Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Minimizing Maximum Dissatisfaction in the Allocation of Indivisible Items under a Common Preference Graph (2312.01804v2)

Published 4 Dec 2023 in cs.DM

Abstract: We consider the task of allocating indivisible items to agents, when the agents' preferences over the items are identical. The preferences are captured by means of a directed acyclic graph, with vertices representing items and an edge $(a,b)$, meaning that each of the agents prefers item $a$ over item $b$. The dissatisfaction of an agent is measured by the number of items that the agent does not receive and for which it also does not receive any more preferred item. The aim is to allocate the items to the agents in a fair way, i.e., to minimize the maximum dissatisfaction among the agents. We study the status of computational complexity of that problem and establish the following dichotomy: the problem is NP-hard for the case of at least three agents, even on fairly restricted graphs, but polynomially solvable for two agents. We also provide several polynomial-time results with respect to different underlying graph structures, such as graphs of width at most two and tree-like structures such as stars and matchings. These findings are complemented with fixed parameter tractability results related to path modules and independent set modules. Techniques employed in the paper include bottleneck assignment problem, greedy algorithm, dynamic programming, maximum network flow, and integer linear programming.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1):273–285, 2006.
  2. H. Aziz. Developments in multi-agent fair allocation. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’20), pages 13563–13568. AAAI, 2020.
  3. Fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 227:71–92, 2015.
  4. J. Balabán and P. Hliněný. Twin-width is linear in the poset width. In 16th International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation, volume 214 of LIPIcs. Leibniz Int. Proc. Inform., pages Art. No. 6, 13. Schloss Dagstuhl. Leibniz-Zent. Inform., 2021.
  5. C.A. Bana e Costa and J.-C. Vansnick. MACBETH – an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International Transactions in Operational Research, 1(4):489–500, 1994.
  6. Positional scoring-based allocation of indivisible goods. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 31:628–655, 2017.
  7. I. Bezáková and V. Dani. Allocating indivisible goods. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 5(3):11–18, 2005.
  8. Twin-width I: Tractable FO model checking. Journal of the ACM, 69(1):Art. 3, 46, 2022.
  9. Fair allocation of indivisible goods. In F. Brandt et al., editor, Handbook of Computational Social Choice, chapter 12. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  10. S. Bouveret and J. Lang. Efficiency and envy-freeness in fair division of indivisible goods: Logical representation and complexity. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 32:525–564, 2013.
  11. Fair division of indivisible items between two people with identical preferences: Envy-freeness, Pareto-optimality, and equity. Social Choice and Welfare, 17:247–267, 2000.
  12. Assignment Problems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2012.
  13. A linear-time parameterized algorithm for computing the width of a DAG. In Graph-theoretic concepts in computer science, volume 12911 of LNCS, pages 257–269. Springer, 2021.
  14. Allocating indivisible items with minimum dissatisfaction on preference graphs. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT’21), volume 13023 of LNCS, pages 243–257. Springer, 2021.
  15. Allocation of indivisible items with individual preference graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 334:45–62, 2023.
  16. Fair allocation of indivisible goods with minimum inequality or minimum envy. European Journal of Operational Research, 297(2):741–752, 2022.
  17. Maximizing the minimum voter satisfaction on spanning trees. Mathematical Social Sciences, 58(2):238–250, 2009.
  18. M. Dell’Amico and S. Martello. The k𝑘kitalic_k-cardinality assignment problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 76(1-3):103–121, 1997.
  19. R.P. Dilworth. A decomposition theorem for partially ordered sets. Annals of Mathematics. Second Series, 51:161–166, 1950.
  20. Two-sided matching meets fair division. In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’21, pages 203–209, 2021.
  21. D.R. Fulkerson. Note on Dilworth’s decomposition theorem for partially ordered sets. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 7:701–702, 1956.
  22. FO model checking on posets of bounded width. In 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science—FOCS 2015, pages 963–974. IEEE Computer Society, 2015.
  23. Some simplified NP-complete graph problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 1(3):237–267, 1976.
  24. D. Golovin. Max-min fair allocation of indivisible goods. Technical report, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.
  25. P.J. Hammond. Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Why and how they are and should be made, pages 200–254. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
  26. Graphs of linear clique-width at most 3. Theoretical Computer Science, 412(39):5466–5486, 2011.
  27. An n5/2superscript𝑛52n^{5/2}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2:225–231, 1973.
  28. Y. Kawase and H. Sumita. Online max-min fair allocation. In Algorithmic game theory, volume 13584 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 526–543. Springer, Cham, 2022.
  29. D.M. Kilgour and R. Vetschera. Two-player fair division of indivisible items: Comparison of algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research, 271(2):620–631, 2018.
  30. M. Lampis. Algorithmic meta-theorems for restrictions of treewidth. Algorithmica, 64:19–37, 2012.
  31. H.W. Lenstra Jr. Integer programming with a fixed number of variables. Mathematics of Operations Research, 8(4):538–548, 1983.
  32. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In EC’04: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 125–131. ACM, 2004.
  33. V. Lozin and M. Milanič. On the maximum independent set problem in subclasses of planar graphs. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 14(2):269–286, 2010.
  34. Sparse dynamic programming on DAGs with small width. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 15(2):Art. 29, 1–21, 2019.
  35. R.M. McConnell and F. De Montgolfier. Linear-time modular decomposition of directed graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 145(2):198–209, 2005.
  36. Computational complexity and approximability of social welfare optimization in multiagent resource allocation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(2):256–289, 2014.
  37. On path cover problems in digraphs and applications to program testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 5(5):520–529, 1979.
  38. A.D. Procaccia and J. Wang. Fair enough: guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of the 15th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’14), pages 675–692. AAAI, 2014.
  39. J. Rawls. A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
  40. M. Roos and J. Rothe. Complexity of social welfare optimization in multiagent resource allocation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’10), pages 641–648, 2010.
  41. W. Thomson. Introduction to the theory of fair allocation. In F. Brandt et al., editor, Handbook of Computational Social Choice, chapter 11, pages 261–283. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.