arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Warut Suksompong.
In the allocation of indivisible goods, the maximum Nash welfare rule has recently been characterized as the only rule within the class of additive welfarist rules that satisfies envy-freeness up to one good. We extend this characterization to the class of all welfarist rules.
Cake cutting is a classic fair division problem, with the cake serving as a metaphor for a heterogeneous divisible resource. Recently, it was shown that for any number of players with arbitrary preferences over a cake, it is possible to partition the players into groups of any desired size and divide the cake among the groups so that each group receives a single contiguous piece and every player is envy-free. For two groups, we characterize the group sizes for which such an assignment can be computed by a finite algorithm, showing that the task is possible exactly when one of the groups is a singleton. We also establish an analogous existence result for chore division, and show that the result does not hold for a mixed cake.
In the allocation of indivisible goods, the maximum Nash welfare (MNW) rule, which chooses an allocation maximizing the product of the agents' utilities, has received substantial attention for its fairness. We characterize MNW as the only additive welfarist rule that satisfies envy-freeness up to one good. Our characterization holds even in the simplest setting of two agents.
We study a fair allocation problem of indivisible items under additive externalities in which each agent also receives values from items that are assigned to other agents. We propose several new fairness concepts. We extend the well-studied envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) to this setting, and we propose a new fairness concept called general fair share (GFS). We undertake a detailed study and present algorithms for finding fair allocations.
Fairness and privacy are two important concerns in social decision-making processes such as resource allocation. We study privacy in the fair allocation of indivisible resources using the well-established framework of differential privacy. We present algorithms for approximate envy-freeness and proportionality when two instances are considered to be adjacent if they differ only on the utility of a single agent for a single item. On the other hand, we provide strong negative results for both fairness criteria when the adjacency notion allows the entire utility function of a single agent to change.
We investigate the fair allocation of indivisible goods to agents with possibly different entitlements represented by weights. Previous work has shown that guarantees for additive valuations with existing envy-based notions cannot be extended to the case where agents have matroid-rank (i.e., binary submodular) valuations. We propose two families of envy-based notions for matroid-rank and general submodular valuations, one based on the idea of transferability and the other on marginal values. We show that our notions can be satisfied via generalizations of rules such as picking sequences and maximum weighted Nash welfare. In addition, we introduce welfare measures based on harmonic numbers, and show that variants of maximum weighted harmonic welfare offer stronger fairness guarantees than maximum weighted Nash welfare under matroid-rank valuations.
We study the problem of fairly allocating a divisible resource, also known as cake cutting, with an additional requirement that the shares that different agents receive should be sufficiently separated from one another. This captures, for example, constraints arising from social distancing guidelines. While it is sometimes impossible to allocate a proportional share to every agent under the separation requirement, we show that the well-known criterion of maximin share fairness can always be attained. We then provide algorithmic analysis of maximin share fairness in this setting -- for instance, the maximin share of an agent cannot be computed exactly by any finite algorithm, but can be approximated with an arbitrarily small error. In addition, we consider the division of a pie (i.e., a circular cake) and show that an ordinal relaxation of maximin share fairness can be achieved. We also prove that an envy-free or equitable allocation that allocates the maximum amount of resource exists under separation.
We study the allocation of indivisible goods among groups of agents using well-known fairness notions such as envy-freeness and proportionality. While these notions cannot always be satisfied, we provide several bounds on the optimal relaxations that can be guaranteed. For instance, our bounds imply that when the number of groups is constant and the $n$ agents are divided into groups arbitrarily, there exists an allocation that is envy-free up to $Θ(\sqrt{n})$ goods, and this bound is tight. Moreover, we show that while such an allocation can be found efficiently, it is NP-hard to compute an allocation that is envy-free up to $o(\sqrt{n})$ goods even when a fully envy-free allocation exists. Our proofs make extensive use of tools from discrepancy theory.
Justified representation (JR) is a standard notion of representation in multiwinner approval voting. Not only does a JR committee always exist, but previous work has also shown through experiments that the JR condition can typically be fulfilled by groups of fewer than $k$ candidates. In this paper, we study such groups -- known as $n/k$-justifying groups -- both theoretically and empirically. First, we show that under the impartial culture model, $n/k$-justifying groups of size less than $k/2$ are likely to exist, which implies that the number of JR committees is usually large. We then present efficient approximation algorithms that compute a small $n/k$-justifying group for any given instance, and a polynomial-time exact algorithm when the instance admits a tree representation. In addition, we demonstrate that small $n/k$-justifying groups can often be useful for obtaining a gender-balanced JR committee even though the problem is NP-hard.
Knockout tournaments constitute a popular format for organizing sports competitions. While prior results have shown that it is often possible to manipulate a knockout tournament by fixing the bracket, these results ignore the prevalent aspect of player seeds, which can significantly constrain the chosen bracket. We show that certain structural conditions that guarantee that a player can win a knockout tournament without seeds are no longer sufficient in light of seed constraints. On the other hand, we prove that when the pairwise match outcomes are generated randomly, all players are still likely to be knockout winners under the same probability threshold with seeds as without seeds. In addition, we investigate the complexity of deciding whether a manipulation is possible when seeds are present.
