arXiv subjects

Rohit Vaish

Publications and source records attributed to Rohit Vaish.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Finding Representative and Approximately Efficient Committees

In approval-based committee voting, proportional approval voting (PAV) is a well-studied rule that combines proportional representation with Pareto efficiency. However, computing a PAV committee is NP-hard, raising a natural question: Can the proportionality and efficiency properties of PAV be achieved via computationally efficient procedures? We make two contributions toward answering this question. First, building on the known proportionality guarantees of the local-search-based variant of PAV (or local PAV), we systematically study its efficiency properties. We show that local PAV committees are weakly Pareto optimal, meaning that no other committee is strictly preferred by every voter. We also identify limitations: Local PAV guarantees only a $2$-approximation to fractional Pareto optimality ($2$-fPO) and a $2/3$-approximation to the optimal PAV score, and both bounds are tight. In contrast, global PAV is Pareto optimal and satisfies the stronger $\alpha^\star$-fPO guarantee, where $\alpha^\star \approx 1.346$ is the unique solution of $\int_0^{\alpha^\star} \frac{1-e^{-y}}{y} \, dy = 1$, and this approximation is tight. Second, we design a polynomial-time algorithm that combines the best of these guarantees. The committee returned by our algorithm satisfies EJR$+$ (a proportionality guarantee), $\alpha^\star$-fPO, and weak Pareto optimality. It also achieves a $0.79$-approximation to the optimal PAV score, matching the best possible polynomial-time approximation assuming $P \neq NP$. Our algorithm works by pipage rounding a concave relaxation of the PAV objective and using that committee to initialize local PAV, thereby combining global approximation guarantees with local search stability.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Easier, but Not Easy: Nash Welfare under Lexicographic Valuations

Maximizing Nash welfare over indivisible goods is a central problem in resource allocation. For additive valuations, the best-known approximation factor is roughly $e^{-1/e}\approx0.692$, and the problem is APX-hard. We study Nash welfare maximization under lexicographic valuations, where every good is worth more than the total value of all lower-ranked goods. This large-gap structure makes preferences almost ordinal, which might suggest that the problem becomes easy. We show, however, that the picture is more nuanced: although lexicographic valuations enable stronger algorithmic guarantees, they retain significant computational hardness. Our first main result is a $(1/\sqrt{2}-\epsilon)\approx(0.707-\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for weighted Nash welfare under lexicographic valuations, improving over the inherited guarantee of roughly $e^{-1/e}$. The algorithm rounds the configuration LP for Nash welfare, for which we show a matching integrality gap of $\sqrt{2}$. Our second main contribution is an exact algorithmic polynomial time framework for ordered lexicographic instances and doubling lexicographic instances. We introduce a domination-based branch-and-prune method for which we prove a mutual-exclusion property between sibling subtrees and use a matrix-based leaf-counting argument to bound the pruned recursion tree by a polynomial when the number of agents is constant. Finally, we show that large gaps do not eliminate hardness, as Nash welfare maximization is NP-hard even for ordered lexicographic valuations, and it is NP-hard to obtain a $0.9996$-approximation even for doubling lexicographic valuations. Thus, lexicographic valuations make Nash welfare maximization easier, but not easy: they admit tighter approximation and exact algorithms in important cases, yet still require intricate techniques and preserve some of the hardness of the general additive setting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Fair Division Meets Scheduling: Approximately Envy-Free Interval Scheduling

We study interval scheduling from the perspective of fair allocation. There are $m$ identical machines and a set of intervals, each specified by a start time, an end time, and a nonnegative weight. A schedule assigns a subset of the intervals to the machines so that no two intervals on the same machine overlap, and the goal is to maximize the total weight of scheduled intervals. Viewing machines as agents and intervals as goods, we require the schedule to be envy-free up to one item (EF1), and we measure efficiency against the offline optimum without fairness. In the offline setting, we give an algorithm that computes an EF1 schedule whose loss is at most a factor of $3/2$ in the unweighted regime, and we prove lower bounds of $\frac{3m-2}{2m-1}$, approaching $3/2$, in both the unweighted and the unit-length weighted regimes, so the price of fairness is $3/2$ in the limit. In the online setting, intervals arrive in nondecreasing order of start times; an arriving interval must be accepted or rejected, rejections are irrevocable, and an accepted interval may be revoked, and lost, at any time before it ends. For the unweighted regime we present Greedy-Balanced, a simple algorithm that maintains EF1 at every point in time and is $(2-\tfrac{1}{m})$-competitive against the offline optimum without fairness, and we prove a matching lower bound for every deterministic algorithm; the optimal deterministic fair competitive ratio is thus exactly $2-\tfrac{1}{m}$. Experiments on real-world benchmark instances show that Greedy-Balanced performs well beyond its worst-case guarantee, with an observed ratio never exceeding $1.306$.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

