skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Weighted Fairness Notions for Indivisible Items Revisited

Published: 06 September 2024 Publication History

Abstract

We revisit the setting of fairly allocating indivisible items when agents have different weights representing their entitlements. First, we propose a parameterized family of relaxations for weighted envy-freeness and the same for weighted proportionality; the parameters indicate whether smaller-weight or larger-weight agents are given a higher priority. We show that each notion in these families can always be satisfied, but any two cannot necessarily be fulfilled simultaneously. We then introduce an intuitive weighted generalization of maximin share fairness and establish the optimal approximation of it that can be guaranteed. Furthermore, we characterize the implication relations between the various weighted fairness notions introduced in this and prior work, and relate them to the lower and upper quota axioms from apportionment.

References

[1]
Martin Aleksandrov, Haris Aziz, Serge Gaspers, and Toby Walsh. 2015. Online fair division: Analysing a food bank problem. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2540–2546.
[2]
Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, and Evangelos Markakis. 2018. Comparing approximate relaxations of envy-freeness. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 42–48.
[3]
Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59–64.
[4]
Haris Aziz, Ioannis Caragiannis, Ayumi Igarashi, and Toby Walsh. 2022. Fair allocation of indivisible goods and chores. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 36, 1 (2022), 3:1–3:21.
[5]
Haris Aziz, Hau Chan, and Bo Li. 2019. Weighted maxmin fair share allocation of indivisible chores. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 46–52.
[6]
Haris Aziz, Aditya Ganguly, and Evi Micha. 2023. Best of both worlds fairness under entitlements. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 941–948.
[7]
Haris Aziz, Serge Gaspers, Simon Mackenzie, and Toby Walsh. 2015. Fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences. Artificial Intelligence 227 (2015), 71–92.
[8]
Haris Aziz, Hervé Moulin, and Fedor Sandomirskiy. 2020. A polynomial-time algorithm for computing a Pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation. Operations Research Letters 48, 5 (2020), 573–578.
[9]
Haris Aziz and Chun Ye. 2014. Cake cutting algorithms for piecewise constant and piecewise uniform valuations. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics. 1–14.
[10]
Moshe Babaioff, Tomer Ezra, and Uriel Feige. 2021a. Fair-share allocations for agents with arbitrary entitlements. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 127.
[11]
Moshe Babaioff, Tomer Ezra, and Uriel Feige. 2021b. Fair and truthful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 5119–5126.
[12]
Moshe Babaioff, Noam Nisan, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. 2021c. Competitive equilibrium with indivisible goods and generic budgets. Mathematics of Operations Research 46, 1 (2021), 382–403.
[13]
Michel L. Balinski and H. Peyton Young. 1975. The quota method of apportionment. The American Mathematical Monthly 82, 7 (1975), 701–730.
[14]
Michel L. Balinski and H. Peyton Young. 2001. Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Brookings Institution Press.
[15]
Julius B. Barbanel. 1995. Game-theoretic algorithms for fair and strongly fair cake division with entitlements. Colloquium Mathematicae 69, 1 (1995), 59–73.
[16]
Siddharth Barman, Sanath Kumar Krishnamurthy, and Rohit Vaish. 2018. Finding fair and efficient allocations. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 557–574.
[17]
Siddharth Barman and Paritosh Verma. 2021. Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 169–177.
[18]
Nawal Benabbou, Mithun Chakraborty, Ayumi Igarashi, and Yair Zick. 2021. Finding fair and efficient allocations for matroid rank valuations. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 9, 4 (2021), 21:1–21:41.
[19]
Péter Biró, László Á. Kóczy, and Balázs Sziklai. 2015. Fair apportionment in the view of the Venice Commission’s recommendation. Mathematical Social Sciences 77 (2015), 32–41.
[20]
Sylvain Bouveret and Jérôme Lang. 2014. Manipulating picking sequences. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 141–146.
[21]
Steven J. Brams, Michael A. Jones, and Christian Klamler. 2011. Divide-and-conquer: A proportional, minimal-envy cake-cutting algorithm. SIAM Reviews 53, 2 (2011), 291–307.
[22]
Eric Budish. 2011. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy 119, 6 (2011), 1061–1103.
[23]
Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Hervé Moulin, Ariel D. Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. 2019. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 7, 3 (2019), 12:1–12:32.
[24]
Mithun Chakraborty, Ayumi Igarashi, Warut Suksompong, and Yair Zick. 2021a. Weighted envy-freeness in indivisible item allocation. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 9, 3 (2021), 18:1–18:39.
[25]
Mithun Chakraborty, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin, and Warut Suksompong. 2021b. Picking sequences and monotonicity in weighted fair division. Artificial Intelligence 301 (2021), 103578.
[26]
Vincent Conitzer, Rupert Freeman, and Nisarg Shah. 2017. Fair public decision making. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 629–646.
[27]
Marco Claudio Corradi and Valentina Corradi. 2002. The Adjusted Knaster procedure under unequal entitlements. Decisions in Economics and Finance 25, 2 (2002), 157–160.
[28]
Logan Crew, Bhargav Narayanan, and Sophie Spirkl. 2020. Disproportionate division. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 52, 5 (2020), 885–890.
[29]
Ágnes Cseh and Tamás Fleiner. 2020. The complexity of cake cutting with unequal shares. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 16, 3 (2020), 29:1–29:21.
[30]
Marco Dall’Aglio and Fabio Maccheroni. 2009. Disputed lands. Games and Economic Behavior 66, 1 (2009), 57–77.
[31]
David L. Dickinson and Jill Tiefenthaler. 2002. What is fair? Experimental evidence. Southern Economic Journal 69, 2 (2002), 414–428.
[32]
Danny Dolev, Dror G. Feitelson, Joseph Y. Halpern, Raz Kupferman, and Nathan Linial. 2012. No justified complaints: On fair sharing of multiple resources. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference. 68–75.
[33]
Bram Driesen. 2012. The Asymmetric Leximin Solution. Technical Report. University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
[34]
Lester E. Dubins and Edwin H. Spanier. 1961. How to cut a cake fairly. The American Mathematical Monthly 68, 1 (1961), 1–17.
[35]
Stephen Engelberg. 1993. Czechoslovakia breaks in two, to wide regret. New York Times 1 (1993).
[36]
Dirk Engelmann and Martin Strobel. 2004. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review 94, 4 (2004), 857–869.
[37]
Alireza Farhadi, Mohammad Ghodsi, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Sebastien Lahaie, David Pennock, Masoud Seddighin, Saeed Seddighin, and Hadi Yami. 2019. Fair allocation of indivisible goods to asymmetric agents. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 64 (2019), 1–20.
[38]
Ernst Fehr, Michael Naef, and Klaus M. Schmidt. 2006. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. American Economic Review 96, 5 (2006), 1912–1917.
[39]
Uriel Feige, Ariel Sapir, and Laliv Tauber. 2021. A tight negative example for MMS fair allocations. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics. 355–372.
[40]
Jugal Garg and Setareh Taki. 2021. An improved approximation algorithm for maximin shares. Artificial Intelligence 300 (2021), 103547.
[41]
Mohammad Ghodsi, Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, Masoud Seddighin, Saeed Seddighin, and Hadi Yami. 2021. Fair allocation of indivisible goods: Improvement. Mathematics of Operations Research 46, 3 (2021), 1038–1053.
[42]
Jonathan Goldman and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2014. Spliddit: Unleashing fair division algorithms. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 13, 2 (2014), 41–46.
[43]
Avital Gutman and Noam Nisan. 2012. Fair allocation without trade. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 719–728.
[44]
Jiatong Han and Warut Suksompong. 2024. Fast and Fair: A collaborative platform for fair division applications. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 23796–23798.
[45]
Dorothea K. Herreiner and Clemens Puppe. 2007. Distributing indivisible goods fairly: Evidence from a questionnaire study. Analyse and Kritik 29, 2 (2007), 235–258.
[46]
Martin Hoefer, Marco Schmalhofer, and Giovanna Varricchio. 2023. Best of both worlds: Agents with entitlements. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 564–572.
[47]
Zsuzsanna Jankó and Attila Joó. 2022. Cutting a cake for infinitely many guests. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 29, 1 (2022), #P1.42.
[48]
Ehud Kalai. 1977. Nonsymmetric Nash solutions and replications of 2-person bargaining. International Journal of Game Theory 6, 3 (1977), 129–133.
[49]
David Kurokawa, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Junxing Wang. 2018. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. Journals of the ACM 64, 2 (2018), 8:1–8:27.
