Papers for

resource allocation system designers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Subjective valuations increase difficulty of fair group resource sharing

Subjective Valuations Make It Hard to be Fair: The Complexity of Resource Allocation to Groups of Agents

Abstract: We study the parameterized complexity of finding an EF1 allocation of indivisible items in the group-sharing setting, which has received increasing attention in recent years. There, items are not allocated to individual agents but rather to one of two (or possibly more) groups, and agents within that group all share the assigned items. We consider both the "fixed" (EF1-Fix) and "variable" (EF1-Var) group cases, where in the former the assignments of agents to groups are prescribed. While both are NP-hard in the classical sense, we show that their algorithmic behavior differs significantly from the parameterized perspective. As our main results, we: (1) prove that both cases are NP-hard even when the number of agents is a small constant; (2) circumvent this hardness by establishing fixed-parameter tractability for EF1-Var w.r.t. the number of "subjective" items, that is, items which are viewed as chores or goods by different agents---but rule out an analogous result for EF1-Fix; and (3) establish fixed-parameter tractability for EF1-Fix w.r.t. the number of item types, but link the existence of an analogous fixed-parameter algorithm for EF1-Var to a fundamental open question in the setting of Integer Linear Programming.

Tue 20 OctComputer Science and Game TheoryComputational ComplexityData Structures and Algorithms
The gist
Dividing resources fairly among groups of people is tricky when different people value items differently. The authors study how hard it is to find a solution where no one envies another too much when groups share items. They show that even with few people, the problem is tough to solve, but they find special cases where algorithms can work well. Their work helps explain when fair sharing among groups is possible and when it is computationally difficult.
Open → 2610.28213v1

Exact cuts needed for fair cake shares with equal lengths

Exact Cut Complexity of Equal-Length Proportional Cake Cutting

Abstract: We study proportional cake cutting under an equal-length constraint, where each of $n$ agents must receive a bundle of length exactly $1/n$ that is worth at least $1/n$ to that agent. Our main result determines the exact worst-case number of cuts needed to guarantee such an allocation, namely $2n-2$ for every $n$. This improves on the previously known quadratic upper bound. The proof combines the constrained necklace-splitting theorem with a recursive assignment argument based on Hall's theorem. The same bound extends to the stronger requirement of envy-freeness when $n$ is a prime power, and an $O(n^{1.525})$ upper bound holds for arbitrary $n$. We then ask whether such allocations can be computed. We first show that no deterministic protocol in the Robertson--Webb model terminates after finitely many queries on every instance and always returns an exact equal-length proportional allocation, even for two agents with identical valuations. For every $\varepsilon>0$, however, $O(n^2/\varepsilon)$ queries suffice to produce an allocation in which every agent receives a bundle of length exactly $1/n$ and value at least $1/n-\varepsilon$, again using at most $2n-2$ cuts. Finally, we augment the Robertson--Webb model with two-knife queries. We show that recursive balanced halving attains the optimal bound of $2n-2$ cuts when $n$ is a power of two. For arbitrary $n$, we give a procedure using $O(n\log n)$ cuts.

Wed 14 OctMultiagent SystemsArtificial IntelligenceData Structures and Algorithms
The gist
This paper looks at how to fairly cut a cake into equal-length pieces so each person values their piece as fair. The authors found the exact minimum number of straight cuts needed to guarantee this, improving previous overestimates. They also show that it’s impossible to always find such a perfect division quickly, but approximate fair divisions can be made efficiently. Extensions include cases where no one envies another’s piece and new methods when using two 'knife' queries.
Open → 2610.19733v1

Minimizing overall envy when allocating items arriving over time

Minimizing Cumulative Envy in Allocating a Sequence of Items

Abstract: We study temporal fair division with indivisible goods that arrive sequentially and must be allocated irrevocably. In contrast to the usual online model, we assume that valuations and future arrivals are known in advance, and ask how unfairness evolves during the process. We introduce \emph{cumulative maximum envy}: the sum, over all rounds, of the maximum pairwise envy at that round. Equivalently, this is the area under the worst-envy curve, and it captures both the magnitude and the duration of envy. For a fixed arrival order, we show that the corresponding decision problem is strongly NP-complete and that minimizing this objective admits no constant-factor approximation unless P = NP, even under identical valuations and even under binary valuations. We complement these hardness results with a dynamic program that gives pseudopolynomial-time solvability for a constant number of agents, polynomial-time algorithms in further restricted settings, and an FPTAS for fixed $n$ under identical integer valuations. We then study a sequencing variant where the algorithm may choose the arrival order. This variant remains NP-complete even for two agents with identical valuations; however, a simple greedy algorithm achieves a $3/2$-approximation for $n=2$ agents, an $n/(n-1)$-approximation for any number of agents, and an additive guarantee depending on the maximum value of any good.