To EFX OR to MMS, That is the Question

We study the agent-wise disjunction of two central fairness notions for indivisible items, where every agent must be either envy-free up to any item (EFX) or maximin-share (MMS) satisfied. One might expect this flexibility to restore existence, especially because the existence of EFX itself resisted resolution for nearly a decade. Surprisingly, it does not. We construct counterexamples with three agents and eight submodular goods, and with three agents and seven submodular chores, significantly strengthening recent EFX impossibility results. On the positive side, we prove existence for additive mixed items with at most three valuation types when one type is a singleton. Our proof extends beyond additivity for goods and yields approximation schemes for goods and three-agent chores instances. We also identify a clean separation between the disjunction and its constituents: For additive chores with two valuation types, EFX and MMS are both known to fail, whereas an EFX$\vee$MMS allocation always exists. Finally, we show that identical additive valuations even admit the conjunction EFX$\wedge$MMS for mixed items. Overall, our results show that allowing flexibility in choosing agent-specific fairness certificates expands the frontier of fair solutions while also uncovering surprising impossibilities.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Fair Allocation under Conflict Constraints

We study the fair allocation of indivisible items subject to conflict constraints. In this framework, the items are represented as the vertices of a graph, with edges corresponding to conflicts between pairs of items. Each agent is assigned an independent set of items from the graph. Our goal is to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of these items. Fairness pertains to satisfying envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), while efficiency is defined by maximality, meaning that no unallocated item can be feasibly assigned to any agent. First, we explore the case of two agents. For monotone valuations, we show that a maximal EF1 allocation always exists on any graph. Our existence proof relies on a color-switching technique, which locally modifies a maximal allocation while preserving feasibility and restoring EF1. We further show that such allocations can be computed in pseudopolynomial time in general, and in polynomial time for additive valuations on arbitrary graphs, as well as for monotone valuations on interval and bipartite graphs. By contrast, once monotonicity is dropped, maximal EF1 allocations need not exist even for identical additive valuations, and deciding existence becomes NP-hard. Next, we consider the case with a general number of agents. Again, we arrive at a negative result: An EF1 and maximal allocation fails to exist even for three agents under identical monotone valuations, and determining the existence of such an allocation is NP-hard. On the positive side, we show that under identical non-monotone additive valuations on a path graph, an EF[1,1] and maximal allocation always exists. This result involves a novel application of the "cycle plus triangles" theorem.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Best-of-Both-Worlds Guarantees with Fairer Endings

Fair allocation of indivisible goods is a fundamental problem at the interface of economics and computer science. Traditional approaches focus either on randomized allocations that are fair in expectation or deterministic allocations that are approximately fair. Recent work reconciles both these approaches via best-of-both-worlds guarantees, wherein one seeks randomized allocations that are fair in expectation (ex-ante fair) while being supported on approximately fair allocations (ex-post fair). Prior work has shown that under additive valuations, there always exists a randomized allocation that is ex-ante stochastic-dominance envy-free (sd-EF) and ex-post envy-free up to one good (EF1). Our work is motivated by the goal of achieving stronger ex-post fairness guarantees such as envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) along with meaningful ex-ante guarantees. We make the following contributions: 1) We first consider lexicographic preferences, a subdomain of additive valuations where ex-post EFX allocations always exist and can be computed efficiently. On the negative side, we show that ex-ante sd-EF is fundamentally incompatible with ex-post EFX, prompting a relaxation of the ex-ante benchmark. We then present a poly. time algorithm that achieves ex-post EFX and PO together with ex-ante 9/10-EF. Our algorithm uses dependent rounding and leverages structural properties of EFX and PO allocations. 2)For monotone valuations, we study EFX-with-charity: a relaxation of EFX where some goods remain unallocated, with no agent envying the unallocated pool. We show that ex-post EFX-with-charity can be achieved alongside ex-ante 0.5-EF. 3)Finally, for subadditive valuations, we strengthen our previous ex-post guarantee to EFX-with-bounded-charity, where at most n-1 goods (n= no. of agents) remain unallocated, at the price of weakening the ex-ante guarantee to 0.5-proportionality.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Trading Prophets: How to Trade Multiple Stocks Optimally

