Towards Optimal Subsidy Bounds for Envy-freeable Allocations

We study the fair division of indivisible items with subsidies among $n$ agents, where the absolute marginal valuation of each item is at most one. Under monotone valuations (where each item is a good), Brustle et al. (2020) demonstrated that a maximum subsidy of $2(n-1)$ and a total subsidy of $2(n-1)^2$ are sufficient to guarantee the existence of an envy-freeable allocation. In this paper, we improve upon these bounds, even in a wider model. Namely, we show that, given an EF1 allocation, we can compute in polynomial time an envy-free allocation with a subsidy of at most $n-1$ per agent and a total subsidy of at most $n(n-1)/2$. Moreover, we present further improved bounds for monotone valuations.Comment: 14page

Fair Allocation of goods and chores -- Tutorial and Survey of Recent Results

Fair resource allocation is an important problem in many real-world scenarios, where resources such as goods and chores must be allocated among agents. In this survey, we delve into the intricacies of fair allocation, focusing specifically on the challenges associated with indivisible resources. We define fairness and efficiency within this context and thoroughly survey existential results, algorithms, and approximations that satisfy various fairness criteria, including envyfreeness, proportionality, MMS, and their relaxations. Additionally, we discuss algorithms that achieve fairness and efficiency, such as Pareto Optimality and Utilitarian Welfare. We also study the computational complexity of these algorithms, the likelihood of finding fair allocations, and the price of fairness for each fairness notion. We also cover mixed instances of indivisible and divisible items and investigate different valuation and allocation settings. By summarizing the state-of-the-art research, this survey provides valuable insights into fair resource allocation of indivisible goods and chores, highlighting computational complexities, fairness guarantees, and trade-offs between fairness and efficiency. It serves as a foundation for future advancements in this vital field

On Approximate Envy-Freeness for Indivisible Chores and Mixed Resources

We study the fair allocation of undesirable indivisible items, or chores. While the case of desirable indivisible items (or goods) is extensively studied, with many results known for different notions of fairness, less is known about the fair division of chores. We study envy-free allocation of chores and make three contributions. First, we show that determining the existence of an envy-free allocation is NP-complete even in the simple case when agents have binary additive valuations. Second, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an allocation that satisfies envy-freeness up to one chore (EF1), correcting a claim in the existing literature. A modification of our algorithm can be used to compute an EF1 allocation for doubly monotone instances (where each agent can partition the set of items into objective goods and objective chores). Our third result applies to a mixed resources model consisting of indivisible items and a divisible, undesirable heterogeneous resource (i.e., a bad cake). We show that there always exists an allocation that satisfies envy-freeness for mixed resources (EFM) in this setting, complementing a recent result of Bei et al. [Bei et al., 2021] for indivisible goods and divisible cake

Multi-Agent Systems for Computational Economics and Finance

In this article we survey the main research topics of our group at the University of Essex. Our research interests lie at the intersection of theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, and economic theory. In particular, we focus on the design and analysis of mechanisms for systems involving multiple strategic agents, both from a theoretical and an applied perspective. We present an overview of our group’s activities, as well as its members, and then discuss in detail past, present, and future work in multi-agent systems

Fair division of indivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions

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

Dispute Resolution and New IT Realities

My dissertation consists in a thesis which contributes to the ongoing discussion that a proper ODR system should not be seen as a “fourth-party” (referred to the technology component in a dispute settlement). At present, ODR Regulation 524/2013 still relies just on procedural rules, avoiding a substantial approach to the disputes. In this context the aim is to include a legal proposal in such a developed and envisioned framework. The approach is to reduce obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings, negotiations and settlements, especially the cross-border ones, by enforcing a method that could improve agreements by means of a new E-procedure in certain areas of civil law, such as successions and trust, matrimonial regimes, property and lease, company law and consumer law. A new E-procedure based on game theory’s principles of fair division and win-win solution instead of using law principles

