arXiv subjects

Rohit Vaish

Publications and source records attributed to Rohit Vaish.

36 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

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↗

arXiv2022

On Approximate Envy-Freeness for Indivisible Chores and Mixed Resources

We study the fair allocation of undesirable indivisible items, or chores. While the case of desirable indivisible items (or goods) is extensively studied, with many results known for different notions of fairness, less is known about the fair division of chores. We study the envy-free division of chores, and make three contributions. First, we show that determining the existence of an envy-free allocation is NP-complete, even in the simple case when agents have binary additive valuations. Second, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an allocation that satisfies envy-freeness up to one chore (EF1), correcting an existing proof in the literature. A straightforward modification of our algorithm can be used to compute an EF1 allocation for doubly monotone instances (wherein each agent can partition the set of items into objective goods and objective chores). Our third result applies to a mixed resources model consisting of indivisible items and a divisible, undesirable heterogeneous resource (i.e., a bad cake). We show that there always exists an allocation that satisfies envy-freeness for mixed resources (EFM) in this setting, complementing a recent result of Bei et al. (Art. Int. 2021) for indivisible goods and divisible cake.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Fairly Dividing Mixtures of Goods and Chores under Lexicographic Preferences

We study fair allocation of indivisible goods and chores among agents with \emph{lexicographic} preferences -- a subclass of additive valuations. In sharp contrast to the goods-only setting, we show that an allocation satisfying \emph{envy-freeness up to any item} (EFX) could fail to exist for a mixture of \emph{objective} goods and chores. To our knowledge, this negative result provides the \emph{first} counterexample for EFX over (any subdomain of) additive valuations. To complement this non-existence result, we identify a class of instances with (possibly subjective) mixed items where an EFX and Pareto optimal allocation always exists and can be efficiently computed. When the fairness requirement is relaxed to \emph{maximin share} (MMS), we show positive existence and computation for \emph{any} mixed instance. More broadly, our work examines the existence and computation of fair and efficient allocations both for mixed items as well as chores-only instances, and highlights the additional difficulty of these problems vis-{à}-vis their goods-only counterparts.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Two for One $\&$ One for All: Two-Sided Manipulation in Matching Markets

Strategic behavior in two-sided matching markets has been traditionally studied in a "one-sided" manipulation setting where the agent who misreports is also the intended beneficiary. Our work investigates "two-sided" manipulation of the deferred acceptance algorithm where the misreporting agent and the manipulator (or beneficiary) are on different sides. Specifically, we generalize the recently proposed accomplice manipulation model (where a man misreports on behalf of a woman) along two complementary dimensions: (a) the two for one model, with a pair of misreporting agents (man and woman) and a single beneficiary (the misreporting woman), and (b) the one for all model, with one misreporting agent (man) and a coalition of beneficiaries (all women). Our main contribution is to develop polynomial-time algorithms for finding an optimal manipulation in both settings. We obtain these results despite the fact that an optimal one for all strategy fails to be inconspicuous, while it is unclear whether an optimal two for one strategy satisfies the inconspicuousness property. We also study the conditions under which stability of the resulting matching is preserved. Experimentally, we show that two-sided manipulations are more frequently available and offer better quality matches than their one-sided counterparts.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Equitable Division of a Path

We study fair resource allocation under a connectedness constraint wherein a set of indivisible items are arranged on a path and only connected subsets of items may be allocated to the agents. An allocation is deemed fair if it satisfies equitability up to one good (EQ1), which requires that agents' utilities are approximately equal. We show that achieving EQ1 in conjunction with well-studied measures of economic efficiency (such as Pareto optimality, non-wastefulness, maximum egalitarian or utilitarian welfare) is computationally hard even for binary additive valuations. On the algorithmic side, we show that by relaxing the efficiency requirement, a connected EQ1 allocation can be computed in polynomial time for any given ordering of agents, even for general monotone valuations. Interestingly, the allocation computed by our algorithm has the highest egalitarian welfare among all allocations consistent with the given ordering. On the other hand, if efficiency is required, then tractability can still be achieved for binary additive valuations with interval structure. On our way, we strengthen some of the existing results in the literature for other fairness notions such as envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), and also provide novel results for negatively-valued items or chores.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Stable Fractional Matchings

We study a generalization of the classical stable matching problem that allows for cardinal preferences (as opposed to ordinal) and fractional matchings (as opposed to integral). After observing that, in this cardinal setting, stable fractional matchings can have much higher social welfare than stable integral ones, our goal is to understand the computational complexity of finding an optimal (i.e., welfare-maximizing) or nearly-optimal stable fractional matching. We present simple approximation algorithms for this problem with weak welfare guarantees and, rather unexpectedly, we furthermore show that achieving better approximations is hard. This computational hardness persists even for approximate stability. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first computational complexity results for stable fractional matchings. En route to these results, we provide a number of structural observations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Fair and Efficient Allocations under Lexicographic Preferences

Envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) provides a strong and intuitive guarantee of fairness in the allocation of indivisible goods. But whether such allocations always exist or whether they can be efficiently computed remains an important open question. We study the existence and computation of EFX in conjunction with various other economic properties under lexicographic preferences--a well-studied preference model in artificial intelligence and economics. In sharp contrast to the known results for additive valuations, we not only prove the existence of EFX and Pareto optimal allocations, but in fact provide an algorithmic characterization of these two properties. We also characterize the mechanisms that are, in addition, strategyproof, non-bossy, and neutral. When the efficiency notion is strengthened to rank-maximality, we obtain non-existence and computational hardness results, and show that tractability can be restored when EFX is relaxed to another well-studied fairness notion called maximin share guarantee (MMS).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Representative Proxy Voting

We study a model of proxy voting where the candidates, voters, and proxies are all located on the real line, and instead of voting directly, each voter delegates its vote to the closest proxy. The goal is to find a set of proxies that is $θ$-representative, which entails that for any voter located anywhere on the line, its favorite candidate is within a distance $θ$ of the favorite candidate of its closest proxy. This property guarantees a strong form of representation as the set of voters is not required to be fixed in advance, or even be finite. We show that for candidates located on a line, an optimal proxy arrangement can be computed in polynomial time. Moreover, we provide upper and lower bounds on the number of proxies required to form a $θ$-representative set, thus showing that a relatively small number of proxies is enough to capture the preferences of any set of voters. An additional beneficial property of a $θ$-representative proxy arrangement is that for strict-Condorcet voting rules, the outcome of proxy voting is similarly close to the outcome of direct voting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Accomplice Manipulation of the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm

The deferred acceptance algorithm is an elegant solution to the stable matching problem that guarantees optimality and truthfulness for one side of the market. Despite these desirable guarantees, it is susceptible to strategic misreporting of preferences by the agents on the other side. We study a novel model of strategic behavior under the deferred acceptance algorithm: manipulation through an accomplice. Here, an agent on the proposed-to side (say, a woman) partners with an agent on the proposing side -- an accomplice -- to manipulate on her behalf (possibly at the expense of worsening his match). We show that the optimal manipulation strategy for an accomplice comprises of promoting exactly one woman in his true list (i.e., an inconspicuous manipulation). This structural result immediately gives a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an optimal accomplice manipulation. We also study the conditions under which the manipulated matching is stable with respect to the true preferences. Our experimental results show that accomplice manipulation outperforms self manipulation both in terms of the frequency of occurrence as well as the quality of matched partners.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Best of Both Worlds: Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Fairness in Resource Allocation

We study the problem of allocating indivisible goods among agents with additive valuations. When randomization is allowed, it is possible to achieve compelling notions of fairness such as envy-freeness, which states that no agent should prefer any other agent's allocation to her own. When allocations must be deterministic, achieving exact fairness is impossible but approximate notions such as envy-freeness up to one good can be guaranteed. Our goal in this work is to achieve both simultaneously, by constructing a randomized allocation that is exactly fair ex-ante and approximately fair ex-post. The key question we address is whether ex-ante envy-freeness can be achieved in combination with ex-post envy-freeness up to one good. We settle this positively by designing an efficient algorithm that achieves both properties simultaneously. If we additionally require economic efficiency, we obtain an impossibility result. However, we show that economic efficiency and ex-ante envy-freeness can be simultaneously achieved if we slightly relax our ex-post fairness guarantee. On our way, we characterize the well-known Maximum Nash Welfare allocation rule in terms of a recently introduced fairness guarantee that applies to groups of agents, not just individuals.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Fair Division through Information Withholding

Envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) is a well-studied fairness notion for indivisible goods that addresses pairwise envy by the removal of at most one good. In the worst case, each pair of agents might require the (hypothetical) removal of a different good, resulting in a weak aggregate guarantee. We study allocations that are nearly envy-free in aggregate, and define a novel fairness notion based on information withholding. Under this notion, an agent can withhold (or hide) some of the goods in its bundle and reveal the remaining goods to the other agents. We observe that in practice, envy-freeness can be achieved by withholding only a small number of goods overall. We show that finding allocations that withhold an optimal number of goods is computationally hard even for highly restricted classes of valuations. In contrast to the worst-case results, our experiments on synthetic and real-world preference data show that existing algorithms for finding EF1 allocations withhold close-to-optimal number of goods.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Equitable Allocations of Indivisible Chores

We study fair allocation of indivisible chores (i.e., items with non-positive value) among agents with additive valuations. An allocation is deemed fair if it is (approximately) equitable, which means that the disutilities of the agents are (approximately) equal. Our main theoretical contribution is to show that there always exists an allocation that is simultaneously equitable up to one chore (EQ1) and Pareto optimal (PO), and to provide a pseudopolynomial-time algorithm for computing such an allocation. In addition, we observe that the Leximin solution---which is known to satisfy a strong form of approximate equitability in the goods setting---fails to satisfy even EQ1 for chores. It does, however, satisfy a novel fairness notion that we call equitability up to any duplicated chore. Our experiments on synthetic as well as real-world data obtained from the Spliddit website reveal that the algorithms considered in our work satisfy approximate fairness and efficiency properties significantly more often than the algorithm currently deployed on Spliddit.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2019

