-
Guaranteed shares of benefits and costs
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Hervé Moulin
Abstract:
In a general fair division model with transferable utilities we discuss endogenous lower and upper guarantees on individual shares of benefits or costs. Like the more familiar exogenous bounds on individual shares described by an outside option or a stand alone utility, these guarantees depend on my type but not on others' types, only on their number and the range of types. Kee** the range from…
▽ More
In a general fair division model with transferable utilities we discuss endogenous lower and upper guarantees on individual shares of benefits or costs. Like the more familiar exogenous bounds on individual shares described by an outside option or a stand alone utility, these guarantees depend on my type but not on others' types, only on their number and the range of types. Kee** the range from worst share to best share as narrow as permitted by the physical constraints of the model still leaves a large menu of tight guarantee functions. We describe in detail these design options in several iconic problems where each tight pair of guarantees has a clear normative meaning: the allocation of indivisible goods or costly chores, cost sharing of a public facility and the exploitation of a commons with substitute or complementary inputs. The corresponding benefit or cost functions are all sub- or super-modular, and for this class we characterise the set of minimal upper and maximal lower guarantees in all two agent problems.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
On Hill's Worst-Case Guarantee for Indivisible Bads
Authors:
Bo Li,
Hervé Moulin,
Ankang Sun,
Yu Zhou
Abstract:
When allocating objects among agents with equal rights, people often evaluate the fairness of an allocation rule by comparing their received utilities to a benchmark share - a function only of her own valuation and the number of agents. This share is called a guarantee if for any profile of valuations there is an allocation ensuring the share of every agent. When the objects are indivisible goods,…
▽ More
When allocating objects among agents with equal rights, people often evaluate the fairness of an allocation rule by comparing their received utilities to a benchmark share - a function only of her own valuation and the number of agents. This share is called a guarantee if for any profile of valuations there is an allocation ensuring the share of every agent. When the objects are indivisible goods, Budish [J. Political Econ., 2011] proposed MaxMinShare, i.e., the least utility of a bundle in the best partition of the objects, which is unfortunately not a guarantee. Instead, an earlier pioneering work by Hill [Ann. Probab., 1987] proposed for a share the worst-case MaxMinShare over all valuations with the same largest possible single-object value. Although Hill's share is more conservative than the MaxMinShare, it is an actual guarantee and its computation is elementary, unlike that of the MaxMinShare which involves solving an NP-hard problem. We apply Hill's approach to the allocation of indivisible bads (objects with disutilities or costs), and characterise the tight closed form of the worst-case MinMaxShare for a given value of the worst bad. We argue that Hill's share for allocating bads is effective in the sense of being close to the original MinMaxShare value, and there is much to learn about the guarantee an agent can be offered from the disutility of her worst single bad. Furthermore, we prove that the monotonic cover of Hill's share is the best guarantee that can be achieved in Hill's model for all allocation instances.
△ Less
Submitted 1 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Fair congested assignment problem
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin
Abstract:
We propose a fair and efficient solution for assigning agents to m posts subject to congestion, when agents care about both their post and its congestion. Examples include assigning jobs to busy servers, students to crowded schools or crowded classes, commuters to congested routes, workers to crowded office spaces or to team projects etc... Congestion is anonymous (it only depends on the number n…
▽ More
We propose a fair and efficient solution for assigning agents to m posts subject to congestion, when agents care about both their post and its congestion. Examples include assigning jobs to busy servers, students to crowded schools or crowded classes, commuters to congested routes, workers to crowded office spaces or to team projects etc... Congestion is anonymous (it only depends on the number n of agents in a given post). A canonical interpretation of ex ante fairness allows each agent to choose m post-specific caps on the congestion they tolerate: these requests are mutually feasible if and only if the sum of the caps is n. For ex post fairness we impose a competitive requirement close to envy freeness: taking the congestion profile as given each agent is assigned to one of her best posts. If a competitive assignment exists, it delivers unique congestion and welfare profiles and is also efficient and ex ante fair. In a fractional (randomised or time sharing) version of our model, a unique competitive congestion profile always exists. It is approximately implemented by a mixture of ex post deterministic assignments: with an approxination factor equal to the largest utility loss from one more unit of congestion, the latter deliver identical welfare profiles and are weakly efficient. Our approach to ex ante fairness generalises to the model where each agent's congestion is weighted. Now the caps on posts depend only upon own weight and total congestion, not on the number of other agents contributing to it. Remarkably in both models these caps are feasible if and only if they give to each agent the right to veto all but (1/m) of their feasible allocations.
