Chore division on a graph
- 17 Downloads
The paper considers fair allocation of indivisible nondisposable items that generate disutility (chores). We assume that these items are placed in the vertices of a graph and each agent’s share has to form a connected subgraph of this graph. Although a similar model has been investigated before for goods, we show that the goods and chores settings are inherently different. In particular, it is impossible to derive the solution of the chores instance from the solution of its naturally associated fair division instance. We consider three common fair division solution concepts, namely proportionality, envy-freeness and equitability, and two individual disutility aggregation functions: additive and maximum based. We show that deciding the existence of a fair allocation is hard even if the underlying graph is a path or a star. We also present some efficiently solvable special cases for these graph topologies.
KeywordsComputational social choice Resource allocation Fair division Indivisible chores
This work has been supported by the bilateral Slovak-French Grant of Campus France PHC STEFANIK 2018, 40562NF and Slovak Research and Development Agency APVV SK-FR-2017-0022. Sylvain Bouveret is also supported by the Project ANR-14-CE24-0007-01 CoCoRICo-CoDec. Katarína Cechlárová is also supported by VEGA Grants 1/0311/18 and 1/0056/18. Julien Lesca is also supported by the CNRS PEPS project JCJC Mappoleon. The authors would also like to thank anonymous referees who helped to improve the paper.
- 1.Abebe, R., Kleinberg, J., & Parkes, D. C. (2017). Fair division via social comparison. In Proceedings of AAMAS’17 (pp. 281–289).Google Scholar
- 2.Aumann, Y., & Dombb, Y. (2010). The efficiency of fair division with connected pieces. In International workshop on internet and network economics (pp. 26–37). Springer.Google Scholar
- 3.Aziz, H., Rauchecker, G., Schryen, G., & Walsh, T. (2017). Algorithms for max-min share fair allocation of indivisible chores. In S. P. Singh & S. Markovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-17) (pp. 335–341). San Francisco, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Bei, X., Qiao, Y., & Zhang, S. (2017) Networked fairness in cake cutting. In Proceedings of the 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-17) (pp. 3632–3638).Google Scholar
- 5.Berman, P., Karpinski, M., & Scott, A. D. (2003). Approximation hardness of short symmetric instances of MAX-3SAT. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity Report, number 49.Google Scholar
- 6.Bilò, V., Caragiannis, I., Flammini, M., Igarashi, A., Monaco, G., Peters, D., et al. (2018). Almost envy-free allocations with connected bundles. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1808.09406.
- 8.Bouveret, S., Chevaleyre, Y., & Maudet, N. (2015). Chapter 12: Fair allocation of indivisible goods. In F. Brandt, V. Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang, & A. D. Procaccia (Eds.), Handbook of computational social choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 9.Bouveret, S., Cechlárová, K., Elkind, E., Igarashi, A., & Peters, D. (2017). Fair division of a graph. In C. Sierra (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-17), Melbourne, Australia (pp. 135–141), ijcai.org.Google Scholar
- 11.Bredereck, R., Kaczmarczyk, A., & Niedermeier, R. (2018). Envy-free allocations respecting social networks. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2018) (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
- 16.Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., & Maudet, N. (2007). Allocating goods on a graph to eliminate envy. In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-07), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 700–705).Google Scholar
- 17.Dehghani, S., Farhadi, A., Hajiaghayi, M. T., & Yami, H. (2018). Envy-free chore division for an arbitrary number of agents. In Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, SODA 2018, New Orleans, LA, USA, January 7–10, 2018 (pp. 2564–2583).Google Scholar
- 20.Farhadi, A., & Hajiaghayi, M. (2018). On the complexity of chore division. In J. Lang (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-18), Stockholm, Sweden (pp. 226–232). ijcai.org.Google Scholar
- 21.Gardner, M. (1978). Aha! Insight. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
- 23.Gourvès, L., Lesca, J., & Wilczynski, A. (2017). Object allocation via swaps along a social network. In C. Sierra (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-17), Melbourne, Australia (pp. 213–219), ijcai.org.Google Scholar
- 25.Igarashi, A., & Peters, D. (2018). Pareto-optimal allocation of indivisible goods with connectivity constraints. Accepted to AAAI-19.Google Scholar
- 26.Lipton, R., Markakis, E., Mossel, E., & Saberi, A. (2004). On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of EC’04.Google Scholar
- 27.Lonc, Z., & Truszczynski, M. (2018). Maximin share allocations on cycles. In J. Lang (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-18), Stockholm, Sweden (pp. 410–416), ijcai.org.Google Scholar
- 28.Markakis, E., & Psomas, C.-A. (2011). On worst-case allocations in the presence of indivisible goods. In N. Chen, E. Elkind, & E. Koutsoupias (Eds.), Internet and network economics—7th international workshop, WINE 2011, Singapore, December 11–14, 2011. Proceedings, volume 7090 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.Google Scholar
- 29.Oh, H., Procaccia, A., & Suksompong, W. (2018). Fairly allocating many goods with few queries. arXiv:1807.11367.
- 34.Steinhaus, H. (1948). The problem of fair division. Econometrica, 16, 101–104.Google Scholar
- 37.Suksompong, W. (2017). Fairly allocating contiguous blocks of indivisible items. In Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on algorithmic game theory (SAGT’17) (pp. 333–344).Google Scholar