Minimizing Time-to-Rank: A Learning and Recommendation Approach

Consider the following problem faced by an online voting platform: A user is provided with a list of alternatives, and is asked to rank them in order of preference using only drag-and-drop operations. The platform's goal is to recommend an initial ranking that minimizes the time spent by the user in arriving at her desired ranking. We develop the first optimization framework to address this problem, and make theoretical as well as practical contributions. On the practical side, our experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk provide two interesting insights about user behavior: First, that users' ranking strategies closely resemble selection or insertion sort, and second, that the time taken for a drag-and-drop operation depends linearly on the number of positions moved. These insights directly motivate our theoretical model of the optimization problem. We show that computing an optimal recommendation is NP-hard, and provide exact and approximation algorithms for a variety of special cases of the problem. Experimental evaluation on MTurk shows that, compared to a random recommendation strategy, the proposed approach reduces the (average) time-to-rank by up to 50%.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

Equitable Allocations of Indivisible Goods

In fair division, equitability dictates that each participant receives the same level of utility. In this work, we study equitable allocations of indivisible goods among agents with additive valuations. While prior work has studied (approximate) equitability in isolation, we consider equitability in conjunction with other well-studied notions of fairness and economic efficiency. We show that the Leximin algorithm produces an allocation that satisfies equitability up to any good and Pareto optimality. We also give a novel algorithm that guarantees Pareto optimality and equitability up to one good in pseudopolynomial time. Our experiments on real-world preference data reveal that approximate envy-freeness, approximate equitability, and Pareto optimality can often be achieved simultaneously.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Finding Fair and Efficient Allocations

We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible goods among a set of agents in a fair and efficient manner. An allocation is said to be fair if it is envy-free up to one good (EF1), which means that each agent prefers its own bundle over the bundle of any other agent up to the removal of one good. In addition, an allocation is deemed efficient if it satisfies Pareto optimality (PO). While each of these well-studied properties is easy to achieve separately, achieving them together is far from obvious. Recently, Caragiannis et al. (2016) established the surprising result that when agents have additive valuations for the goods, there always exists an allocation that simultaneously satisfies these two seemingly incompatible properties. Specifically, they showed that an allocation that maximizes the Nash social welfare (NSW) objective is both EF1 and PO. However, the problem of maximizing NSW is NP-hard. As a result, this approach does not provide an efficient algorithm for finding a fair and efficient allocation. In this paper, we bypass this barrier, and develop a pseudopolynomial time algorithm for finding allocations that are EF1 and PO; in particular, when the valuations are bounded, our algorithm finds such an allocation in polynomial time. Furthermore, we establish a stronger existence result compared to Caragiannis et al. (2016): For additive valuations, there always exists an allocation that is EF1 and fractionally PO. Another contribution of our work is to show that our algorithm provides a polynomial-time 1.45-approximation to the NSW objective. This improves upon the best known approximation ratio for this problem (namely, the 2-approximation algorithm of Cole et al. (2017)). Unlike many of the existing approaches, our algorithm is completely combinatorial.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Greedy Algorithms for Maximizing Nash Social Welfare

We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among agents with additive valuations. The extent of fairness of an allocation is measured by its Nash social welfare, which is the geometric mean of the valuations of the agents for their bundles. While the problem of maximizing Nash social welfare is known to be APX-hard in general, we study the effectiveness of simple, greedy algorithms in solving this problem in two interesting special cases. First, we show that a simple, greedy algorithm provides a 1.061-approximation guarantee when agents have identical valuations, even though the problem of maximizing Nash social welfare remains NP-hard for this setting. Second, we show that when agents have binary valuations over the goods, an exact solution (i.e., a Nash optimal allocation) can be found in polynomial time via a greedy algorithm. Our results in the binary setting extend to provide novel, exact algorithms for optimizing Nash social welfare under concave valuations. Notably, for the above mentioned scenarios, our techniques provide a simple alternative to several of the existing, more sophisticated techniques for this problem such as constructing equilibria of Fisher markets or using real stable polynomials.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Opting Into Optimal Matchings

We revisit the problem of designing optimal, individually rational matching mechanisms (in a general sense, allowing for cycles in directed graphs), where each player --- who is associated with a subset of vertices --- matches as many of his own vertices when he opts into the matching mechanism as when he opts out. We offer a new perspective on this problem by considering an arbitrary graph, but assuming that vertices are associated with players at random. Our main result asserts that, under certain conditions, any fixed optimal matching is likely to be individually rational up to lower-order terms. We also show that a simple and practical mechanism is (fully) individually rational, and likely to be optimal up to lower-order terms. We discuss the implications of our results for market design in general, and kidney exchange in particular.

cs.DS↗