English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
 
 
DownloadE-Mail
 PreviousNext  
  A Little Charity Guarantees Almost Envy-Freeness

Ray Chaudhury, B., Kavitha, T., Mehlhorn, K., & Sgouritsa, A. (2019). A Little Charity Guarantees Almost Envy-Freeness. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04596.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
arXiv:1907.04596.pdf (Preprint), 487KB
Name:
arXiv:1907.04596.pdf
Description:
File downloaded from arXiv at 2019-12-04 13:32
OA-Status:
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Ray Chaudhury, Bhaskar1, Author           
Kavitha, Telikepalli2, Author           
Mehlhorn, Kurt1, Author           
Sgouritsa, Alkmini1, Author           
Affiliations:
1Algorithms and Complexity, MPI for Informatics, Max Planck Society, ou_24019              
2External Organizations, ou_persistent22              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: Computer Science, Computer Science and Game Theory, cs.GT
 Abstract: Fair division of indivisible goods is a very well-studied problem. The goal
of this problem is to distribute $m$ goods to $n$ agents in a "fair" manner,
where every agent has a valuation for each subset of goods. We assume general
valuations.
Envy-freeness is the most extensively studied notion of fairness. However,
envy-free allocations do not always exist when goods are indivisible. The
notion of fairness we consider here is "envy-freeness up to any good" (EFX)
where no agent envies another agent after the removal of any single good from
the other agent's bundle. It is not known if such an allocation always exists
even when $n=3$.
We show there is always a partition of the set of goods into $n+1$ subsets
$(X_1,\ldots,X_n,P)$ where for $i \in [n]$, $X_i$ is the bundle allocated to
agent $i$ and the set $P$ is unallocated (or donated to charity) such that we
have$\colon$
1) envy-freeness up to any good,
2) no agent values $P$ higher than her own bundle, and
3) fewer than $n$ goods go to charity, i.e., $|P| < n$ (typically $m \gg n$).
Our proof is constructive. When agents have additive valuations and $\lvert P
\rvert$ is large (i.e., when $|P|$ is close to $n$), our allocation also has a
good maximin share (MMS) guarantee. Moreover, a minor variant of our algorithm
also shows the existence of an allocation which is $4/7$ groupwise maximin
share (GMMS): this is a notion of fairness stronger than MMS. This improves
upon the current best bound of $1/2$ known for an approximate GMMS allocation.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 2019-07-102019-07-122019
 Publication Status: Published online
 Pages: 20 p.
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: arXiv: 1907.04596
URI: http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04596
BibTex Citekey: Ray_arXiv1907.04596
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source

show