In the single stock trading prophet problem formulated by Correa et al.\ (2023), an online algorithm observes a sequence of prices of a stock. At each step, the algorithm can either buy the stock by paying the current price if it doesn't already hold the stock, or it can sell the currently held stock and collect the current price as a reward. The goal of the algorithm is to maximize its overall profit. In this work, we generalize the model and the results of Correa et al.\ by allowing the algorithm to trade multiple stocks. First, we formulate the $(k,\ell,\ell')$-Trading Prophet Problem, wherein there are $k$ stocks in the market, and the online algorithm can hold up to $\ell$ stocks at any time, where $\ell\leq k$. The online algorithm competes against an offline algorithm that can hold at most $\ell'\leq\ell$ stocks at any time. Under the assumption that prices of different stocks are independent, we show that, for any $\ell$, $\ell'$, and $k$, the optimal competitive ratio of $(k,\ell,\ell')$-Trading Prophet Problem is $\min(1/2,\ell/k)$. We further introduce the more general $\cal{M}$-Trading Prophet Problem over a matroid $\cal{M}$ on the set of $k$ stocks, wherein the stock prices at any given time are possibly correlated (but are independent across time). The algorithm is allowed to hold only a feasible subset of stocks at any time. We prove a tight bound of $1/(1+d)$ on the competitive ratio of the $\cal{M}$-Trading Prophet Problem, where $d$ is the density of the matroid. We then consider the non-i.i.d.\ random order setting over a matroid, wherein stock prices drawn independently from $n$ potentially different distributions are presented in a uniformly random order. In this setting, we achieve a competitive ratio of at least $1/(1+d)-\cal{O}(1/n)$, where $d$ is the density of the matroid, matching the hardness result for i.i.d.\ instances as $n$ approaches $\infty$.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2024

Connected Equitable Cake Division via Sperner's Lemma

We study the problem of fair cake-cutting where each agent receives a connected piece of the cake. A division of the cake is deemed fair if it is equitable, which means that all agents derive the same value from their assigned piece. Prior work has established the existence of a connected equitable division for agents with nonnegative valuations using various techniques. We provide a simple proof of this result using Sperner's lemma. Our proof extends known existence results for connected equitable divisions to significantly more general classes of valuations, including nonnegative valuations with externalities, as well as several interesting subclasses of general (possibly negative) valuations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Approximating One-Sided and Two-Sided Nash Social Welfare With Capacities

We study the problem of maximizing Nash social welfare, which is the geometric mean of agents' utilities, in two well-known models. The first model involves one-sided preferences, where a set of indivisible items is allocated among a group of agents (commonly studied in fair division). The second model deals with two-sided preferences, where a set of workers and firms, each having numerical valuations for the other side, are matched with each other (commonly studied in matching-under-preferences literature). We study these models under capacity constraints, which restrict the number of items (respectively, workers) that an agent (respectively, a firm) can receive. We develop constant-factor approximation algorithms for both problems under a broad class of valuations. Specifically, our main results are the following: (a) For any $\epsilon > 0$, a $(6+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the one-sided problem when agents have submodular valuations, and (b) a $1.33$-approximation algorithm for the two-sided problem when the firms have subadditive valuations. The former result provides the first constant-factor approximation algorithm for Nash welfare in the one-sided problem with submodular valuations and capacities, while the latter result improves upon an existing $\sqrt{OPT}$-approximation algorithm for additive valuations. Our result for the two-sided setting also establishes a computational separation between the Nash and utilitarian welfare objectives. We also complement our algorithms with hardness-of-approximation results. Additionally, for the case of additive valuations, we modify the configuration LP of Feng and Li [ICALP 2024] to obtain an $(e^{1/e}+\epsilon)-$ approximation algorithm for weighted two-sided Nash social welfare under capacity constraints.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Fair and Efficient Completion of Indivisible Goods

We formulate the problem of fair and efficient completion of indivisible goods, defined as follows: Given a partial allocation of indivisible goods among agents, does there exist an allocation of the remaining goods (i.e., a completion) that satisfies fairness and economic efficiency guarantees of interest? We study the computational complexity of the completion problem for prominent fairness and efficiency notions such as envy-freeness up one good (EF1), proportionality up to one good (Prop1), maximin share (MMS), and Pareto optimality (PO), and focus on the class of additive valuations as well as its subclasses such as binary additive and lexicographic valuations. We find that while the completion problem is significantly harder than the standard fair division problem (wherein the initial partial allocation is empty), the consideration of restricted preferences facilitates positive algorithmic results for threshold-based fairness notions (Prop1 and MMS). On the other hand, the completion problem remains computationally intractable for envy-based notions such as EF1 and EF1+PO even under restricted preferences.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Towards Fair Allocation in Social Commerce Platforms

