The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare

The maximum Nash welfare (MNW) solution—which selects an allocation that maximizes the product of utilities—is known to provide outstanding fairness guarantees when allocating divisible goods. And while it seems to lose its luster when applied to indivisible goods, we show that, in fact, the MNW solution is strikingly fair even in that setting. In particular, we prove that it selects allocations that are envy-free up to one good—a compelling notion that is quite elusive when coupled with economic efficiency. We also establish that the MNW solution provides a good approximation to another popular (yet possibly infeasible) fairness property, the maximin share guarantee, in theory and—even more so—in practice. While finding the MNW solution is computationally hard, we develop a nontrivial implementation and demonstrate that it scales well on real data. These results establish MNW as a compelling solution for allocating indivisible goods and underlie its deployment on a popular fair-division website.

[1]  Yingqian Zhang,et al.  On the Complexity of Efficiency and Envy-Freeness in Fair Division of Indivisible Goods with Additive Preferences , 2009, ADT.

[2]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Designing Random Allocation Mechanisms: Theory and Applications , 2013 .

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

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

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

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

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

[8]  S. Brams,et al.  Efficient Fair Division , 2005 .

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

[10]  E. Wigner.  The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences (reprint) , 1960 .

[11]  M. Trick,et al.  The computational difficulty of manipulating an election , 1989 .

[12]  Evangelos Markakis,et al.  Approximation Algorithms for Computing Maximin Share Allocations , 2015, ICALP.

[13]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Nash Social Welfare for Indivisible Items under Separable, Piecewise-Linear Concave Utilities , 2016, SODA.

[14]  H. Moulin,et al.  Random Matching under Dichotomous Preferences , 2004 .

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

[16]  Frank Kelly,et al.  Charging and rate control for elastic traffic , 1997, Eur. Trans. Telecommun..

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

[18]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Nash Social Welfare in Multiagent Resource Allocation , 2009, AMEC/TADA.

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

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

[21]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Fair Division under Ordinal Preferences: Computing Envy-Free Allocations of Indivisible Goods , 2010, ECAI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[28]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Fair enough: guaranteeing approximate maximin shares , 2014, EC.

[29]  W. Thomson,et al.  On the fair division of a heterogeneous commodity , 1992 .

[30]  Erel Segal-Halevi,et al.  Resource-monotonicity and Population-monotonicity in Cake-cutting , 2015, ArXiv.

[31]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  When Can the Maximin Share Guarantee Be Guaranteed? , 2016, AAAI.

[32]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  A survey of approximability and inapproximability results for social welfare optimization in multiagent resource allocation , 2013, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[33]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem , 2001, J. Econ. Theory.

[34]  D. Weller,et al.  Fair division of a measurable space , 1985 .

[35]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  Maximin Envy-Free Division of Indivisible Items , 2015, Group Decision and Negotiation.

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

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

[38]  Brigitte Jaumard,et al.  A Realistic Approach to Solve the Nash Welfare , 2009, PAAMS.

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

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

[41]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences , 2013, AAMAS.