Envy-Freeness Up to Any Item with High Nash Welfare: The Virtue of Donating Items

Several fairness concepts have been proposed recently in attempts to approximate envy-freeness in settings with indivisible goods. Among them, the concept of envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) is arguably the closest to envy-freeness. Unfortunately, EFX allocations are not known to exist except in a few special cases. We make significant progress in this direction. We show that for every instance with additive valuations, there is an EFX allocation of a subset of items with a Nash welfare that is at least half of the maximum possible Nash welfare for the original set of items. That is, after donating some items to a charity, one can distribute the remaining items in a fair way with high efficiency. This bound is proved to be best possible. Our proof is constructive and highlights the importance of maximum Nash welfare allocation. Starting with such an allocation, our algorithm decides which items to donate and redistributes the initial bundles to the agents, eventually obtaining an allocation with the claimed efficiency guarantee. The application of our algorithm to large markets, where the valuations of an agent for every item is relatively small, yields EFX with almost optimal Nash welfare. We also show that our algorithm can be modified to compute, in polynomial-time, EFX allocations that approximate optimal Nash welfare within a factor of at most 2ρ, using a ρ-approximate allocation on input instead of the maximum Nash welfare one.

[1]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  The Efficiency of Fair Division , 2009, Theory of Computing Systems.

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

[3]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  On Fair Division for Indivisible Items , 2018, FSTTCS.

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

[5]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Computational complexity and approximability of social welfare optimization in multiagent resource allocation , 2012, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[6]  Richard Cole,et al.  Large Market Games with Near Optimal Efficiency , 2016, EC.

[7]  Mohammad Ghodsi,et al.  Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods: Improvements and Generalizations , 2017, EC.

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

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

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

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

[12]  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).

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

[14]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Reaching Envy-Free States in Distributed Negotiation Settings , 2007, IJCAI.

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

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

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

[18]  Eric Balkanski,et al.  Mechanisms for Fair Attribution , 2015, EC.

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

[20]  Martin Hoefer,et al.  Approximating the Nash Social Welfare with Budget-Additive Valuations , 2017, SODA.

[21]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Minimizing envy and maximizing average Nash social welfare in the allocation of indivisible goods , 2014, Discret. Appl. Math..

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

[23]  Michal Feldman,et al.  Combinatorial walrasian equilibrium , 2013, STOC '13.

[24]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare , 2019, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[25]  Evangelos Markakis,et al.  Comparing Approximate Relaxations of Envy-Freeness , 2018, IJCAI.

[26]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The price of anarchy in large games , 2015, STOC.

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

[28]  Rohit Vaish,et al.  Finding Fair and Efficient Allocations , 2017, EC.

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

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

[31]  Dimitris Bertsimas,et al.  The Price of Fairness , 2011, Oper. Res..

[32]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  Knowledge, Fairness, and Social Constraints , 2018, AAAI.

[33]  Gagan Goel,et al.  Mechanism Design for Crowdsourcing: An Optimal 1-1/e Competitive Budget-Feasible Mechanism for Large Markets , 2014, 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

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

[35]  Siddharth Barman,et al.  Approximation Algorithms for Maximin Fair Division , 2017, EC.