Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Contiguous Allocation of Indivisible Items on a Path (2401.04318v1)

Published 9 Jan 2024 in cs.GT

Abstract: We study the problem of allocating indivisible items on a path among agents. The objective is to find a fair and efficient allocation in which each agent's bundle forms a contiguous block on the line. We demonstrate that, even when the valuations are binary additive, deciding whether every item can be allocated to an agent who wants it is NP-complete. Consequently, we provide two fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithms for maximizing utilitarian social welfare, with respect to the number of agents and the number of items. Additionally, we present a 2-approximation algorithm for the special case when the valuations are binary additive and the maximum utility is equal to the number of items. Furthermore, we establish that deciding whether the maximum egalitarian social welfare is at least 2 or at most 1 is NP-complete, even when the valuations are binary additive. We also explore the case where the order of the blocks of items allocated to the agents is predetermined. In this case, we show that both maximum utilitarian social welfare and egalitarian social welfare can be computed in polynomial time. However, we determine that checking the existence of an EF1 allocation is NP-complete, even when the valuations are binary additive.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (60)
  1. Fair division of indivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artificial Intelligence, 322(103965), 2023.
  2. Fair and efficient cake division with connected pieces. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 57–70, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Springer.
  3. Computing socially-efficient cake divisions. In Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 343–350, Richland, SC, 2012. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
  4. H. Aziz. Computational social choice: Some current and new directions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4054–4057, New York, NY, USA, 2016. IJCAI Press.
  5. H. Aziz and S. Mackenzie. A discrete and bounded envy-free cake cutting protocol for any number of agents. In 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 416–427, Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2016. IEEE Computer Society.
  6. H. Aziz and S. Mackenzie. A bounded and envy-free cake cutting algorithm. Communications of the ACM, 63(4):119–126, 2020.
  7. H. Aziz and C. Ye. Cake cutting algorithms for piecewise constant and piecewise uniform valuations. In International conference on web and internet economics, pages 1–14, Beijing, China, 2014. Springer.
  8. Fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 227:71–92, 2015.
  9. Knowledge, fairness, and social constraints. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4638–4645, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2018. AAAI Press.
  10. Algorithmic fair allocation of indivisible items: A survey and new questions. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 20(1):24–40, 2022.
  11. Possible fairness for allocating indivisible resources. In Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 197–205, London, United Kingdom, 2023. ACM.
  12. I. Bárány and V. S. Grinberg. Block partitions of sequences. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 206:155–164, 2015.
  13. S. Barman and P. Kulkarni. Approximation algorithms for envy-free cake division with connected pieces. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 261, pages 16:1–16:19, Paderborn, Germany, 2022. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
  14. Discrete envy-free division of necklaces and maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02132, 2015.
  15. Optimal proportional cake cutting with connected pieces. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1263–1269, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2012. AAAI Press.
  16. The price of connectivity in fair division. SIAM J. Discret. Math., 36:1156–1186, 2019.
  17. I. Bezáková and V. Dani. Allocating indivisible goods. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 5(3):11–18, 2005.
  18. Almost envy-free allocations with connected bundles. Games and Economic Behavior, 131:197–221, 2022.
  19. S. Bouveret and M. Lemaître. Characterizing conflicts in fair division of indivisible goods using a scale of criteria. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30(2):259–290, 2016.
  20. Fair allocation of indivisible goods., 2016.
  21. Fair division of a graph. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 135–141, Melbourne, Australia, 2017. ijcai.org.
  22. Fair Division: From cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
  23. Introduction to computational social choice, 2016.
  24. S. Brânzei and N. Nisan. The query complexity of cake cutting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:37905–37919, 2022.