Wed 7 OctComputer Science and Game TheoryMultiagent Systems
The gist
This paper looks at how to fairly give out items that arrive one after another without taking any back. Unlike usual methods, it assumes we know in advance what items will arrive and how much everyone values them. The authors introduce a way to measure unfairness by adding up the worst feelings of envy over time. They show that finding the absolutely fairest way is very hard in general, but provide some algorithms that work well in special cases or for a small number of people.
Open → 2610.09843v1

Computational limits of fair item allocation with three value levels

Settling the Computational Complexity of Max-Min Allocation with Ternary Valuations

Abstract: We study the problem of computing an allocation of indivisible items that maximizes egalitarian welfare, i.e., the utility of the worst-off agent, when agents' item values or marginal values belong to a small set. For additive valuations with values in $\{p,q\}$, where $q>p>0$ and $\gcd(p,q)=1$, we give a polynomial-time algorithm when $p=2$ and prove constant-gap hardness when $p\geq3$, already with exactly three high-valued goods per agent. We also give an $\sqrt{3/2}$-approximation for common positive bi-valued additive valuations. For mixed additive valuations in $\{-p,0,c\}$, where $p\in\{1,2\}$ and $c$ is a positive integer, a reduction to maximum-weight perfect matching resolves the conjectured tractability of $\{-2,0,c\}$-valuations. For submodular valuations with marginals in $\{-2,0,c\}$, where $c$ is odd, we establish an exact unit-gap hardness result and exponential value-query lower bounds, even when all but one agent are additive. Finally, for $\{-1,0,1\}$-submodular valuations, we prove that no finite multiplicative approximation exists unless $\p=\np$. Together, our results resolve open questions and provide a complete picture of the computational complexity of max-min allocation with ternary valuations.

Sun 4 OctComputer Science and Game TheoryArtificial Intelligence
The gist
This paper looks at how to fairly divide a set of indivisible items among people when each item can have only a few different value levels for each person. The authors find which cases can be solved quickly by a computer and which are much harder, even impossible to approximate well. They explore different types of value settings, including positive-only values, mixed positive and negative values, and more complex valuation types. Their results settle long-standing questions about how hard it is to find the fairest allocation under these conditions.
Open → 2610.05237v1

Complexity and approximation of welfare maximizations with few agent and item types

Maximizing $p$-Mean Social Welfare in the High-Multiplicity Setting: Few Agent Types and Few Item Types

Abstract: The $p$-mean welfare objective unifies several classical social welfare criteria for the allocation of indivisible goods. We study its maximization under additive nonnegative utilities when item and agent multiplicities are encoded in binary. For every fixed finite rational $p<1$, $p\neq0$, we show that the problem is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard with only two item types. Nash welfare ($p=0$) and egalitarian welfare ($p=-\infty$) are NP-hard with three item types. These results hold both for computing an optimal allocation and for rational-threshold decision, and the utilities and threshold can be required to be positive integers. We also show that maximizing $p$-mean social welfare is strongly NP-hard with one agent type and an unrestricted number of item types, for every fixed finite rational $p<1$ and for $p=-\infty$. A quantitative gap in this reduction rules out an FPTAS in the latter setting unless $\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}$. On the positive side, for a fixed number of item types and an arbitrary number of agent types, we give an FPTAS for every fixed $p\in\mathbb Q\cup\{-\infty\}$. Its running time is polynomial in the compact input length and in $1/\varepsilon$, and it returns a compressed allocation. For a fixed number of agent types and an unrestricted number of item types, we give a PTAS for every fixed finite rational $p<1$, also in the fully compact model. We further give explicit compact-model proofs of the classical exact allocation algorithms for one item type, and for egalitarian welfare with two item types. These results essentially settle the complexity and approximability of $p$-mean welfare maximization with few item types and/or few agent types, leaving only the exact complexity of Nash welfare maximization with two item types unresolved in the small-item-type classification.

Sat 3 OctComputer Science and Game TheoryArtificial Intelligence
The gist
This paper looks at how hard it is to fairly divide items among people when both items and people come in a few different types, and you want to maximize a specific fairness measure called p-mean welfare. The authors show that finding the best distribution is usually very hard (NP-hard) for many cases, even if there are only two or three types of items or agents. They also provide efficient algorithms that can find nearly the best distribution when either the number of item types or the number of agent types is fixed.
Open → 2610.04417v1