To Give or Not to Give: Fair Division for Single Minded Valuations

Single minded agents have strict preferences, in which a bundle is acceptable only if it meets a certain demand. Such preferences arise naturally in scenarios such as allocating computational resources among users, where the goal is to fairly serve as many requests as possible. In this paper we study the fair division problem for such agents, which is harder to handle due to discontinuity and complementarities of the preferences. Our solution concept---the competitive allocation from equal incomes (CAEI)---is inspired from market equilibria and implements fair outcomes through a pricing mechanism. We study the existence and computation of CAEI for multiple divisible goods, cake cutting, and multiple discrete goods. For the first two scenarios we show that existence of CAEI solutions is guaranteed, while for the third we give a succinct characterization of instances that admit this solution; then we give an efficient algorithm to find one in all three cases. Maximizing social welfare turns out to be NP-hard in general, however we obtain efficient algorithms for (i) divisible and discrete goods when the number of different \emph{types} of players is a constant, (ii) cake cutting with contiguous demands, for which we establish an interesting connection with interval scheduling, and (iii) cake cutting with a constant number of players with arbitrary demands. Our solution is useful more generally, when the players have a target set of desired goods, and very small positive values for any bundle not containing their target set.

[1]  Farhad Hüsseinov,et al.  Existence of efficient envy-free allocations of a heterogeneous divisible commodity with nonadditive utilities , 2013, Social Choice and Welfare.

[2]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Optimal Envy-Free Cake Cutting , 2011, AAAI.

[3]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Efficient Interdependent Value Combinatorial Auctions with Single Minded Bidders , 2013, IJCAI.

[4]  Erel Segal-Halevi,et al.  Fair and Square: Cake-Cutting in Two Dimensions , 2014, ArXiv.

[5]  Bruno Codenotti,et al.  Efficient Computation of Equilibrium Prices for Markets with Leontief Utilities , 2004, ICALP.

[6]  Fabio Maccheroni,et al.  Disputed lands , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[7]  Jack M. Robertson,et al.  Cake-cutting algorithms - be fair if you can , 1998 .

[8]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Issues in Multiagent Resource Allocation , 2006, Informatica.

[9]  Smith Rm,et al.  TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE. , 1965, Journal of oral surgery.

[10]  Ruta Mehta,et al.  Exchange Markets: Strategy Meets Supply-Awareness - (Abstract) , 2013, WINE.

[11]  R. Solow A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth , 1956 .

[12]  H. Varian Equity, Envy and Efficiency , 1974 .

[13]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Spliddit: unleashing fair division algorithms , 2015, SECO.

[14]  John O. Ledyard,et al.  Optimal combinatoric auctions with single-minded bidders , 2007, EC '07.

[15]  K. Arrow,et al.  Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency , 1961 .

[16]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Algorithm design , 2005 .

[17]  K. Arrow,et al.  EXISTENCE OF AN EQUILIBRIUM FOR A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY , 1954 .

[18]  Michal Feldman,et al.  Clearing Markets via Bundles , 2014, SAGT.

[19]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  Fair division - from cake-cutting to dispute resolution , 1998 .

[20]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Towards More Expressive Cake Cutting , 2011, IJCAI.

[21]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  A Unifying Hierarchy of Valuations with Complements and Substitutes , 2014, AAAI.

[22]  D. Foley Resource allocation and the public sector , 1967 .

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

[24]  Shang-Hua Teng,et al.  Spending Is Not Easier Than Trading: On the Computational Equivalence of Fisher and Arrow-Debreu Equilibria , 2009, ISAAC.

[25]  Erel Segal-Halevi,et al.  Waste Makes Haste: Bounded Time Protocols for Envy-Free Cake Cutting with Free Disposal , 2015, AAMAS.

[26]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Cake cutting: not just child's play , 2013, CACM.

[27]  R. Maxfield General equilibrium and the theory of directed graphs , 1997 .

[28]  R. Stephenson A and V , 1962, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[29]  H. Scarf,et al.  How to Compute Equilibrium Prices in 1891 , 2005 .

[30]  Sylvain Bouveret,et al.  Characterizing conflicts in fair division of indivisible goods using a scale of criteria , 2016, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[31]  Simina Brânzei,et al.  Externalities in Cake Cutting , 2013, IJCAI.

[32]  Alan D. Taylor Hervé Moulin, Fair Division and Collective Welfare , 2004 .

[33]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[34]  Berthold Vöcking,et al.  Approximation techniques for utilitarian mechanism design , 2005, STOC '05.

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

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

[37]  JOHN K. M. OHNESORGE,et al.  John K , 2004 .

[38]  Erel Segal-Halevi,et al.  Envy-Free Cake-Cutting in Two Dimensions , 2016, ArXiv.

[39]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  How to Cut a Cake Before the Party Ends , 2013, AAAI.

[40]  Simina Brânzei,et al.  Characterization and Computation of Equilibria for Indivisible Goods , 2015, SAGT.

[41]  E. Eisenberg,et al.  CONSENSUS OF SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES: THE PARI-MUTUEL METHOD, , 1959 .

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

[43]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Fair division and collective welfare , 2003 .

[44]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .