skip to main content
10.5555/3237383.3237430acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Envy-Free Allocations Respecting Social Networks

Published: 09 July 2018 Publication History

Abstract

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^\mathrmP _2$-hard or $\mathrmNP $-hard to $\mathrmP $) and cases that become harder (from $\mathrmP $ to $\mathrmNP $-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.

References

[1]
Rediet Abebe, Jon Kleinberg, and David C. Parkes . 2017. Fair Division via Social Comparison. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS'17). 281--289.
[2]
Xiaohui Bei, Youming Qiao, and Shengyu Zhang . 2017. Networked Fairness in Cake Cutting. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'17). 3632--3638.
[3]
Bernhard Bliem, Robert Bredereck, and Rolf Niedermeier . 2016. Complexity of Efficient and Envy-Free Resource Allocation: Few Agents, Resources, or Utility Levels. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'16). 102--108.
[4]
Sylvain Bouveret, Katar'ına Cechlárová, Edith Elkind, Ayumi Igarashi, and Dominik Peters . 2017. Fair Division of a Graph. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'17). 135--141.
[5]
Sylvain Bouveret, Yann Chevaleyre, and Nicolas Maudet . 2016. Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods. Handbook of Computational Social Choice, bibfieldeditorFelix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Chapter 13, 311--329.
[6]
Sylvain Bouveret and Jérôme Lang . 2008. Efficiency and Envy-freeness in Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: Logical Representation and Complexity. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research Vol. 32 (2008), 525--564.
[7]
Steven J. Brams and Alan D. Taylor . 1996. Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press.
[8]
Yann Chevaleyre, Ulle Endriss, and Nicolas Maudet . 2017. Distributed fair allocation of indivisible goods. Artificial Intelligence Vol. 242 (2017), 1--22.
[9]
Rod G. Downey and Michael R. Fellows . 1995. Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness II: On completeness for W{1}. Theoretical Computer Science Vol. 141, 1 (1995), 109--131.
[10]
Leon Festinger . 1954. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, Vol. 7, 2 (1954), 117--140.
[11]
Laurent Gourvés, Julien Lesca, and Anaëlle Wilczynski . 2017. Object Allocation via Swaps along a Social Network Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'17). 213--219.
[12]
Maqsood Haider, Alamzeb Aamir, AA Hamid, and Muhammad Hashim . 2015. A literature analysis on the importance of non-financial rewards for employees' job satisfaction. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 8 (2015), 341--354.
[13]
Klaus Jansen, Stefan Kratsch, Dániel Marx, and Ildikó Schlotter . 2013. Bin packing with fixed number of bins revisited. Journal of Computer and System Sciences Vol. 79, 1 (2013), 39--49.
[14]
Richard M. Karp . 1972. Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems. In Proceedings of a Symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations. Springer US, 85--103.
[15]
Bart noopsortKeijzerde Keijzer, Sylvain Bouveret, Tomas Klos, and Yingqian Zhang . 2009. On the Complexity of Efficiency and Envy-Freeness in Fair Division of Indivisible Goods with Additive Preferences. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT'09). 98--110.
[16]
Richard J. Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi . 2004. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC'04). 125--131.
[17]
Evangelos Markakis . 2017. Approximation Algorithms and Hardness Results for Fair Division with Indivisible Goods. Trends in Computational Social Choice, bibfieldeditorUlle Endriss (Ed.). AI Access, Chapter 12, 231--247.
[18]
Hervé Moulin . 2003. Fair Division and Collective Welfare. MIT Press.
[19]
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor . 2017. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--June 2017. (2017). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf {Online; accessed 11-November-2017}.
[20]
Ariel D. Procaccia . 2013. Cake Cutting: Not Just Child's Play. Communications of the ACM Vol. 56, 7 (2013), 78--87.
[21]
Ariel D. Procaccia . 2016. Cake Cutting Algorithms. Handbook of Computational Social Choice, bibfieldeditorFelix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Chapter 13, 311--329.
[22]
Jack M. Robertson and William A. Webb . 1998. Cake-Cutting Algorithms - Be Fair if You Can.A K Peters.
[23]
Hugo Steinhaus . 1948. The Problem of Fair Division. Econometrica Vol. 16 (1948), 101--104.
[24]
Warut Suksompong . 2017. Fairly Allocating Contiguous Blocks of Indivisible Items Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT'17). 333--344.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
AAMAS '18: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems
July 2018
2312 pages

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 09 July 2018

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. computational social choice
  2. fair allocation
  3. indivisible goods
  4. social networks

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

AAMAS '18
Sponsor:
AAMAS '18: Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems
July 10 - 15, 2018
Stockholm, Sweden

Acceptance Rates

AAMAS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 149 of 607 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media