Social commerce platforms are emerging businesses where producers sell products through re-sellers who advertise the products to other customers in their social network. Due to the increasing popularity of this business model, thousands of small producers and re-sellers are starting to depend on these platforms for their livelihood; thus, it is important to provide fair earning opportunities to them. The enormous product space in such platforms prohibits manual search, and motivates the need for recommendation algorithms to effectively allocate product exposure and, consequently, earning opportunities. In this work, we focus on the fairness of such allocations in social commerce platforms and formulate the problem of assigning products to re-sellers as a fair division problem with indivisible items under two-sided cardinality constraints, wherein each product must be given to at least a certain number of re-sellers and each re-seller must get a certain number of products. Our work systematically explores various well-studied benchmarks of fairness -- including Nash social welfare, envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), and equitability up to one item (EQ1) -- from both theoretical and experimental perspectives. We find that the existential and computational guarantees of these concepts known from the unconstrained setting do not extend to our constrained model. To address this limitation, we develop a mixed-integer linear program and other scalable heuristics that provide near-optimal approximation of Nash social welfare in simulated and real social commerce datasets. Overall, our work takes the first step towards achieving provable fairness alongside reasonable revenue guarantees on social commerce platforms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Capacity Modification in the Stable Matching Problem

We study the problem of capacity modification in the many-to-one stable matching of workers and firms. Our goal is to systematically study how the set of stable matchings changes when some seats are added to or removed from the firms. We make three main contributions: First, we examine whether firms and workers can improve or worsen upon changing the capacities under worker-proposing and firm-proposing deferred acceptance algorithms. Second, we study the computational problem of adding or removing seats to either match a fixed worker-firm pair in some stable matching or make a fixed matching stable with respect to the modified problem. We develop polynomial-time algorithms for these problems when only the overall change in the firms' capacities is restricted, and show NP-hardness when there are additional constraints for individual firms. Lastly, we compare capacity modification with the classical model of preference manipulation by firms and identify scenarios under which one mode of manipulation outperforms the other. We find that a threshold on a given firm's capacity, which we call its peak, crucially determines the effectiveness of different manipulation actions.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Fair Interval Scheduling of Indivisible Chores

We study the problem of fairly assigning a set of discrete tasks (or chores) among a set of agents with additive valuations. Each chore is associated with a start and finish time, and each agent can perform at most one chore at any given time. The goal is to find a fair and efficient schedule of the chores, where fairness pertains to satisfying envy-freeness up to one chore (EF1) and efficiency pertains to maximality (i.e., no unallocated chore can be feasibly assigned to any agent). Our main result is a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an EF1 and maximal schedule for two agents under monotone valuations when the conflict constraints constitute an arbitrary interval graph. The algorithm uses a coloring technique in interval graphs that may be of independent interest. For an arbitrary number of agents with identical additive valuations, we show the existence of an EF1 and maximal schedule when the constraints constitute a path graph. This result uses a reduction to the ``cycle-plus-triangles'' theorem. Using different techniques, we provide an efficient algorithm for finding such a schedule when there are four or more agents and the valuations are further assumed to be dichotomous. We also show that stronger fairness and efficiency properties, including envy-freeness up to any chore (EFX) along with maximality and EF1 along with Pareto optimality, cannot be achieved.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Maximizing Nash Social Welfare under Two-Sided Preferences

The maximum Nash social welfare (NSW) -- which maximizes the geometric mean of agents' utilities -- is a fundamental solution concept with remarkable fairness and efficiency guarantees. The computational aspects of NSW have been extensively studied for one-sided preferences where a set of agents have preferences over a set of resources. Our work deviates from this trend and studies NSW maximization for two-sided preferences, wherein a set of workers and firms, each having a cardinal valuation function, are matched with each other. We provide a systematic study of the computational complexity of maximizing NSW for many-to-one matchings under two-sided preferences. Our main negative result is that maximizing NSW is NP-hard even in a highly restricted setting where each firm has capacity 2, all valuations are in the range {0,1,2}, and each agent positively values at most three other agents. In search of positive results, we develop approximation algorithms as well as parameterized algorithms in terms of natural parameters such as the number of workers, the number of firms, and the firms' capacities. We also provide algorithms for restricted domains such as symmetric binary valuations and bounded degree instances.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Tight Approximations for Graphical House Allocation

