equal budgets, making the budgets generic -- by adding vanishingly small random perturbations -- ensures the existence of an equilibrium. We further consider agents with arbitrary non-equal budgets, representing non-equal entitlements for goods. We show that competitive equilibrium guarantees a new notion of fairness among non-equal agents, and that it exists in cases of interest (like when the agents have identical preferences) if budgets are perturbed. Our results open opportunities for future research on generic equilibrium existence and fair treatment of non-equals.
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.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