[50]
Richard J. Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi. 2004. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 125–131.
[51]
Luisa Montanari, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin, Warut Suksompong, and Nicholas Teh. 2024. Weighted envy-freeness for submodular valuations. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 9865–9873.
[52]
Hervé Moulin. 2003. Fair Division and Collective Welfare. MIT Press.
[53]
John F. Nash Jr.1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 2 (1950), 155–162.
[54]
Abraham Othman, Tuomas Sandholm, and Eric Budish. 2010. Finding approximate competitive equilibria: Efficient and fair course allocation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 873–880.
[55]
Parag A. Pathak, Tayfun Sönmez, M. Utku Ünver, and M. Bumin Yenmez. 2021. Fair allocation of vaccines, ventilators and antiviral treatments: Leaving no ethical value behind in health care rationing. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 785–786.
[56]
Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. Axioms should explain solutions. In Proceedings of the Future of Economic Design, Jean-François Laslier, Hervé Moulin, M. Remzi Sanver, and William S. Zwicker (Eds.). Springer, 195–199.
[57]
Matthias G. Raith. 2000. Fair-negotiation procedures. Mathematical Social Sciences 39, 3 (2000), 303–322.
[58]
J. H. Reijnierse and J. A. M. Potters. 1998. On finding an envy-free pareto-optimal division. Mathematical Programming 83, 1–3 (1998), 291–311.
[59]
Jack M. Robertson and William A. Webb. 1997. Extensions of cut-and-choose fair division. Elemente Der Mathematik 52, 1 (1997), 23–30.
[60]
Jack M. Robertson and William A. Webb. 1998. Cake-Cutting Algorithms: Be Fair if You Can. Peters/CRC Press.
[61]
Erel Segal-Halevi. 2019a. Cake-cutting with different entitlements: How many cuts are needed? Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 480, 1 (2019), 123382.
[62]
Erel Segal-Halevi. 2019b. The maximin share dominance relation. arXiv:1912.08763. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08763
[63]
Erel Segal-Halevi. 2020. Competitive equilibrium for almost all incomes: Existence and fairness. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 34, 1 (2020), 26:1–26:50.
[64]
Harunor Shishido and Dao-Zhi Zeng. 1999. Mark-choose-cut algorithms for fair and strongly fair division. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 2 (1999), 125–137.
[65]
Warut Suksompong and Nicholas Teh. 2022. On maximum weighted Nash welfare for binary valuations. Mathematical Social Sciences 117 (2022), 101–108.
[66]
Warut Suksompong and Nicholas Teh. 2023. Weighted fair division with matroid-rank valuations: Monotonicity and strategyproofness. Mathematical Social Sciences 126 (2023), 48–59.
[67]
William Thomson. 1994. Cooperative models of bargaining. In Proceedings of the Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Robert Aumann and Sergiu Hart (Eds.). Vol. 2, Elsevier, Chapter 35, 1237–1284.
[68]
Yuto Tominaga, Taiki Todo, and Makoto Yokoo. 2016. Manipulations in two-agent sequential allocation with random sequences. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 141–149.
[69]
Xiaowei Wu, Cong Zhang, and Shengwei Zhou. 2023. Weighted EF1 allocations for indivisible chores. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 1155.
[70]
Mingyu Xiao and Jiaxing Ling. 2020. Algorithms for manipulating sequential allocation. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2302–2309.
[71]
Dao-Zhi Zeng. 2000. Approximate envy-free procedures. In Proceedings of the Game Practice: Contributions from Applied Game Theory, Fioravante Patrone, Ignacio García-Jurado, and Stef Tijs (Eds.). Springer, Chapter 17, 259–271.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation  Volume 12, Issue 3
September 2024
124 pages
EISSN:2167-8383
DOI:10.1145/3613631
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 September 2024
Online AM: 28 June 2024
Accepted: 16 May 2024
Revised: 27 February 2024
Received: 05 January 2023
Published in TEAC Volume 12, Issue 3

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Unequal entitlements
  2. fair division
  3. indivisible items
  4. resource allocation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • Israel Science Foundation
  • Singapore Ministry of Education

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 177
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)177
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)145
Reflects downloads up to 17 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

Full Text

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media