Truthful and Fair Resource Allocation

How should we divide a good or set of goods among a set of agents? There are various constraints that we can consider. We consider two particular constraints. The first is fairness - how can we find fair allocations? The second is truthfulness - what if we do not know agents valuations for the goods being allocated? What if these valuations need to be elicited, and agents will misreport their valuations if it is beneficial? Can we design procedures that elicit agents' true valuations while preserving the quality of the allocation? We consider truthful and fair resource allocation procedures through a computational lens. We first study fair division of a heterogeneous, divisible good, colloquially known as the cake cutting problem. We depart from the existing literature and assume that agents have restricted valuations that can be succinctly communicated. We consider the problems of welfare-maximization, expressiveness, and truthfulness in cake cutting under this model. In the second part of this dissertation we consider truthfulness in settings where payments can be used to incentivize agents to truthfully reveal their private information. A mechanism asks agents to report their private preference information and computes an allocation and payments based on these reports. The mechanism design problem is to find incentive compatible mechanisms which incentivize agents to truthfully reveal their private information and simultaneously compute allocations with desirable properties. The traditional approach to mechanism design specifies mechanisms by hand and proves that certain desirable properties are satisfied. This limits the design space to mechanisms that can be written down and analyzed. We take a computational approach, giving computational procedures that produce mechanisms with desirable properties. Our first contribution designs a procedure that modifies heuristic branch and bound search and makes it usable as the allocation algorithm in an incentive compatible mechanism. Our second contribution draws a novel connection between incentive compatible mechanisms and machine learning. We use this connection to learn payment rules to pair with provided allocation rules. Our payment rules are not exactly incentive compatibility, but they minimize a measure of how much agents can gain by misreporting.Engineering and Applied Science

Incentives in One-Sided Matching Problems With Ordinal Preferences

One of the core problems in multiagent systems is how to efficiently allocate a set of indivisible resources to a group of self-interested agents that compete over scarce and limited alternatives. In these settings, mechanism design approaches such as matching mechanisms and auctions are often applied to guarantee fairness and efficiency while preventing agents from manipulating the outcomes. In many multiagent resource allocation problems, the use of monetary transfers or explicit markets are forbidden because of ethical or legal issues. One-sided matching mechanisms exploit various randomization and algorithmic techniques to satisfy certain desirable properties, while incentivizing self-interested agents to report their private preferences truthfully. In the first part of this thesis, we focus on deterministic and randomized matching mechanisms in one-shot settings. We investigate the class of deterministic matching mechanisms when there is a quota to be fulfilled. Building on past results in artificial intelligence and economics, we show that when preferences are lexicographic, serial dictatorship mechanisms (and their sequential dictatorship counterparts) characterize the set of all possible matching mechanisms with desirable economic properties, enabling social planners to remedy the inherent unfairness in deterministic allocation mechanisms by assigning quotas according to some fairness criteria (such as seniority or priority). Extending the quota mechanisms to randomized settings, we show that this class of mechanisms are envyfree, strategyproof, and ex post efficient for any number of agents and objects and any quota system, proving that the well-studied Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) is also envyfree in this domain. The next contribution of this thesis is providing a systemic empirical study of the two widely adopted randomized mechanisms, namely Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) and the Probabilistic Serial Rule (PS). We investigate various properties of these two mechanisms such as efficiency, strategyproofness, and envyfreeness under various preference assumptions (e.g. general ordinal preferences, lexicographic preferences, and risk attitudes). The empirical findings in this thesis complement the theoretical guarantees of matching mechanisms, shedding light on practical implications of deploying each of the given mechanisms. In the second part of this thesis, we address the issues of designing truthful matching mechanisms in dynamic settings. Many multiagent domains require reasoning over time and are inherently dynamic rather than static. We initiate the study of matching problems where agents' private preferences evolve stochastically over time, and decisions have to be made in each period. To adequately evaluate the quality of outcomes in dynamic settings, we propose a generic stochastic decision process and show that, in contrast to static settings, traditional mechanisms are easily manipulable. We introduce a number of properties that we argue are important for matching mechanisms in dynamic settings and propose a new mechanism that maintains a history of pairwise interactions between agents, and adapts the priority orderings of agents in each period based on this history. We show that our mechanism is globally strategyproof in certain settings (e.g. when there are 2 agents or when the planning horizon is bounded), and even when the mechanism is manipulable, the manipulative actions taken by an agent will often result in a Pareto improvement in general. Thus, we make the argument that while manipulative behavior may still be unavoidable, it is not necessarily at the cost to other agents. To circumvent the issues of incentive design in dynamic settings, we formulate the dynamic matching problem as a Multiagent MDP where agents have particular underlying utility functions (e.g. linear positional utility functions), and show that the impossibility results still exist in this restricted setting. Nevertheless, we introduce a few classes of problems with restricted preference dynamics for which positive results exist. Finally, we propose an algorithmic solution for agents with single-minded preferences that satisfies strategyproofness, Pareto efficiency, and weak non-bossiness in one-shot settings, and show that even though this mechanism is manipulable in dynamic settings, any unilateral deviation would benefit all participating agents

Texas Register

A weekly publication, the Texas Register serves as the journal of state agency rulemaking for Texas. Information published in the Texas Register includes proposed, adopted, withdrawn and emergency rule actions, notices of state agency review of agency rules, governor's appointments, attorney general opinions, and miscellaneous documents such as requests for proposals. After adoption, these rulemaking actions are codified into the Texas Administrative Code