The Graphical House Allocation problem asks: how can $n$ houses (each with a fixed non-negative value) be assigned to the vertices of an undirected graph $G$, so as to minimize the "aggregate local envy", i.e., the sum of absolute differences along the edges of $G$? This problem generalizes the classical Minimum Linear Arrangement problem, as well as the well-known House Allocation Problem from Economics, the latter of which has notable practical applications in organ exchanges. Recent work has studied the computational aspects of Graphical House Allocation and observed that the problem is NP-hard and inapproximable even on particularly simple classes of graphs, such as vertex disjoint unions of paths. However, the dependence of any approximations on the structural properties of the underlying graph had not been studied. In this work, we give a complete characterization of the approximability of the Graphical House Allocation problem. We present algorithms to approximate the optimal envy on general graphs, trees, planar graphs, bounded-degree graphs, bounded-degree planar graphs, and bounded-degree trees. For each of these graph classes, we then prove matching lower bounds, showing that in each case, no significant improvement can be attained unless P = NP. We also present general approximation ratios as a function of structural parameters of the underlying graph, such as treewidth; these match the aforementioned tight upper bounds in general, and are significantly better approximations for many natural subclasses of graphs. Finally, we present constant factor approximation schemes for the special classes of complete binary trees and random graphs.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2023

Graphical House Allocation

The classical house allocation problem involves assigning $n$ houses (or items) to $n$ agents according to their preferences. A key criterion in such problems is satisfying some fairness constraints such as envy-freeness. We consider a generalization of this problem wherein the agents are placed along the vertices of a graph (corresponding to a social network), and each agent can only experience envy towards its neighbors. Our goal is to minimize the aggregate envy among the agents as a natural fairness objective, i.e., the sum of all pairwise envy values over all edges in a social graph. When agents have identical and evenly-spaced valuations, our problem reduces to the well-studied problem of linear arrangements. For identical valuations with possibly uneven spacing, we show a number of deep and surprising ways in which our setting is a departure from this classical problem. More broadly, we contribute several structural and computational results for various classes of graphs, including NP-hardness results for disjoint unions of paths, cycles, stars, or cliques, and fixed-parameter tractable (and, in some cases, polynomial-time) algorithms for paths, cycles, stars, cliques, and their disjoint unions. Additionally, a conceptual contribution of our work is the formulation of a structural property for disconnected graphs that we call separability which results in efficient parameterized algorithms for finding optimal allocations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

The Price of Equity with Binary Valuations and Few Agent Types

In fair division problems, the notion of price of fairness measures the loss in welfare due to a fairness constraint. Prior work on the price of fairness has focused primarily on envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) as the fairness constraint, and on the utilitarian and egalitarian welfare measures. Our work instead focuses on the price of equitability up to one good (EQ1) (which we term price of equity) and considers the broad class of generalized $p$-mean welfare measures (which includes utilitarian, egalitarian, and Nash welfare as special cases). We derive fine-grained bounds on the price of equity in terms of the number of agent types (i.e., the maximum number of agents with distinct valuations), which allows us to identify scenarios where the existing bounds in terms of the number of agents are overly pessimistic. Our work focuses on the setting with binary additive valuations, and obtains upper and lower bounds on the price of equity for $p$-mean welfare for all $p \leqslant 1$. For any fixed $p$, our bounds are tight up to constant factors. A useful insight of our work is to identify the structure of allocations that underlie the upper (respectively, the lower) bounds simultaneously for all $p$-mean welfare measures, thus providing a unified structural understanding of price of fairness in this setting. This structural understanding, in fact, extends to the more general class of binary submodular (or matroid rank) valuations. We also show that, unlike binary additive valuations, for binary submodular valuations the number of agent types does not provide bounds on the price of equity.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Semi-Popular Matchings and Copeland Winners

Given a graph $G = (V,E)$ where every vertex has a weak ranking over its neighbors, we consider the problem of computing an optimal matching as per agent preferences. Classical notions of optimality such as stability and its relaxation popularity could fail to exist when $G$ is non-bipartite. In light of the non-existence of a popular matching, we consider its relaxations that satisfy universal existence. We find a positive answer in the form of semi-popularity. A matching $M$ is semi-popular if for a majority of the matchings $N$ in $G$, $M$ does not lose a head-to-head election against $N$. We show that a semi-popular matching always exists in any graph $G$ and complement this existence result with a fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS). A special subclass of semi-popular matchings is the set of Copeland winners -- the notion of Copeland winner is classical in social choice theory and a Copeland winner always exists in any voting instance. We study the complexity of computing a matching that is a Copeland winner and show there is no polynomial-time algorithm for this problem unless $\mathsf{P} = \mathsf{NP}$.

cs.GT↗