Groupwise Maximin Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods

November 21, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Siddharth Barman, Arpita Biswas, Sanath Kumar Krishnamurthy, Y. Narahari arXiv ID 1711.07621 Category cs.GT: Game Theory Cross-listed cs.AI Citations 72 Venue AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
We study the problem of allocating indivisible goods among n agents in a fair manner. For this problem, maximin share (MMS) is a well-studied solution concept which provides a fairness threshold. Specifically, maximin share is defined as the minimum utility that an agent can guarantee for herself when asked to partition the set of goods into n bundles such that the remaining (n-1) agents pick their bundles adversarially. An allocation is deemed to be fair if every agent gets a bundle whose valuation is at least her maximin share. Even though maximin shares provide a natural benchmark for fairness, it has its own drawbacks and, in particular, it is not sufficient to rule out unsatisfactory allocations. Motivated by these considerations, in this work we define a stronger notion of fairness, called groupwise maximin share guarantee (GMMS). In GMMS, we require that the maximin share guarantee is achieved not just with respect to the grand bundle, but also among all the subgroups of agents. Hence, this solution concept strengthens MMS and provides an ex-post fairness guarantee. We show that in specific settings, GMMS allocations always exist. We also establish the existence of approximate GMMS allocations under additive valuations, and develop a polynomial-time algorithm to find such allocations. Moreover, we establish a scale of fairness wherein we show that GMMS implies approximate envy freeness. Finally, we empirically demonstrate the existence of GMMS allocations in a large set of randomly generated instances. For the same set of instances, we additionally show that our algorithm achieves an approximation factor better than the established, worst-case bound.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Game Theory

R.I.P. πŸ‘» Ghosted

Blockchain Mining Games

Aggelos Kiayias, Elias Koutsoupias, ... (+2 more)

cs.GT πŸ› EC πŸ“š 273 cites 10 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted