Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1609/aaai.v38i9.28815guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
research-article

1/2 - approximate MMS allocation for separable piecewise linear concave valuations

Published: 20 February 2024 Publication History

Abstract

We study fair distribution of a collection of m indivisible goods among a group of n agents, using the widely recognized fairness principles of Maximin Share (MMS) and Any Price Share (APS). These principles have undergone thorough investigation within the context of additive valuations. We explore these notions for valuations that extend beyond additivity.
First, we study approximate MMS under the separable (piecewise-linear) concave (SPLC) valuations, an important class generalizing additive, where the best known factor was 1/3-MMS. We show that 1/2-MMS allocation exists and can be computed in polynomial time, significantly improving the state-of-the-art. We note that SPLC valuations introduce an elevated level of intricacy in contrast to additive. For instance, the MMS value of an agent can be as high as her value for the entire set of items. Additionally, the equilibrium computation problem, which is polynomial-time for additive valuations, becomes intractable for SPLC. We use a relax-and-round paradigm that goes through competitive equilibrium and LP relaxation. Our result extends to give (symmetric) 1/2-APS, a stronger guarantee than MMS.
APS is a stronger notion that generalizes MMS by allowing agents with arbitrary entitlements. We study the approximation of APS under submodular valuation functions. We design and analyze a simple greedy algorithm using concave extensions of submodular functions. We prove that the algorithm gives a 1/3-APS allocation which matches the best-known factor. Concave extensions are hard to compute in polynomial time and are, therefore, generally not used in approximation algorithms. Our approach shows a way to utilize it within analysis (while bypassing its computation), and hence might be of independent interest.

References

[1]
Akrami, H.; and Garg, J. 2023. Breaking the 3/4 Barrier for Approximate Maximin Share. arXiv:2307.07304.
[2]
Akrami, H.; Garg, J.; and Taki, S. 2023. Improving Approximation Guarantees for Maximin Share. arXiv:2307.12916.
[3]
Amanatidis, G.; Aziz, H.; Birmpas, G.; Filos-Ratsikas, A.; Li, B.; Moulin, H.; Voudouris, A. A.; and Wu, X. 2022. Fair division of indivisible goods: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08782.
[4]
Arrow, K.; and Debreu, G. 1954. Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Econometrica, 22: 265-290.
[5]
Babaioff, M.; Ezra, T.; and Feige, U. 2021. Fair-Share Allocations for Agents with Arbitrary Entitlements. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 127-127.
[6]
Babaioff, M.; Nisan, N.; and Talgam-Cohen, I. 2019. Fair Allocation through Competitive Equilibrium from Generic Incomes. In FAT, 180.
[7]
Barman, S.; and Krishna Murthy, S. K. 2017. Approximation Algorithms for Maximin Fair Division. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 647-664.
[8]
Barman, S.; and Krishnamurthy, S. K. 2020. Approximation algorithms for maximin fair division. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 8(1): 1-28.
[9]
Barman, S.; and Verma, P. 2020. Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12710.
[10]
Budish, E. 2011. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119(6): 1061-1103.
[11]
Chakraborty, M.; Segal-Halevi, E.; and Suksompong, W. 2022. Weighted fairness notions for indivisible items revisited. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 5, 4949-4956.
[12]
Chaudhury, B. R.; Cheung, Y. K.; Garg, J.; Garg, N.; Hoefer, M.; and Mehlhorn, K. 2022. Fair division of indivisible goods for a class of concave valuations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74: 111-142.
[13]
Chekuri, C.; Kulkarni, P.; Kulkarni, R.; and Mehta, R. 2023. 1/2 Approximate MMS Allocation for Separable Piecewise Linear Concave Valuations. arXiv:2312.08504.
[14]
Farhadi, A.; Ghodsi, M.; Hajiaghayi, M. T.; Lahaie, S.; Pennock, D. M.; Seddighin, M.; Seddighin, S.; and Yami, H. 2019. Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods to Asymmetric Agents. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 64: 1-20.
[15]
Feige, U.; Sapir, A.; and Tauber, L. 2021. A tight negative example for MMS fair allocations. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, 355-372. Springer.
[16]
Garg, J.; McGlaughlin, P.; and Taki, S. 2018. Approximating Maximin Share Allocations. In 2nd Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
[17]
Garg, J.; Mehta, R.; Sohoni, M.; and Vazirani, V. V. 2012a. A complementary pivot algorithm for markets under separable, piecewise-linear concave utilities. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1003-1016.
[18]
Garg, J.; Mehta, R.; Sohoni, M.; and Vazirani, V. V. 2012b. A complementary pivot algorithm for markets under separable, piecewise-linear concave utilities. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1003-1016.
[19]
Garg, J.; and Taki, S. 2020. An Improved Approximation Algorithm for Maximin Shares. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '20, 379-380. ISBN 9781450379755.
[20]
Ghodsi, M.; HajiAghayi, M.; Seddighin, M.; Seddighin, S.; and Yami, H. 2018. Fair allocation of indivisible goods: Improvements and generalizations. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 539-556.
[21]
Kulkarni, P.; Kulkarni, R.; and Mehta, R. 2023. Maximin Share Allocations for Assignment Valuations. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2875-2876.
[22]
Kulkarni, R.; Mehta, R.; and Taki, S. 2021. Indivisible mixed manna: On the computability of mms+ po allocations. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 683-684.
[23]
Li, Z.; and Vetta, A. 2021. The fair division of hereditary set systems. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 9(2): 1-19.
[24]
Magnanti, T. L.; and Stratila, D. 2004. Separable concave optimization approximately equals piecewise linear optimization. In International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, 234-243. Springer.
[25]
Procaccia, A. D.; and Wang, J. 2014. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, 675-692. ACM.
[26]
Uziahu, G. B.; and Feige, U. 2023. On fair allocation of indivisible goods to submodular agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12444.
[27]
Vazirani, V. V.; and Yannakakis, M. 2011. Market equilibrium under separable, piecewise-linear, concave utilities. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 58(3): 1-25.
[28]
Viswanathan, V.; and Zick, Y. 2022. Yankee swap: a fast and simple fair allocation mechanism for matroid rank valuations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08495.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings
AAAI'24/IAAI'24/EAAI'24: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Fourteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence
February 2024
23861 pages
ISBN:978-1-57735-887-9

Sponsors

  • Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

AAAI Press

Publication History

Published: 20 February 2024

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 28 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media