skip to main content
10.1145/3580507.3597698acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Guaranteeing Envy-Freeness under Generalized Assignment Constraints

Published: 07 July 2023 Publication History

Abstract

We study fair division of goods under the broad class of generalized assignment constraints. In this constraint framework, the sizes and values of the goods are agent-specific, and one needs to allocate the goods among the agents fairly while further ensuring that each agent receives a bundle of total size at most the corresponding budget of the agent. Since, in such a constraint setting, it may not always be feasible to partition all the goods among the agents, we conform---as in recent works---to the construct of charity to designate the set of unassigned goods. For this allocation framework, we obtain existential and computational guarantees for envy-free (appropriately defined) allocation of divisible and indivisible goods, respectively, among agents with individual, additive valuations for the goods.
We deem allocations to be fair by evaluating envy only with respect to feasible subsets. In particular, an allocation is said to be feasibly envy-free (FEF) iff each agent prefers its bundle over every (budget) feasible subset within any other agent's bundle (and within the charity). The current work establishes that, for divisible goods, FEF allocations are guaranteed to exist and can be computed efficiently under generalized assignment constraints. Note that, in the presence of generalized assignment constraints, even the existence of such fair allocations of divisible goods is nonobvious, a priori. Our existential and computational guarantee for FEF allocations is built upon an incongruity property satisfied across a family of linear programs. This novel proof template is interesting in its own right.
In the context of indivisible goods, FEF allocations do not necessarily exist, and hence, we consider the fairness notion of feasible envy-freeness up to any good (FEFx). Under this notion, an allocation of indivisible goods is declared to be fair iff for each pair of agents, a and b, envy-freeness holds for agent a against every feasible and strict subset of b's bundle; a similar guarantee is required with respect to the charity. We show that, under generalized assignment constraints, an FEFx allocation of indivisible goods always exists. In fact, our FEFx result resolves open problems posed in prior works, which provide existence guarantees under weaker fairness notions and more specialized constraints. Further, for indivisible goods and under generalized assignment constraints, we provide a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm for computing FEFx allocations, and a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) for computing approximate FEFx allocations.

