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

On the Hardness of Fair Allocation under Ternary Valuations (2403.00943v2)

Published 1 Mar 2024 in cs.GT

Abstract: We study the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items when agents have ternary additive valuations -- each agent values each item at some fixed integer values $a$, $b$, or $c$ that are common to all agents. The notions of fairness we consider are max Nash welfare (MNW), when $a$, $b$, and $c$ are non-negative, and max egalitarian welfare (MEW). We show that for any distinct non-negative $a$, $b$, and $c$, maximizing Nash welfare is APX-hard -- i.e., the problem does not admit a PTAS unless P = NP. We also show that for any distinct $a$, $b$, and $c$, maximizing egalitarian welfare is APX-hard except for a few cases when $b = 0$ that admit efficient algorithms. These results make significant progress towards completely characterizing the complexity of computing exact MNW allocations and MEW allocations. En route, we resolve open questions left by prior work regarding the complexity of computing MNW allocations under bivalued valuations, and MEW allocations under ternary mixed manna.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. Maximizing Nash social welfare in 2-value instances: The half-integer case. Tech. Rep. arXiv:2207.10949 [cs.GT], arXiv.org, May 2022a.
  2. Maximizing Nash social welfare in 2-value instances. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 4760–4767, 2022b.
  3. Maximum Nash welfare and other stories about EFX. Theoretical Computer Science, 863:69–85, April 2021.
  4. Combinatorial algorithm for restricted max-min fair allocation. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 13(3):1–28, May 2017.
  5. Algorithmic fair allocation of indivisible items: A survey and new questions. SIGecom Exchanges, 20(1):24–40, November 2022.
  6. Fair allocation of two types of chores. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pages 143–151, 2023.
  7. Fair and truthful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 5119–5126, 2021.
  8. The Santa Claus problem. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 31–40, 2006.
  9. Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pages 169–177, 2021.
  10. Truthful and fair mechanisms for matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 4801–4808, 2022.
  11. Greedy algorithms for maximizing nash social welfare. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pages 7–13, 2018a.
  12. Finding fair and efficient allocations. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 557–574, 2018b.
  13. Fair chore division under binary supermodular costs. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), page 2863–2865, 2023.
  14. Approximation hardness of short symmetric instances of MAX-3SAT. Electronic Colloquim on Computational Complexity, TR03, 2003.
  15. R. L. Brooks. On colouring the nodes of a network. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 37(2):194–197, 1941.
  16. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 305–322, 2016.
  17. On allocating goods to maximize fairness. In Proceedings of the 50th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 107–116, 2009.
  18. On (1,ϵ)1italic-ϵ(1,\epsilon)( 1 , italic_ϵ )-restricted assignment makespan minimization. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1087–1101, 2015.
  19. Complexity of approximating bounded variants of optimization problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 354(3):320–338, 2006.
  20. Approximating the nash social welfare with indivisible items. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), page 371–380, 2015.
  21. Dividing good and great items among agents with bivalued submodular valuations. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), pages 225–241, 2023a.
  22. The good, the bad and the submodular: Fairly allocating mixed manna under order-neutral submodular preferences. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), pages 207–224, 2023b.
  23. How to fairly allocate easy and difficult chores. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pages 372–380, 2022.
  24. M. Garey and D. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1979.
  25. Computing fair and efficient allocations with few utility values. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT), pages 345–359, 2021.
  26. Approximating Nash social welfare under rado valuations. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 1412–1425, 2021.
  27. Fair and efficient allocations of chores under bivalued preferences. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 5043–5050, 2022.
  28. Approximating Nash social welfare by matching and local search. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 1298–1310, 2023.
  29. Fair division with binary valuations: One rule to rule them all. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), page 370–383, 2020.
  30. Maximizing Nash social welfare under two-sided preferences. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2024.
  31. Euiwoong Lee. APX-hardness of maximizing Nash social welfare with indivisible items. Information Processing Letters, 22:17–20, June 2017.
  32. Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines. Math. Program., 46(3):259–271, February 1990.
  33. A constant-factor approximation algorithm for Nash social welfare with submodular valuations. In Proceedings of the 62nd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 25–36, 2021.
  34. Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43(3):425–440, 1991.
  35. Erez Petrank. The hardness of approximation: Gap location. Computational Complexity, 4:133–157, June 1994.
  36. Almost envy-freeness with general valuations. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 34(2):1039–1068, 2020.
  37. A general framework for fair allocation under matroid rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 1129–1152, 2023a.
  38. Yankee swap: a fast and simple fair allocation mechanism for matroid rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pages 179–187, 2023b.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Zack Fitzsimmons (17 papers)
  2. Vignesh Viswanathan (18 papers)
  3. Yair Zick (36 papers)
Citations (1)

Summary

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

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com