Controlled Dynamic Fair Division

In the single-resource dynamic fair division framework there is a homogeneous resource that is shared between agents dynamically arriving and departing over time. When n agents are present, there is only one truly ``fair'' allocation: each agent receives 1/n of the resource. Implementing this static solution in the dynamic world is notoriously impractical; there are too many disruptions to existing allocations: for a new agent to get her fair share, all other agents must give up a small piece. A natural remedy is simply to restrict the number of allowed disruptions when a new agent arrives. [16] considered this setting, and introduced a natural benchmark - the fairness ratio - the ratio of the minimal share to the ideal share (1/k when there are k agents in the system). They described an algorithm that obtains the optimal fairness ratio when d ≥ 1 disruptions are allowed per arriving agent. However, in systems with high arrival rates even one disruption per arrival can be too costly. We consider the scenario when fewer than one disruption per arrival is allowed. We show that we can maintain high levels of fairness even with significantly fewer than one disruption per arrival. In particular, we present an instance-optimal algorithm (the input to the algorithm is a vector of allowed disruptions) and show that the fairness ratio of this algorithm decays logarithmically with c, where c is the longest number of consecutive time steps in which we are not allowed any disruptions. We then consider dynamic fair division with multiple, heterogeneous resources. In this model, agents demand the resources in fixed proportions, known in economics as Leontief preferences. We show that the general problem is NP-hard, even if the resource demands are binary and known in advance. We study the case where the fairness criterion is Dominant Resource Fairness (DRF), and the demand vectors are binary. We design a generic algorithm for this setting using a reduction to the single-resource case. To prove an impossibility result, we take an integer program for the problem and analyze an algorithm for constructing dual solutions to a ``residual'' linear program; this approach may be of independent interest.

[1]  Eric J. Friedman,et al.  Dynamic Fair Division with Minimal Disruptions , 2015, EC.

[2]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  The complexity of fairness through equilibrium , 2014, EC.

[3]  J. Neyman,et al.  Consistent Estimates Based on Partially Consistent Observations , 1948 .

[4]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  No agent left behind: dynamic fair division of multiple resources , 2013, AAMAS.

[5]  Eric Budish,et al.  The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes , 2010, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems ( IFAAMAS ) , 2007 .

[7]  Amit Kumar,et al.  The Power of Deferral: Maintaining a Constant-Competitive Steiner Tree Online , 2016, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Online load balancing and network flow , 1993, STOC.

[9]  Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.  Quincy: fair scheduling for distributed computing clusters , 2009, SOSP '09.

[10]  Mung Chiang,et al.  Multiresource Allocation: Fairness–Efficiency Tradeoffs in a Unifying Framework , 2012, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[11]  Richard Cole,et al.  Approximating the Nash Social Welfare with Indivisible Items , 2018, SIAM J. Comput..

[12]  Mung Chiang,et al.  Multiresource allocation: fairness-efficiency tradeoffs in a unifying framework , 2013, TNET.

[13]  Martin Skutella,et al.  Online Scheduling with Bounded Migration , 2004, ICALP.

[14]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Mesos: A Platform for Fine-Grained Resource Sharing in the Data Center , 2011, NSDI.

[15]  Oleg Pikhurko On Envy-Free Cake Division , 2000, Am. Math. Mon..

[16]  Abhishek Verma,et al.  Large-scale cluster management at Google with Borg , 2015, EuroSys.

[17]  Eric J. Friedman,et al.  Strategyproof allocation of discrete jobs on multiple machines , 2014, EC.

[18]  Amit Kumar,et al.  Maintaining Assignments Online: Matching, Scheduling, and Flows , 2014, SODA.

[19]  Benjamin Hindman,et al.  Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types , 2011, NSDI.

[20]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare , 2016, EC.

[21]  E. Kalai,et al.  OTHER SOLUTIONS TO NASH'S BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1975 .

[22]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Choosy: max-min fair sharing for datacenter jobs with constraints , 2013, EuroSys '13.

[23]  Eric Budish The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes , 2011, Journal of Political Economy.

[24]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Fair allocation without trade , 2012, AAMAS.

[25]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Online Cake Cutting , 2010, ADT.

[26]  Baochun Li,et al.  Dominant resource fairness in cloud computing systems with heterogeneous servers , 2013, IEEE INFOCOM 2014 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications.

[27]  Hadas Shachnai,et al.  A Theory and Algorithms for Combinatorial Reoptimization , 2012, LATIN.

[28]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Beyond Dominant Resource Fairness , 2015, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[29]  Haris Aziz,et al.  A Discrete and Bounded Envy-Free Cake Cutting Protocol for Any Number of Agents , 2016, 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[30]  Vyas Sekar,et al.  Multi-resource fair queueing for packet processing , 2012, CCRV.

[31]  Erel Segal-Halevi,et al.  How to Re-Divide a Cake Fairly , 2016, ArXiv.

[32]  Amit Kumar,et al.  The power of deferral: maintaining a constant-competitive steiner tree online , 2013, STOC '13.

[33]  Carsten Lund,et al.  On the Tradeoff between Stability and Fit , 2013, ACM Trans. Algorithms.

[34]  Leah Epstein,et al.  Robust Algorithms for Preemptive Scheduling , 2011, Algorithmica.

[35]  Amit Kumar,et al.  Online Steiner Tree with Deletions , 2013, SODA.

[36]  W. Stromquist How to Cut a Cake Fairly , 1980 .

[37]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Leximin Allocations in the Real World , 2015, EC.

[38]  Nathan Linial,et al.  No justified complaints: on fair sharing of multiple resources , 2011, ITCS '12.

[39]  Toby Walsh Algorithmic Decision Theory: 4th International Conference, ADT 2015, Lexington, KY, USA, September 27–30, 2015, Proceedings , 2015, ADT.

[40]  Dejan S. Milojicic,et al.  Process migration , 1999, ACM Comput. Surv..

[41]  Haris Aziz,et al.  A discrete and bounded envy-free cake cutting protocol for four agents , 2015, STOC.

[42]  David E. Culler,et al.  Hierarchical scheduling for diverse datacenter workloads , 2013, SoCC.

[43]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  The Complexity of Fairness Through Equilibrium , 2013, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[44]  Anees Shaikh,et al.  Performance Isolation and Fairness for Multi-Tenant Cloud Storage , 2012, OSDI.

[45]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[46]  Elisha A. Pazner,et al.  Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity , 1978 .

[47]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Competitive Repeated Allocation without Payments , 2009, WINE.

[48]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Online Fair Division: Analysing a Food Bank Problem , 2015, IJCAI.

[49]  I. Stoica,et al.  FairCloud: sharing the network in cloud computing , 2011, CCRV.

[50]  Baruch Schieber,et al.  A Theory and Algorithms for Combinatorial Reoptimization , 2012, Algorithmica.

[51]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  Market equilibrium via a primal--dual algorithm for a convex program , 2008, JACM.