Fair Allocation of Indivisible Public Goods

We consider the problem of fairly allocating indivisible public goods. We model the public goods as elements with feasibility constraints on what subsets of elements can be chosen, and assume that agents have additive utilities across elements. Our model generalizes existing frameworks such as fair public decision making and participatory budgeting. We study a groupwise fairness notion called the core, which generalizes well-studied notions of proportionality and Pareto efficiency, and requires that each subset of agents must receive an outcome that is fair relative to its size. In contrast to the case of divisible public goods (where fractional allocations are permitted), the core is not guaranteed to exist when allocating indivisible public goods. Our primary contributions are the notion of an additive approximation to the core (with a tiny multiplicative loss), and polynomial time algorithms that achieve a small additive approximation, where the additive factor is relative to the largest utility of an agent for an element. If the feasibility constraints define a matroid, we show an additive approximation of 2. A similar approach yields a constant additive bound when the feasibility constraints define a matching. For feasibility constraints defining an arbitrary packing polytope with mild restrictions, we show an additive guarantee that is logarithmic in the width of the polytope. Our algorithms are based on the convex program for maximizing the Nash social welfare, but differ significantly from previous work in how it is used. As far as we are aware, our work is the first to approximate the core in indivisible settings.

[1]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Preference Elicitation For Participatory Budgeting , 2017, AAAI.

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

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

[4]  Enrico Tronci 1997 , 1997, Les 25 ans de l’OMC: Une rétrospective en photos.

[5]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Fair Public Decision Making , 2016, EC.

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

[7]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Proportional Justified Representation , 2016, AAAI.

[8]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  Convex Program Duality, Fisher Markets, and Nash Social Welfare , 2016, EC.

[9]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Almost Envy-Freeness with General Valuations , 2017, SODA.

[10]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[11]  H. Varian Two Problems in the Theory of Fairness , 1976 .

[12]  A. Azzouz 2011 , 2020, City.

[13]  K. K,et al.  1 Budget Aggregation via Knapsack Voting : Welfare-maximization and Strategy-proofness , 2016 .

[14]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Fast approximation algorithms for fractional packing and covering problems , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

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

[16]  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).

[17]  Eric Budish,et al.  Strategy-Proofness in the Large , 2017, The Review of Economic Studies.

[18]  Rajiv Gandhi,et al.  Dependent rounding and its applications to approximation algorithms , 2006, JACM.

[19]  Stefan Hougardy,et al.  Approximating weighted matchings in parallel , 2006, Inf. Process. Lett..

[20]  J. Lang,et al.  Positional Social Decision Schemes: Fair and Efficient Portioning , 2018 .

[21]  H. Scarf The Core of an N Person Game , 1967 .

[22]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  ROBUS: Fair Cache Allocation for Data-parallel Workloads , 2015, SIGMOD Conference.

[23]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Approximating Optimal Social Choice under Metric Preferences , 2015, AAAI.

[24]  Seth Neel,et al.  Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness , 2017, ICML.

[25]  Mohit Singh,et al.  Nash Social Welfare, Matrix Permanent, and Stable Polynomials , 2016, ITCS.

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

[27]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  The Core of the Participatory Budgeting Problem , 2016, WINE.

[28]  Frank Kelly,et al.  Rate control for communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[29]  Duncan K. Foley,et al.  Lindahl's Solution and the Core of an Economy with Public Goods , 1970 .

[30]  Sébastien Bubeck,et al.  Convex Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity , 2014, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[31]  T. Overton 1972 , 1972, Parables of Sun Light.

[32]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods , 2004, EC '04.

[33]  Edith Elkind,et al.  On the Complexity of Extended and Proportional Justified Representation , 2018, AAAI.

[34]  J. Schummer Strategy-proofness versus efficiency on restricted domains of exchange economies , 1996 .

[35]  Till Fluschnik,et al.  Fair Knapsack , 2017, AAAI.

[36]  Haris Aziz,et al.  Justified representation in approval-based committee voting , 2014, Social Choice and Welfare.

[37]  E. Lindahl Just Taxation—A Positive Solution , 1958 .

[38]  Lirong Xia,et al.  Voting in Combinatorial Domains , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[39]  Euiwoong Lee,et al.  APX-hardness of maximizing Nash social welfare with indivisible items , 2015, Inf. Process. Lett..

[40]  Thomas J Muench,et al.  The core and the Lindahl equilibrium of an economy with a public good: an example , 1972 .

[41]  Florence March,et al.  2016 , 2016, Affair of the Heart.

[42]  Joseph P. S. Kung Theory of Matroids: Basis-Exchange Properties , 1986 .

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

[44]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Fair Allocation of Indivisible Public Goods , 2018, EC.

[45]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Eisenberg-Gale markets: algorithms and structural properties , 2007, STOC '07.

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

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

[48]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Collaborative Optimization for Collective Decision-making in Continuous Spaces , 2017, WWW.