△ Less
Submitted 22 February, 2024; v1 submitted 28 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: Recent Progress and Open Questions
Authors:
Georgios Amanatidis,
Haris Aziz,
Georgios Birmpas,
Aris Filos-Ratsikas,
Bo Li,
Hervé Moulin,
Alexandros A. Voudouris,
Xiaowei Wu
Abstract:
Allocating resources to individuals in a fair manner has been a topic of interest since ancient times, with most of the early mathematical work on the problem focusing on resources that are infinitely divisible. Over the last decade, there has been a surge of papers studying computational questions regarding the indivisible case, for which exact fairness notions such as envy-freeness and proportio…
▽ More
Allocating resources to individuals in a fair manner has been a topic of interest since ancient times, with most of the early mathematical work on the problem focusing on resources that are infinitely divisible. Over the last decade, there has been a surge of papers studying computational questions regarding the indivisible case, for which exact fairness notions such as envy-freeness and proportionality are hard to satisfy. One main theme in the recent research agenda is to investigate the extent to which their relaxations, like maximin share fairness (MMS) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), can be achieved. In this survey, we present a comprehensive review of the recent progress made in the related literature by highlighting different ways to relax fairness notions, common algorithm design techniques, and the most interesting questions for future research.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2023; v1 submitted 18 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Algorithmic Fair Allocation of Indivisible Items: A Survey and New Questions
Authors:
Haris Aziz,
Bo Li,
Herve Moulin,
Xiaowei Wu
Abstract:
The theory of algorithmic fair allocation is within the center of multi-agent systems and economics in the last decade due to its industrial and social importance. At a high level, the problem is to assign a set of items that are either goods or chores to a set of agents so that every agent is happy with what she obtains. Particularly, in this survey, we focus on indivisible items, for which absol…
▽ More
The theory of algorithmic fair allocation is within the center of multi-agent systems and economics in the last decade due to its industrial and social importance. At a high level, the problem is to assign a set of items that are either goods or chores to a set of agents so that every agent is happy with what she obtains. Particularly, in this survey, we focus on indivisible items, for which absolute fairness such as envy-freeness and proportionality cannot be guaranteed. One main theme in the recent research agenda is about designing algorithms that approximately achieve the fairness criteria. We aim at presenting a comprehensive survey of recent progresses through the prism of algorithms, highlighting the ways to relax fairness notions and common techniques to design algorithms, as well as the most interesting questions for future research.
△ Less
Submitted 17 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Fair Division with Money and Prices
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin
Abstract:
We must divide a finite number of indivisible goods and cash transfers between agents with quasi-linear but otherwise arbitrary utilities over the subsets of goods. We compare two division rules with cognitively feasible and privacy preserving individual messages. In Sell&Buy agents bid for the role of Seller or Buyer: with two agents the smallest bid defines the Seller who then charges any a pric…
▽ More
We must divide a finite number of indivisible goods and cash transfers between agents with quasi-linear but otherwise arbitrary utilities over the subsets of goods. We compare two division rules with cognitively feasible and privacy preserving individual messages. In Sell&Buy agents bid for the role of Seller or Buyer: with two agents the smallest bid defines the Seller who then charges any a price constrained only by her winning bid. In Divide&Choose agents bid for the role of Divider, then everyone bids on the shares of the Divider's partition. S&B dominates D&C on two counts: its guaranteed utility in the worst case rewards (resp. penalises) more subadditive (resp. superadditive) utilities; playing safe is never ambiguous and is also better placed to collect a larger share of the efficient surplus.
△ Less
Submitted 16 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Wost Case in Voting and Bargaining
Authors:
Anna bogomolnaia Ron Holzman Herve Moulin
Abstract:
The guarantee of an anonymous mechanism is the worst case welfare an agent can secure against unanimously adversarial others. How high can such a guarantee be, and what type of mechanism achieves it? We address the worst case design question in the n-person probabilistic voting/bargaining model with p deterministic outcomes. If n is no less than p the uniform lottery is the only maximal (unimprova…
▽ More
The guarantee of an anonymous mechanism is the worst case welfare an agent can secure against unanimously adversarial others. How high can such a guarantee be, and what type of mechanism achieves it? We address the worst case design question in the n-person probabilistic voting/bargaining model with p deterministic outcomes. If n is no less than p the uniform lottery is the only maximal (unimprovable) guarantee; there are many more if p>n, in particular the ones inspired by the random dictator mechanism and by voting by veto. If n=2 the maximal set M(n,p) is a simple polytope where each vertex combines a round of vetoes with one of random dictatorship. For p>n>2, we show that the dual veto and random dictator guarantees, together with the uniform one, are the building blocks of 2 to the power d simplices of dimension d in M(n,p), where d is the quotient of p-1 by n. Their vertices are guarantees easy to interpret and implement. The set M(n,p) may contain other guarantees as well; what we can say in full generality is that it is a finite union of polytopes, all sharing the uniform guarantee.
