Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

FPT Algorithms using Minimal Parameters for a Generalized Version of Maximin Shares

Published 6 Sep 2024 in cs.DS | (2409.04225v1)

Abstract: We study the computational complexity of fairly allocating indivisible, mixed-manna items. For basic measures of fairness, this problem is hard in general. Thus, research has flourished concerning input classes where efficient algorithms exist, both for the purpose of establishing theoretical boundaries and for the purpose of designing practical algorithms for real-world instances. Notably, the paradigm of fixed-parameter tractability (FPT) has lead to new insights and improved algorithms for a variety of fair allocation problems; see, for example, Bleim et al. (IJCAI 16), Aziz et al. (AAAI 17), Bredereck et al. (EC 19) and Kulkarni et al. (EC 21). Our focus is the fairness measure maximin shares (MMS). Motivated by the general non-existence of MMS allocations, Aziz et al. (AAAI 17) studied optimal MMS allocations, namely solutions that achieve the best α\alpha-approximation for the maximin share value of every agent. These allocations are guaranteed to exist, prompting the important open question of whether optimal MMS allocations can be computed efficiently. We answer this question affirmatively by providing FPT algorithms to output optimal MMS allocations. Furthermore, our techniques extend to find allocations that optimize alternative objectives, such as minimizing the additive approximation, and maximizing some variants of global welfare. In fact, all our algorithms are designed for a more general MMS problem in machine scheduling. Here, each mixed-manna item (job) must be assigned to an agent (machine) and has a processing time and a deadline. We develop efficient algorithms running in FPT time. Formally, we present polynomial time algorithms w.r.t. the input size times some function dependent on the parameters that yield optimal maximin-value approximations (among others) when parameterized by a set of natural parameters

