On Fair Division of Indivisible Items

We consider the task of assigning indivisible goods to a set of agents in a fair manner. Our notion of fairness is Nash social welfare, i.e., the goal is to maximize the geometric mean of the utilities of the agents. Each good comes in multiple items or copies, and the utility of an agent diminishes as it receives more items of the same good. The utility of a bundle of items for an agent is the sum of the utilities of the items in the bundle. Each agent has a utility cap beyond which he does not value additional items. We give a polynomial time approximation algorithm that maximizes Nash social welfare up to a factor of $e^{1/e} \approx 1.445$

Fair Division of Indivisible Items

This paper analyzes criteria of fair division of a set of indivisible items among people whose revealed preferences are limited to rankings of the items and for whom no side payments are allowed. The criteria include refinements of Pareto optimality and envy-freeness as well as dominance-freeness, evenness of shares, and two criteria based on equally-spaced surrogate utilities, referred to as maxsum and equimax. Maxsum maximizes a measure of aggregate utility or welfare, whereas equimax lexicographically maximizes persons' utilities from smallest to largest. The paper analyzes conflicts among the criteria along possibilities and pitfalls of achieving fair division in a variety of circumstances.FAIR DIVISION; ALLOCATION OF INDIVISIBLE ITEMS; PARETO OPTIMALITY; ENVY-FREENESS; LEXICOGRAPHIC MAXIMUM

Paradoxes of Fair Division

Two or more players are required to divide up a set of indivisible items that they can rank from best to worst. They may, as well, be able to indicate preferences over subsets, or packages, of items. The main criteria used to assess the fairness of a division are efficiency (Pareto-optimality) and envy-freeness. Other criteria are also suggested, including a Rawlsian criterion that the worst-off player be made as well off as possible and a scoring procedure, based on the Borda count, that helps to render allocations as equal as possible. Eight paradoxes, all of which involve unexpected conflicts among the criteria, are described and classified into three categories, reflecting (1) incompatibilities between efficiency and envy-freeness, (2) the failure of a unique efficient and envy-free division to satisfy other criteria, and (3) the desirability, on occasion, of dividing up items unequally. While troublesome, the paradoxes also indicate opportunities for achieving fair division, which will depend on the fairness criteria one deems important and the trade-offs one considers acceptable.FAIR DIVISION; ALLOCATION OF INDIVISIBLE ITEMS; ENVY-FREENESS; PARETO- OPTIMALITY; RAWLSIAN JUSTICE; BORDA COUNT.

Fair Division of a Graph

We consider fair allocation of indivisible items under an additional constraint: there is an undirected graph describing the relationship between the items, and each agent's share must form a connected subgraph of this graph. This framework captures, e.g., fair allocation of land plots, where the graph describes the accessibility relation among the plots. We focus on agents that have additive utilities for the items, and consider several common fair division solution concepts, such as proportionality, envy-freeness and maximin share guarantee. While finding good allocations according to these solution concepts is computationally hard in general, we design efficient algorithms for special cases where the underlying graph has simple structure, and/or the number of agents -or, less restrictively, the number of agent types- is small. In particular, despite non-existence results in the general case, we prove that for acyclic graphs a maximin share allocation always exists and can be found efficiently.Comment: 9 pages, long version of accepted IJCAI-17 pape

The Fair Division of Hereditary Set Systems

We consider the fair division of indivisible items using the maximin shares measure. Recent work on the topic has focused on extending results beyond the class of additive valuation functions. In this spirit, we study the case where the items form an hereditary set system. We present a simple algorithm that allocates each agent a bundle of items whose value is at least $0.3667$ times the maximin share of the agent. This improves upon the current best known guarantee of $0.2$ due to Ghodsi et al. The analysis of the algorithm is almost tight; we present an instance where the algorithm provides a guarantee of at most $0.3738$. We also show that the algorithm can be implemented in polynomial time given a valuation oracle for each agent.Comment: 22 pages, 1 figure, full version of WINE 2018 submissio

Existence of EFX for Two Additive Valuations

Fair division of indivisible items is a well-studied topic in Economics and Computer Science.The objective is to allocate items to agents in a fair manner, where each agent has a valuation for each subset of items. Envy-freeness is one of the most widely studied notions of fairness. Since complete envy-free allocations do not always exist when items are indivisible, several relaxations have been considered. Among them, possibly the most compelling one is envy-freeness up to any item (EFX), where no agent envies another agent after the removal of any single item from the other agent's bundle. However, despite significant efforts by many researchers for several years, it is known that a complete EFX allocation always exists only in limited cases. In this paper, we show that a complete EFX allocation always exists when each agent is of one of two given types, where agents of the same type have identical additive valuations. This is the first such existence result for non-identical valuations when there are any number of agents and items and no limit on the number of distinct values an agent can have for individual items. We give a constructive proof, in which we iteratively obtain a Pareto dominating (partial) EFX allocation from an existing partial EFX allocation.Comment: 14 pages, 2 figure