△ Less
Submitted 6 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
Guarantees in Fair Division: general or monotone preferences
Authors:
Anna bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin
Abstract:
To divide a "manna" Ω of private items (commodities, workloads, land, time intervals) between n agents, the worst case measure of fairness is the welfare guaranteed to each agent, irrespective of others' preferences. If the manna is non atomic and utilities are continuous (not necessarily monotone or convex), we can guarantee the minMax utility: that of our agent's best share in her worst partitio…
▽ More
To divide a "manna" Ω of private items (commodities, workloads, land, time intervals) between n agents, the worst case measure of fairness is the welfare guaranteed to each agent, irrespective of others' preferences. If the manna is non atomic and utilities are continuous (not necessarily monotone or convex), we can guarantee the minMax utility: that of our agent's best share in her worst partition of the manna; and implement it by Kuhn's generalisation of Divide and Choose. The larger Maxmin utility -- of her worst share in her best partition -- cannot be guaranteed, even for two agents. If for all agents more manna is better than less (or less is better than more), our Bid & Choose rules implement guarantees between minMax and Maxmin by letting agents bid for the smallest (or largest) size of a share they find acceptable.
△ Less
Submitted 16 September, 2020; v1 submitted 22 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
-
A polynomial-time algorithm for computing a Pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation
Authors:
Haris Aziz,
Herve Moulin,
Fedor Sandomirskiy
Abstract:
We consider fair allocation of indivisible items under additive utilities. When the utilities can be negative, the existence and complexity of an allocation that satisfies Pareto optimality and proportionality up to one item (PROP1) is an open problem. We show that there exists a strongly polynomial-time algorithm that always computes an allocation satisfying Pareto optimality and proportionality…
▽ More
We consider fair allocation of indivisible items under additive utilities. When the utilities can be negative, the existence and complexity of an allocation that satisfies Pareto optimality and proportionality up to one item (PROP1) is an open problem. We show that there exists a strongly polynomial-time algorithm that always computes an allocation satisfying Pareto optimality and proportionality up to one item even if the utilities are mixed and the agents have asymmetric weights. We point out that the result does not hold if either of Pareto optimality or PROP1 is replaced with slightly stronger concepts.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2020; v1 submitted 2 September, 2019;
originally announced September 2019.
-
On the fair division of a random object
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin,
Fedor Sandomirskiy
Abstract:
Ann likes oranges much more than apples; Bob likes apples much more than oranges. Tomorrow they will receive one fruit that will be an orange or an apple with equal probability. Giving one half to each agent is fair for each realization of the fruit. However, agreeing that whatever fruit appears will go to the agent who likes it more gives a higher expected utility to each agent and is fair in the…
▽ More
Ann likes oranges much more than apples; Bob likes apples much more than oranges. Tomorrow they will receive one fruit that will be an orange or an apple with equal probability. Giving one half to each agent is fair for each realization of the fruit. However, agreeing that whatever fruit appears will go to the agent who likes it more gives a higher expected utility to each agent and is fair in the average sense: in expectation, each agent prefers his allocation to the equal division of the fruit, i.e., he gets a fair share.
We turn this familiar observation into an economic design problem: upon drawing a random object (the fruit), we learn the realized utility of each agent and can compare it to the mean of his distribution of utilities; no other statistical information about the distribution is available. We fully characterize the division rules using only this sparse information in the most efficient possible way, while giving everyone a fair share. Although the probability distribution of individual utilities is arbitrary and mostly unknown to the manager, these rules perform in the same range as the best rule when the manager has full access to this distribution.
△ Less
Submitted 10 January, 2021; v1 submitted 25 March, 2019;
originally announced March 2019.
-
Fair mixing: the case of dichotomous preferences
Authors:
Haris Aziz,
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin
Abstract:
Agents vote to choose a fair mixture of public outcomes; each agent likes or dislikes each outcome. We discuss three outstanding voting rules. The Conditional Utilitarian rule, a variant of the random dictator, is Strategyproof and guarantees to any group of like-minded agents an influence proportional to its size. It is easier to compute and more efficient than the familiar Random Priority rule.…
▽ More
Agents vote to choose a fair mixture of public outcomes; each agent likes or dislikes each outcome. We discuss three outstanding voting rules. The Conditional Utilitarian rule, a variant of the random dictator, is Strategyproof and guarantees to any group of like-minded agents an influence proportional to its size. It is easier to compute and more efficient than the familiar Random Priority rule. Its worst case (resp. average) inefficiency is provably (resp. in numerical experiments) low if the number of agents is low. The efficient Egalitarian rule protects similarly individual agents but not coalitions. It is Excludable Strategyproof: I do not want to lie if I cannot consume outcomes I claim to dislike. The efficient Nash Max Product rule offers the strongest welfare guarantees to coalitions, who can force any outcome with a probability proportional to their size. But it fails even the excludable form of Strategyproofness.