References

[1]
Martin Damyanov Aleksandrov, Haris Aziz, Serge Gaspers, and Toby Walsh. 2015. Online fair division: Analysing a food bank problem. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[2]
Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Hervé Moulin, Alexandros A Voudouris, and Xiaowei Wu. 2022. Fair division of indivisible goods: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08782 (2022).
[3]
Dinesh Kumar Baghel, Vadim E Levit, and Erel Segal-Halevi. 2022. Fair Division Algorithms for Electricity Distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14531 (2022).
[4]
Siddharth Barman, Arindam Khan, Sudarshan Shyam, and K. V. N. Sreenivas. 2022. Finding Fair Allocations under Budget Constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08168 (2022).
[5]
Nawal Benabbou, Mithun Chakraborty, Ayumi Igarashi, and Yair Zick. 2020. Finding fair and efficient allocations when valuations don't add up. In International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory. Springer, 32--46.
[6]
Gerdus Benadè, Daniel Halpern, and Alexandros Psomas. 2022. Dynamic Fair Division with Partial Information. In NeurIPS. http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/17bb0edcc02bd1f74e771e23b2aa1501-Abstract-Conference.html
[7]
Arpita Biswas and Siddharth Barman. 2018. Fair Division Under Cardinality Constraints. In IJCAI. 91--97.
[8]
Steven J Brams and Alan D Taylor. 1996. Fair Division: From cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press.
[9]
Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2016. Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press.
[10]
Eric Budish, Gérard P. Cachon, Judd B. Kessler, and Abraham Othman. 2017. Course Match: A Large-Scale Implementation of Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes for Combinatorial Allocation. Oper. Res. 65 (2017), 314--336.
[11]
Ioannis Caragiannis, Nick Gravin, and Xin Huang. 2019a. Envy-freeness up to any item with high Nash welfare: The virtue of donating items. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 527--545.
[12]
Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Hervé Moulin, Ariel D Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. 2019b. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) 7, 3 (2019), 1--32.
[13]
Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Telikepalli Kavitha, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Alkmini Sgouritsa. 2021. A little charity guarantees almost envy-freeness. SIAM J. Comput. 50, 4 (2021), 1336--1358.
[14]
Chandra Chekuri and Sanjeev Khanna. 2005. A polynomial time approximation scheme for the multiple knapsack problem. SIAM J. Comput. 35, 3 (2005), 713--728.
[15]
Yongheng Deng, Tien Foo Sing, and Chaoqun Ren. 2013. The story of Singapore's public housing: From a nation of home-seekers to a nation of homeowners. In The future of public housing. Springer, 103--121.
[16]
Amitay Dror, Michal Feldman, and Erel Segal-Halevi. 2021. On Fair Division under Heterogeneous Matroid Constraints. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 5312--5320.
[17]
Jon Feldman, Nitish Korula, Vahab Mirrokni, Shanmugavelayutham Muthukrishnan, and Martin Pál. 2009. Online ad assignment with free disposal. In International workshop on internet and network economics. Springer, 374--385.
[18]
Jiarui Gan, Bo Li, and Xiaowei Wu. 2021. Approximately envy-free budget-feasible allocation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14446 (2021).
[19]
Hans Kellerer, Ulrich Pferschy, and David Pisinger. 2004. Knapsack Problems.
[20]
Samir Khuller, Stephen G Mitchell, and Vijay V Vazirani. 1994. On-line algorithms for weighted bipartite matching and stable marriages. Theoretical Computer Science 127, 2 (1994), 255--267.
[21]
Maria Kyropoulou, Warut Suksompong, and Alexandros A Voudouris. 2020. Almost envy-freeness in group resource allocation. Theoretical Computer Science 841 (2020), 110--123.
[22]
Silvano Martello and Paolo Toth. 1990. Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer implementations. John Wiley & Sons.
[23]
Aranyak Mehta, Amin Saberi, Umesh Vazirani, and Vijay Vazirani. 2007. Adwords and generalized online matching. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 54, 5 (2007), 22--es.
[24]
Hervé Moulin. 2004. Fair division and collective welfare. MIT press.
[25]
Temel Öncan. 2007. A survey of the generalized assignment problem and its applications. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research 45, 3 (2007), 123--141.
[26]
Ariel D Procaccia. 2020. Technical perspective: An answer to fair division's most enigmatic question. Commun. ACM 63, 4 (2020), 118--118.
[27]
Günther Ruhe and Bernd Fruhwirth. 1990. ε-Optimality for bicriteria programs and its application to minimum cost flows. Computing 44, 1 (1990), 21--34.
[28]
Alexander Schrijver. 2003. Combinatorial Optimization: Polyhedra and Efficiency. Vol. B.
[29]
Itay Shtechman, Rica Gonen, and Erel Segal-Halevi. 2021. Fair cake-cutting algorithms with real land-value data. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 35, 2 (2021), 1--28.
[30]
Warut Suksompong. 2021. Constraints in fair division. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 19, 2 (2021), 46--61.
[31]
Hal Varian. 1974. Equity, envy, and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory 9, 1 (1974), 63--91.
[32]
Dietrich Weller. 1985. Fair division of a measurable space. Journal of Mathematical Economics 14, 1 (1985), 5--17.
[33]
Xiaowei Wu, Bo Li, and Jiarui Gan. 2021. Budget-feasible Maximum Nash Social Welfare is Almost Envy-free. In The 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2021). 1--16.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
EC '23: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 2023
1253 pages
ISBN:9798400701047
DOI:10.1145/3580507
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 July 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. fair division
  2. budget constraints
  3. cake cutting
  4. generalized assignment problem

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

EC '23
Sponsor:
EC '23: 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 9 - 12, 2023
London, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 664 of 2,389 submissions, 28%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)58
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Get Access

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