Tournaments can be used to model a variety of practical scenarios including sports competitions and elections. A natural notion of strength of alternatives in a tournament is a generalized king: an alternative is said to be a $k$-king if it can reach every other alternative in the tournament via a directed path of length at most $k$. In this paper, we provide an almost complete characterization of the probability threshold such that all, a large number, or a small number of alternatives are $k$-kings with high probability in two random models. We show that, perhaps surprisingly, all changes in the threshold occur in the range of constant $k$, with the biggest change being between $k=2$ and $k=3$. In addition, we establish an asymptotically tight bound on the probability threshold for which all alternatives are likely able to win a single-elimination tournament under some bracket.
We consider the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to agents with weights representing their entitlements. A natural rule in this setting is the maximum weighted Nash welfare (MWNW) rule, which selects an allocation maximizing the weighted product of the agents' utilities. We show that when agents have binary valuations, a specific version of MWNW is resource- and population-monotone, satisfies group-strategyproofness, and can be implemented in polynomial time.
We study the allocation of indivisible goods that form an undirected graph and quantify the loss of fairness when we impose a constraint that each agent must receive a connected subgraph. Our focus is on well-studied fairness notions including envy-freeness and maximin share fairness. We introduce the price of connectivity to capture the largest gap between the graph-specific and the unconstrained maximin share, and derive bounds on this quantity which are tight for large classes of graphs in the case of two agents and for paths and stars in the general case. For instance, with two agents we show that for biconnected graphs it is possible to obtain at least $3/4$ of the maximin share with connected allocations, while for the remaining graphs the guarantee is at most $1/2$. In addition, we determine the optimal relaxation of envy-freeness that can be obtained with each graph for two agents, and characterize the set of trees and complete bipartite graphs that always admit an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) for three agents. Our work demonstrates several applications of graph-theoretic tools and concepts to fair division problems.
Schelling's model is an influential model that reveals how individual perceptions and incentives can lead to residential segregation. Inspired by a recent stream of work, we study welfare guarantees and complexity in this model with respect to several welfare measures. First, we show that while maximizing the social welfare is NP-hard, computing an assignment of agents to the nodes of any topology graph with approximately half of the maximum welfare can be done in polynomial time. We then consider Pareto optimality, introduce two new optimality notions based on it, and establish mostly tight bounds on the worst-case welfare loss for assignments satisfying these notions as well as the complexity of computing such assignments. In addition, we show that for tree topologies, it is possible to decide whether there exists an assignment that gives every agent a positive utility in polynomial time; moreover, when every node in the topology has degree at least $2$, such an assignment always exists and can be found efficiently.
The classic cake cutting problem concerns the fair allocation of a heterogeneous resource among interested agents. In this paper, we study a public goods variant of the problem, where instead of competing with one another for the cake, the agents all share the same subset of the cake which must be chosen subject to a length constraint. We focus on the design of truthful and fair mechanisms in the presence of strategic agents who have piecewise uniform utilities over the cake. On the one hand, we show that the leximin solution is truthful and moreover maximizes an egalitarian welfare measure among all truthful and position oblivious mechanisms. On the other hand, we demonstrate that the maximum Nash welfare solution is truthful for two agents but not in general. Our results assume that mechanisms can block each agent from accessing parts that the agent does not claim to desire; we provide an impossibility result when blocking is not allowed.
In multiwinner approval voting, the goal is to select $k$-member committees based on voters' approval ballots. A well-studied concept of proportionality in this context is the justified representation (JR) axiom, which demands that no large cohesive group of voters remains unrepresented. However, the JR axiom may conflict with other desiderata, such as coverage (maximizing the number of voters who approve at least one committee member) or social welfare (maximizing the number of approvals obtained by committee members). In this work, we investigate the impact of imposing the JR axiom (as well as the more demanding EJR axiom) on social welfare and coverage. Our approach is threefold: we derive worst-case bounds on the loss of welfare/coverage that is caused by imposing JR, study the computational complexity of finding 'good' committees that provide JR (obtaining a hardness result, an approximation algorithm, and an exact algorithm for one-dimensional preferences), and examine this setting empirically on several synthetic datasets.
We study a mechanism design problem where a community of agents wishes to fund public projects via voluntary monetary contributions by the community members. This serves as a model for public expenditure without an exogenously available budget, such as participatory budgeting or voluntary tax programs, as well as donor coordination when interpreting charities as public projects and donations as contributions. Our aim is to identify a mutually beneficial distribution of the individual contributions. In the preference aggregation problem that we study, agents report linear utility functions over projects together with the amount of their contributions, and the mechanism determines a socially optimal distribution of the money. We identify a specific mechanism -- the Nash product rule -- which picks the distribution that maximizes the product of the agents' utilities. This rule is Pareto efficient, and we prove that it satisfies attractive incentive properties: it spends each agent's contribution only on projects the agent finds acceptable, and agents are strongly incentivized to participate.
We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible items to agents with different entitlements, which captures, for example, the distribution of ministries among political parties in a coalition government. Our focus is on picking sequences derived from common apportionment methods, including five traditional divisor methods and the quota method. We paint a complete picture of these methods in relation to known envy-freeness and proportionality relaxations for indivisible items as well as monotonicity properties with respect to the resource, population, and weights. In addition, we provide characterizations of picking sequences satisfying each of the fairness notions, and show that the well-studied maximum Nash welfare solution fails resource- and population-monotonicity even in the unweighted setting. Our results serve as an argument in favor of using picking sequences in weighted fair division problems.