△ Less
Submitted 7 December, 2017;
originally announced December 2017.
-
Competitive division of a mixed manna
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin,
Fedor Sandomirskiy,
Elena Yanovskaya
Abstract:
A mixed manna contains goods (that everyone likes), bads (that everyone dislikes), as well as items that are goods to some agents, but bads or satiated to others.
If all items are goods and utility functions are homothetic, concave (and monotone), the Competitive Equilibrium with Equal Incomes maximizes the Nash product of utilities: hence it is welfarist (determined utility-wise by the feasible…
▽ More
A mixed manna contains goods (that everyone likes), bads (that everyone dislikes), as well as items that are goods to some agents, but bads or satiated to others.
If all items are goods and utility functions are homothetic, concave (and monotone), the Competitive Equilibrium with Equal Incomes maximizes the Nash product of utilities: hence it is welfarist (determined utility-wise by the feasible set of profiles), single-valued and easy to compute.
We generalize the Gale-Eisenberg Theorem to a mixed manna. The Competitive division is still welfarist and related to the product of utilities or disutilities. If the zero utility profile (before any manna) is Pareto dominated, the competitive profile is unique and still maximizes the product of utilities. If the zero profile is unfeasible, the competitive profiles are the critical points of the product of disutilities on the efficiency frontier, and multiplicity is pervasive. In particular the task of dividing a mixed manna is either good news for everyone, or bad news for everyone.
We refine our results in the practically important case of linear preferences, where the axiomatic comparison between the division of goods and that of bads is especially sharp. When we divide goods and the manna improves, everyone weakly benefits under the competitive rule; but no reasonable rule to divide bads can be similarly Resource Monotonic. Also, the much larger set of Non Envious and Efficient divisions of bads can be disconnected so that it will admit no continuous selection.
△ Less
Submitted 2 February, 2017;
originally announced February 2017.
-
Dividing goods and bads under additive utilities
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin,
Fedor Sandomirskiy,
Elena Yanovskaya
Abstract:
When utilities are additive, we uncovered in our previous paper (Bogomolnaia et al. "Dividing Goods or Bads under Additive Utilities") many similarities but also surprising differences in the behavior of the familiar Competitive rule (with equal incomes), when we divide (private) goods or bads. The rule picks in both cases the critical points of the product of utilities (or disutilities) on the ef…
▽ More
When utilities are additive, we uncovered in our previous paper (Bogomolnaia et al. "Dividing Goods or Bads under Additive Utilities") many similarities but also surprising differences in the behavior of the familiar Competitive rule (with equal incomes), when we divide (private) goods or bads. The rule picks in both cases the critical points of the product of utilities (or disutilities) on the efficiency frontier, but there is only one such point if we share goods, while there can be exponentially many in the case of bads.
We extend this analysis to the fair division of mixed items: each item can be viewed by some participants as a good and by others as a bad, with corresponding positive or negative marginal utilities. We find that the division of mixed items boils down, normatively as well as computationally, to a variant of an all goods problem, or of an all bads problem: in particular the task of dividing the non disposable items must be either good news for everyone, or bad news for everyone.
If at least one feasible utility profile is positive, the Competitive rule picks the unique maximum of the product of (positive) utilities. If no feasible utility profile is positive, this rule picks all critical points of the product of disutilities on the efficient frontier.
△ Less
Submitted 12 October, 2016;
originally announced October 2016.
-
Dividing goods or bads under additive utilities
Authors:
Anna Bogomolnaia,
Herve Moulin,
Fedor Sandomirskiy,
Elena Yanovskaya
Abstract:
We compare the Egalitarian Equivalent and the Competitive Equilibrium with Equal Incomes rules to divide a bundle of goods (heirlooms) or a bundle of bads (chores).
For goods the Competitive division fares better, as it is Resource Monotonic, and makes it harder to strategically misreport preferences. But for bads, the Competitive rule, unlike the Egalitarian one, is multivalued, harder to compu…
▽ More
We compare the Egalitarian Equivalent and the Competitive Equilibrium with Equal Incomes rules to divide a bundle of goods (heirlooms) or a bundle of bads (chores).
For goods the Competitive division fares better, as it is Resource Monotonic, and makes it harder to strategically misreport preferences. But for bads, the Competitive rule, unlike the Egalitarian one, is multivalued, harder to compute, and admits no continuous selection.
We also provide an axiomatic characterization of the Competitive rule based on the simple formulation of Maskin Monotonicity under additive utilities.
△ Less
Submitted 5 June, 2017; v1 submitted 4 August, 2016;
originally announced August 2016.