  25. Towards more expressive cake cutting. In Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 127–132, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 2011. IJCAI.
  26. The efficiency of fair division. Theory of Computing Systems, 50:589–610, 2012.
  27. The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 7(3):1–32, 2019.
  28. A short introduction to computational social choice. In International conference on current trends in theory and practice of computer science, pages 51–69, Harrachov, Czech Republic, 2007. Springer.
  29. Distributed fair allocation of indivisible goods. Artificial Intelligence, 242:1–22, 2017.
  30. Optimal envy-free cake cutting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 626–631, San Francisco, California, USA, 2011. AAAI Press.
  31. Algorithmic solutions for envy-free cake cutting. Operations Research, 60(6):1461–1476, 2012.
  32. On the existence of equitable cake divisions. Information Sciences, 228:239–245, 2013.
  33. How to cut a cake fairly. The American Mathematical Monthly, 68(1P1):1–17, 1961.
  34. J. Edmonds and K. Pruhs. Cake cutting really is not a piece of cake. ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG), 7(4):1–12, 2011.
  35. F. Edward Su. Rental harmony: Sperner’s lemma in fair division. The American mathematical monthly, 106(10):930–942, 1999.
  36. S. Even and A. Paz. A note on cake cutting. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 7(3):285–296, 1984.
  37. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman New York, New York, 1979.
  38. Contiguous cake cutting: Hardness results and approximation algorithms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 69:109–141, 2020.
  39. G. Greco and F. Scarcello. The complexity of computing maximin share allocations on graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2006–2013, New York, NY, USA, 2020. AAAI Press.
  40. Fair division with binary valuations: One rule to rule them all. In Web and Internet Economics: 16th International Conference, pages 370–383, Beijing, China, 2020. Springer.
  41. A. Igarashi. How to cut a discrete cake fairly. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5681–5688, Washington, DC, USA, 2023. AAAI Press.
  42. A. Igarashi and D. Peters. Pareto-optimal allocation of indivisible goods with connectivity constraints. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 2045–2052, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2019. AAAI Press.
  43. Y. Kawase and H. Sumita. On the max-min fair stochastic allocation of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 2070–2078, New York, NY, USA, 2020. AAAI Press.
  44. Random assignment of indivisible goods under constraints. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2792–2799, Macao,SAR, China, 2023. ijcai.org.
  45. C. Klamler. Fair division. Springer, Berlin, 2010.
  46. How to cut a cake before the party ends. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 27, pages 555–561, Bellevue, Washington, USA, 2013. AAAI Press.
  47. J. Lang and J. Rothe. Fair division of indivisible goods. In J. Rothe, editor, Economics and Computation, An Introduction to Algorithmic Game Theory, Computational Social Choice, and Fair Division, Springer texts in business and economics, pages 493–550. Springer, New York, 2016.
  48. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 125–131, New York, NY, United States, 2004. Association for Computing Machinery.
  49. J. Marenco and T. Tetzlaff. Envy-free division of discrete cakes. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 164:527–531, 2014.
  50. N. Misra and D. Nayak. On fair division with binary valuations respecting social networks. In Conference on Algorithms and Discrete Applied Mathematics, pages 265–278, Puducherry, India, 2022. Springer.
  51. H. Moulin. Fair division and collective welfare. MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004.
  52. J. Robertson and W. Webb. Cake-Cutting Algorithms Be Fair If You Can. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1998.
  53. A. Schrijver. Combinatorial Optimization. Springer, Berlin, 2003.
  54. E. Segal-Halevi and W. Suksompong. Democratic fair allocation of indivisible goods. Artificial Intelligence, 277:103167, 2019.
  55. W. Stromquist. How to cut a cake fairly. The American Mathematical Monthly, 87(8):640–644, 1980.
  56. W. Stromquist. Envy-free cake divisions cannot be found by finite protocols. the electronic journal of combinatorics, 15(1):R11, 2008.
  57. W. Suksompong. Fairly allocating contiguous blocks of indivisible items. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 260:227–236, 2019.
  58. W. Thomson. Children crying at birthday parties. why? Economic Theory, 31(3):501–521, 2007.
  59. C. A. Tovey. A simplified np-complete satisfiability problem. Discrete applied mathematics, 8(1):85–89, 1984.
  60. M. Truszczynski and Z. Lonc. Maximin share allocations on cycles. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 69:613–655, 2020.

Summary

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets