Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.5555/3306127.3332132acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sharing is Caring: Dynamic Mechanism for Shared Resource Ownership

Published: 08 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Shared ownership of computing resources has long been in the practice; here, multiple agents pool their resources together to achieve high utility and low wastefulness. Sharing incentive, non-wastefulness and strategyproofness are three of the most desirable properties for a feasible system. However, Freeman et al. [2018] showed the fact that these three properties are incompatible in a dynamic setting and thus, a trade off must be maintained. In this work, we propose a dynamic allocation mechanism which fairly allocates the shared resources among the agents, and partially satisfies the above desiderata. Our mechanism outperforms the mechanisms proposed by Freeman et al. [2018] in the single resource case in terms of social welfare both in synthetic and real-life data. We also show that in the single resource case, our mechanism allocates the resources in a way that creates a market equilibrium and thus naturally satisfies several additional properties.

References

[1]
Kenneth J. Arrow and Gerard Debreu. 1954. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Vol. 22, 3 (July 1954), 265--290.
[2]
Moshe Babaioff, Noam Nisan, and nbal Talgam-Cohen. 2017. Competitive Equilibria with Indivisible Goods and Generic Budgets. arXiv:1703.08150 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08150
[3]
Eric Boutin, Jaliya Ekanayake, Wei Lin, Bing Shi, Jingren Zhou, Zhengping Qian, Ming Wu, and Lidong Zhou. 2014. Apollo: Scalable and Coordinated Scheduling for Cloud-Scale Computing. In Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), Vol. 14. 285--300.
[4]
Eric Budish. 2011. The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 119, 6 (2011), 1061--1103.
[5]
Shahar Dobzinski, Michal Feldman, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and Omri Weinstein. 2015. Welfare and revenue guarantees for competitive bundling equilibrium. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics. Springer, 300--313.
[6]
Danny Dolev, Dror G. Feitelson, Joseph Y. Halpern, Raz Kupferman, and Nathan Linial. 2012. No Justified Complaints: On Fair Sharing of Multiple Resources. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS) . ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 68--75.
[7]
Duncan K Foley. 1967. Resource allocation and the public sector. (1967).
[8]
Rupert Freeman, Seyed Majid Zahedi, Vincent Conitzer, and Benjamin C. Lee. 2018. Dynamic Proportional Sharing: A Game-Theoretic Approach. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems - SIGMETRICS, Vol. 2, 1 (April 2018), 3:1--3:36.
[9]
Eric Friedman, Christos-Alexandros Psomas, and Shai Vardi. 2017. Controlled Dynamic Fair Division. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 461--478.
[10]
Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2011. Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), Vol. 11. 24--24.
[11]
Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2013. Choosy: Max-min Fair Sharing for Datacenter Jobs with Constraints. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM European conference on Computer systems (EuroSys). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 365--378.
[12]
Avital Gutman and Noam Nisan. 2012. Fair allocation without trade. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Vol. 2. Valencia, Spain, 719--728.
[13]
Ian Kash, Ariel D Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. 2014. No agent left behind: Dynamic fair division of multiple resources. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 51 (2014), 579--603.
[14]
Noam Nisan, Tim Roughgarden, Eva Tardos, and Vijay V. Vazirani. 2007. Algorithmic game theory .
[15]
Abraham Othman, Tuomas Sandholm, and Eric Budish. 2010. Finding Approximate Competitive Equilibria: Efficient and Fair Course Allocation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Vol. 1. Richland, SC, 873--880. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1838206.1838323
[16]
David C. Parkes, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. 2015. Beyond Dominant Resource Fairness: Extensions, Limitations, and Indivisibilities. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), Vol. 3, 1 (March 2015), 3:1--3:22.
[17]
Erel Segal-Halevi. 2018. Competitive Equilibrium For Almost All Incomes. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) . Richland, SC, 1267--1275. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3237383.3237887
[18]
Erel Segal-Halevi and Balázs R. Sziklai. 2018. Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting. Economic Theory (2018), 1--39.
[19]
Seyed Majid Zahedi and Benjamin C. Lee. 2014. REF: Resource Elasticity Fairness with Sharing Incentives for Multiprocessors. SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, Vol. 42, 1 (February 2014), 145--160.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
AAMAS '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems
May 2019
2518 pages
ISBN:9781450363099

Sponsors

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 08 May 2019

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. algorithmic game theory
  2. market mechanism
  3. resource allocation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

AAMAS '19
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

AAMAS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 193 of 793 submissions, 24%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 55
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 02 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

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