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (56)
  1. In The Bible, chapter 13. Book of Genesis.
  2. H. Akrami and J. Garg. Breaking the 3434\frac{3}{4}divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG barrier for approximate maximin share. In Proceedings of 35th Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 2024.
  3. M. Aleksandrov and T. Walsh. Online fair division: A survey. In Proceedings of 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 13557–13562, 2020.
  4. Fair division of indivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artificial Intelligence, 322:103965, 2023.
  5. Approximation algorithms for computing maximin share allocations. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 13(4):1–28, 2017.
  6. M. Aschenbrenner and R. Hemmecke. Finiteness theorems in stochastic integer programming. Found. Comput. Math., 7(2):183–227, 2007.
  7. H. Aziz. Developments in multi-agent fair allocation. In Proceedings of 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 13563–13568, 2020.
  8. Algorithmic fair allocation of indivisible items: A survey and new questions. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 20(1):24–40, 2022.
  9. Algorithms for max-min share fair allocation of indivisible chores. In Proceedings of 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 335–341, 2017.
  10. S. Barman and S. Krishnamurthy. Approximation algorithms for maximin fair division. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 8(1):1–28, 2020.
  11. Complexity of efficient and envy-free resource allocation fair allocation: few agents resources, or utility levels. In Proceedings of 25th International Joint Conference on Artifiical Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 102–108, 2016.
  12. E. Bokanyi and A. Hannak. Understanding inequalities in ride-hailing services through simulations. Scientific Reports, 10, 2020.
  13. S. Bouveret and M. Lematre. Characterizing conflicts in fair division of indivisible goods using a scale of criteria. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30(2):259–290, 2016.
  14. S. Brahms and D. King. Fair Division: From Cake Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  15. High-multiplicity fair allocation: Lenstra empowered by n𝑛nitalic_n-fold integer programming. In Proceedings of 19th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 505–523, 2019.
  16. E. Budish. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119(6):1061–1103, 2011.
  17. Parameterized and approximation results for scheduling with a low rank processing time matrix. In 34th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 2017, volume 66 of LIPIcs, pages 22:1–22:14. Schloss Dagstuhl — Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2017.
  18. Block-structured integer and linear programming in strongly polynomial and near linear time. In Proceedings of 31st Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1666–1681. SIAM, 2021.
  19. Efficient sequential and parallel algorithms for multistage stochastic integer programming using proximity. In 29th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, ESA 2021, volume 204 of LIPIcs, pages 33:1–33:14. Schloss Dagstuhl — Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021.
  20. N𝑁{N}italic_N-fold integer programming. Discrete Optimization, 5(2):231–241, 2008. In Memory of George B. Dantzig. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572528607000230, doi:10.1016/j.disopt.2006.06.006.
  21. How to allocate fairly easy and difficult chores. In Proceedings of 21st Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 372–80, 2022.
  22. Graph balancing: a special case of scheduling unrelated parallel machines. In Proceedings of 19th Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 483–490. SIAM, 2008.
  23. Faster algorithms for integer programs with block structure. In Proceedings of 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, (ICALP), volume 107 of LIPIcs, pages 49:1–49:13. Schloss Dagstuhl — Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2018.
  24. A tight negative example for mms fair allocations. In Proceedings of 17th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), pages 355–372, 2021.
  25. D. Foley. Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale Economic Studies, 7(1):45–98, 1967.
  26. Fibonacci heaps and their uses in improved network optimization algorithms. J. ACM, 34(3):596–615, 1987.
  27. J. Garg and S. Taki. An improved approximation algorithm for maximin shares. Artificial Intelligence, 300, 2021. #103547.
  28. Integer programming in parameterized complexity: Five miniatures. Discret. Optim., 44(Part):100596, 2022.
  29. G. Greco and F. Scarcello. The complexity of computing maximin share allocations on graphs. In Proceedings of 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 2006–2013, 2020.
  30. Fairfoody: bringing in fairness in food delivery. In Proceedings of 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 11900–11907, 2022.
  31. Approximation and complexity of the optimization and existence problems for maximin share, proportional share, and minimax share allocation of indivisible goods. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 32(6):741–778, 2018.
  32. n𝑛nitalic_n-fold integer programming in cubic time. Math. Program., 137(1-2):325–341, 2013.
  33. T. Hill. Partitioning general probability measures. The Annals of Probability, 15(2):804–813, 1987.
  34. Complexity of k-sat. In CCC, pages 237–240. IEEE Computer Society, 1999.
  35. Empowering the configuration-IP: new PTAS results for scheduling with setup times. Math. Program., 195(1):367–401, 2022.
  36. Bounding the running time of algorithms for scheduling and packing problems. Bericht Des Instituts Für Informatik, Vol. 1302, 2013.
  37. Near-linear time algorithm for n𝑛nitalic_n-fold ILPs via color coding. SIAM J. Discret. Math., 34(4):2282–2299, 2020.
  38. D. Knop and M. Koutecký. Scheduling meets n𝑛nitalic_n-fold integer programming. J. Sched., 21(5):493–503, 2018.
  39. Parameterized complexity of configuration integer programs. Oper. Res. Lett., 49(6):908–913, 2021.
  40. Combinatorial n𝑛nitalic_n-fold integer programming and applications. Math. Program., 184(1):1–34, 2020.
  41. Voting and bribing in single-exponential time. ACM Trans. Economics and Comput., 8(3):12:1–12:28, 2020.
  42. A parameterized strongly polynomial algorithm for block structured integer programs. In Proceedings of 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, (ICALP), volume 107 of LIPIcs, pages 85:1–85:14. Schloss Dagstuhl — Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2018.
  43. Indivisible mixed manna: On the computability of MMS + PO allocations. In Proceedings of 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 683–684, 2021.
  44. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. Journal of the ACM, 65(2):1–27, 2018.
  45. J. Lenstra and D. Shmoys. Elements of scheduling. CoRR, abs/2001.06005, 2020.
  46. Balancing efficiency and fairness in on-demand ridesourcing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019.
  47. Z. Lonc and M. Truszczynski. Maximin share allocations on cycles. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 69:613–655, 2020.
  48. C. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Shortest paths without a map. Theor. Comput. Sci., 84(1):127–150, 1991.
  49. A. Procaccia and J. Wang. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of 15th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 675–692, 2020.
  50. J. Robertson and W. Webb. Cake Cutting Algorithms: Be Fair if you can. A K Peters, 1998.
  51. Fairassign: Stochastically fair driver assignment in gig delivery platforms. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), page 753–763, 2023.
  52. H. Steinhaus. The problem of fair division. Econometrica, 16:101–104, 1948.
  53. Two-sided fairness for repeated matchings in two-sided markets: a case study of a ride-hailing platform. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 3082–3092, 2019.
  54. Optimizing long-term efficiency and fairness in ride-hailing via joint order dispatching and driver repositioning. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 3950–3960, 2022.
  55. G. Woeginger. A polynomial-time approximation scheme for maximizing the minimum machine completion time. Operations Research Letters, 20(4):149–154, 1997.
  56. The economics or ride-hailing: driver revenue, expenses and taxes. Working paper, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, 2018.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.