skip to main content
research-article

Approximating Nash Social Welfare under Submodular Valuations through (Un)Matchings

Published:26 September 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study the problem of approximating maximum Nash social welfare (NSW) when allocating m indivisible items among n asymmetric agents with submodular valuations. The NSW is a well-established notion of fairness and efficiency, defined as the weighted geometric mean of agents’ valuations. For special cases of the problem with symmetric agents and additive(-like) valuation functions, approximation algorithms have been designed using approaches customized for these specific settings, and they fail to extend to more general settings. Hence, no approximation algorithm with a factor independent of m was known either for asymmetric agents with additive valuations or for symmetric agents beyond additive(-like) valuations before this work.

In this article, we extend our understanding of the NSW problem to far more general settings. Our main contribution is two approximation algorithms for asymmetric agents with additive and submodular valuations. Both algorithms are simple to understand and involve non-trivial modifications of a greedy repeated matchings approach. Allocations of high-valued items are done separately by un-matching certain items and re-matching them by different processes in both algorithms. We show that these approaches achieve approximation factors of O(n) and O(n log n) for additive and submodular cases, independent of the number of items. For additive valuations, our algorithm outputs an allocation that also achieves the fairness property of envy-free up to one item (EF1).

Furthermore, we show that the NSW problem under submodular valuations is strictly harder than all currently known settings with an \(\frac{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}-1}\) factor of the hardness of approximation, even for constantly many agents. For this case, we provide a different approximation algorithm that achieves a factor of \(\frac{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}-1}\), hence resolving it completely.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Anari Nima, Gharan Shayan Oveis, Saberi Amin, and Singh Mohit. 2017. Nash social welfare, matrix permanent, and stable polynomials. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conf. (ITCS’17). 112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Anari Nima, Mai Tung, Gharan Shayan Oveis, and Vazirani Vijay V.. 2018. Nash social welfare for indivisible items under separable, piecewise-linear concave utilities. In Proc. 29th Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Annamalai Chidambaram, Kalaitzis Christos, and Svensson Ola. 2015. Combinatorial algorithm for restricted max-min fair allocation. In Proc. 26th Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’15). 13571372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Asadpour Arash and Saberi Amin. 2010. An approximation algorithm for max-min fair allocation of indivisible goods. SIAM Journal on Computing 39, 7 (2010), 29702989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. [5] Bansal Nikhil and Sviridenko Maxim. 2006. The Santa Claus problem. In Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC’06). 3140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Barman Siddharth, Bhaskar Umang, Krishna Anand, and Sundaram Ranjani G.. 2020. Tight approximation algorithms for p-Mean welfare under subadditive valuations. In 28th Annual European Symp. on Algorithms (ESA’20) (Virtual Conference)(LIPIcs, Vol. 173), Grandoni Fabrizio, Herman Grzegorz, and Sanders Peter (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 11:1–11:17. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Barman Siddharth, Krishna Anand, Kulkarni Pooja, and Narang Shivika. 2021. Sublinear approximation algorithm for Nash social welfare with XOS valuations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00767 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Barman Siddharth, Krishnamurthy Sanath Kumar, and Vaish Rohit. 2018. Finding fair and efficient allocations. In Proc. 19th Conf. on Economics and Computation (EC’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Bezáková Ivona and Dani Varsha. 2005. Allocating indivisible goods. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 5, 3 (2005), 1118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Budish Eric. 2011. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy 119, 6 (2011), 10611103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Caragiannis Ioannis, Kurokawa David, Moulin Herve, Procaccia Ariel, Shah Nisarg, and Wang Junxing. 2016. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. In Proc. 17th Conf. on Economics and Computation (EC’16). 305322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Chae Suchan and Moulin Herve. 2010. Bargaining among groups: An axiomatic viewpoint. International Journal of Game Theory 39 (2010), 7188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Chaudhury Bhaskar Ray, Garg Jugal, and Mehta Ruta. 2021. Fair and efficient allocations under subadditive valuations. In Proc. AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 52695276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Chekuri Chandra, Vondrak Jan, and Zenklusen Rico. 2010. Dependent randomized rounding via exchange properties of combinatorial structures. In 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 575584.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Cheung Yun Kuen, Chaudhuri Bhaskar, Garg Jugal, Garg Naveen, Hoefer Martin, and Mehlhorn Kurt. 2018. On fair division of indivisible items. In Proc. 38th Conf. Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS’18). 25:1–25:17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Cole Richard, Devanur Nikhil, Gkatzelis Vasilis, Jain Kamal, Mai Tung, Vazirani Vijay, and Yazdanbod Sadra. 2017. Convex program duality, Fisher markets, and Nash social welfare. In Proc. 18th Conf. on Economics and Computation (EC’17).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Cole Richard and Gkatzelis Vasilis. 2018. Approximating the Nash social welfare with indivisible items. SIAM Journal on Computing 47, 3 (2018), 12111236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Conitzer Vincent, Freeman Rupert, Shah Nisarg, and Vaughan Jennifer Wortman. 2019. Group fairness for the allocation of indivisible goods. In Pro. 33rd AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Davies Sami, Rothvoss Thomas, and Zhang Yihao. 2020. A tale of Santa Claus, hypergraphs and matroids. In Proc. 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 27482757.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Degefu Dagmawi Mulugeta, Weijun He, Liang Yuan, An Min, and Qi Zhang. 2018. Bankruptcy to surplus: Sharing transboundary river Basin’s water under scarcity. Water Resources Management 32, 8 (2018), 27352751.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Garg Jugal, Hoefer Martin, and Mehlhorn Kurt. 2019. Approximating the Nash social welfare with budget-additive valuations. arxiv:1707.04428 (2019). Preliminary version appeared in the Proceedings of SODA 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Garg Jugal, Husić Edin, Li Wenzheng, Végh László A., and Vondrák Jan. 2022. Approximating Nash social welfare by matching and local search. arXiv:2211.03883 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [23] Garg Jugal, Husić Edin, and Végh László A.. 2021. Approximating Nash social welfare under Rado valuations. In Proc. of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symp. on Theory of Computing. 14121425.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Garg Jugal, Kulkarni Pooja, and Kulkarni Rucha. 2020. Approximating Nash social welfare under submodular valuations through (Un)Matchings. In Proc. 31st Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’20). 26732687.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Garg Jugal and McGlaughlin Peter. 2019. Improving Nash social welfare approximations. In Proc. International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Houba H., Laan G. Van der, and Zeng Y.. 2014. Asymmetric Nash solutions in the river sharing problem. Strategic Behavior and the Environment 4, 4 (2014), 321360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Harsanyi J. and Selten R.. 1972. A generalized Nash solution for two-person bargaining games with incomplete information. Management Science 18 (1972), 80106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Kalai E.. 1977. Nonsymmetric Nash solutions and replications of 2-person bargaining. International Journal of Game Theory 6 (1977), 129133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Kelly Frank. 1997. Charging and rate control for elastic traffic. European Transactions on Telecommunications 8 (1997), 3337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Khot Subhash, Lipton Richard, Markakis Evangelos, and Mehta Aranyak. 2008. Inapproximability results for combinatorial auctions with submodular utility functions. Algorithmica 52, 1 (2008), 318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Khot Subhash and Ponnuswami Ashok Kumar. 2007. Approximation algorithms for the max-min allocation problem. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques. Springer, 204217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Laruellea Annick and Valenciano Federico. 2007. Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash’s bargaining theory. Journal of Economic Theory 132 (2007), 291305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Lee Euiwoong. 2017. APX-hardness of maximizing Nash social welfare with indivisible items. Information Processing Letters 122 (2017), 1720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Lehmann Benny, Lehmann Daniel, and Nisan Noam. 2006. Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities. Games and Economic Behavior 55, 2 (2006), 270296.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Li Wenzheng and Vondrák Jan. 2022. A constant-factor approximation algorithm for Nash social welfare with submodular valuations. In 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’22). IEEE, 2536.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Moulin Herve. 2003. Fair Division and Collective Welfare. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Nash John. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 2 (1950), 155162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Nguyen Trung Thanh and Rothe Jörg. 2014. Minimizing envy and maximizing average Nash social welfare in the allocation of indivisible goods. Discrete Applied Mathematics 179 (2014), 5468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Nisan Noam, Tardos Éva, Roughgarden Tim, and Vazirani Vijay (Eds.). 2007. Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Svitkina Zoya and Fleischer Lisa. 2011. Submodular approximation: Sampling-based algorithms and lower bounds. SIAM Journal on Computing 40, 6 (2011), 17151737.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Thomson W.. 1986. Replication invariance of bargaining solutions. International Journal on Game Theory 15 (1986), 5963.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Varian Hal R.. 1974. Equity, envy, and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory 9, 1 (1974), 6391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Vondrák Jan. 2008. Optimal approximation for the submodular welfare problem in the value oracle model. In Proc. 40th Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC’08). 6774.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Yu S., Ierland E. C. van, Weikard H.-P., and Zhu X.. 2017. Nash bargaining solutions for international climate agreements under different sets of bargaining weights. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17, 5 (2017), 709729.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Approximating Nash Social Welfare under Submodular Valuations through (Un)Matchings

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Algorithms
        ACM Transactions on Algorithms  Volume 19, Issue 4
        October 2023
        255 pages
        ISSN:1549-6325
        EISSN:1549-6333
        DOI:10.1145/3614237
        • Editor:
        • Edith Cohen
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 September 2023
        • Online AM: 16 August 2023
        • Accepted: 31 July 2023
        • Revised: 9 May 2023
        • Received: 29 December 2019
        Published in talg Volume 19, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)208
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text