Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Fairness and Efficiency in Online Class Matching (2410.19163v1)

Published 24 Oct 2024 in cs.GT and cs.DS

Abstract: The online bipartite matching problem, extensively studied in the literature, deals with the allocation of online arriving vertices (items) to a predetermined set of offline vertices (agents). However, little attention has been given to the concept of class fairness, where agents are categorized into different classes, and the matching algorithm must ensure equitable distribution across these classes. We here focus on randomized algorithms for the fair matching of indivisible items, subject to various definitions of fairness. Our main contribution is the first (randomized) non-wasteful algorithm that simultaneously achieves a $1/2$ approximation to class envy-freeness (CEF) while simultaneously ensuring an equivalent approximation to the class proportionality (CPROP) and utilitarian social welfare (USW) objectives. We supplement this result by demonstrating that no non-wasteful algorithm can achieve an $\alpha$-CEF guarantee for $\alpha > 0.761$. In a similar vein, we provide a novel input instance for deterministic divisible matching that demonstrates a nearly tight CEF approximation. Lastly, we define the ``price of fairness,'' which represents the trade-off between optimal and fair matching. We demonstrate that increasing the level of fairness in the approximation of the solution leads to a decrease in the objective of maximizing USW, following an inverse proportionality relationship.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. Online fair division: Analysing a food bank problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.07571, 2015.
  2. Fair division of indivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artificial Intelligence, page 103965, 2023.
  3. T. M. Apostol. An elementary view of euler’s summation formula. The American Mathematical Monthly, 106(5):409–418, 1999.
  4. Y. Azar and Y. Richter. The zero-one principle for switching networks. In Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 64–71, 2004.
  5. S. Banerjee and R. Johari. Ride sharing. Sharing Economy: Making Supply Meet Demand, pages 73–97, 2019.
  6. Finding fair and efficient allocations. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 557–574, 2018.
  7. The price of fairness for indivisible goods. Theory of Computing Systems, 65:1069–1093, 2021.
  8. How to make envy vanish over time. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 593–610, 2018.
  9. The price of fairness. Operations research, 59(1):17–31, 2011.
  10. E. Budish. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119(6):1061–1103, 2011.
  11. The efficiency of fair division. Theory of Computing Systems, 50:589–610, 2012.
  12. The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 7(3):1–32, 2019.
  13. Allocation problems in ride-sharing platforms: Online matching with offline reusable resources. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 9(3):1–17, 2021.
  14. E. Eisenberg and D. Gale. Consensus of subjective probabilities: The pari-mutuel method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30(1):165–168, 1959.
  15. Online ad assignment with free disposal. In International workshop on internet and network economics, pages 374–385. Springer, 2009.
  16. D. K. Foley. Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale University, 1966.
  17. J. Garg and S. Taki. An improved approximation algorithm for maximin shares. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 379–380, 2020.
  18. Fair allocation of indivisible goods: Improvements and generalizations. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 539–556, 2018.
  19. Online nash social welfare via promised utilities. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2008, 2020.
  20. H. Hosseini and A. Searns. Guaranteeing maximin shares: Some agents left behind. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.09383, 2021.
  21. Class fairness in online matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03751, 2022a.
  22. Ordinal maximin share approximation for goods. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74:353–391, 2022b.
  23. Z. Huang and X. Shu. Online stochastic matching, poisson arrivals, and the natural linear program. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 682–693, 2021.
  24. Online vertex-weighted bipartite matching: Beating 1-1/e with random arrivals. ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG), 15(3):1–15, 2019.
  25. B. Jin and D. P. Williamson. Improved analysis of ranking for online vertex-weighted bipartite matching in the random order model. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 207–225. Springer, 2021.
  26. B. Kalyanasundaram and K. R. Pruhs. An optimal deterministic algorithm for online b-matching. Theoretical Computer Science, 233(1-2):319–325, 2000.
  27. Online bipartite matching with unknown distributions. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 587–596, 2011.
  28. An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the twenty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 352–358, 1990.
  29. T. G. Kurtz. Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump markov processes. Journal of applied Probability, 7(1):49–58, 1970.
  30. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 125–131, 2004.
  31. M. Mahdian and Q. Yan. Online bipartite matching with random arrivals: an approach based on strongly factor-revealing lps. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 597–606, 2011.
  32. Adwords and generalized online matching. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 54(5):22–es, 2007.
  33. A. Mehta et al. Online matching and ad allocation. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, 8(4):265–368, 2013.
  34. Automating food drop: The power of two choices for dynamic and fair food allocation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06363, 2024.
  35. H. Moulin. Fair division in the internet age. Annual Review of Economics, 11(1):407–441, 2019.
  36. A. D. Procaccia and J. Wang. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, pages 675–692, 2014.
  37. H. Steinhaus. The problem of fair division. Econometrica, 16:101–104, 1948.
  38. H. R. Varian. Equity, envy, and efficiency. 1973.
  39. T. Walsh. Online cake cutting. In Algorithmic Decision Theory: Second International Conference, ADT 2011, Piscataway, NJ, USA, October 26-28, 2011. Proceedings 2, pages 292–305. Springer, 2011.
  40. T. Yokoyama and A. Igarashi. Asymptotic existence of class envy-free matchings. 2023.
  41. S. M. Yuen and W. Suksompong. Extending the characterization of maximum nash welfare. Economics Letters, 224:111030, 2023.
  42. D. Zeng and A. Psomas. Fairness-efficiency tradeoffs in dynamic fair division. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 911–912, 2020.

Summary

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

Whiteboard

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.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 2 likes about this paper.