Georgios Amanatidis

Georgios Amanatidis, Anna Korfiati, Evangelos Markakis et al.

We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of $n$ agents with additive valuation functions. We focus on the very demanding notion of \textit{groupwise maximin share fairness} (GMMS), which requires that each agent $i$ receives value comparable to their maximin share, where the latter is computed \textit{with respect to any subset of agents that contains $i$}. We show that it is possible to compute $(ϕ-1)$-approximate GMMS allocations in polynomial time, where $ϕ\approx 1.618$ is the golden ratio). This improves on the previously known guarantee of $4/7$ of Chaudhury et al. [SICOMP; 2021] and Amanatidis et al. [TCS; 2020]. We propose a simple algorithm that maintains the same main properties as the Draft-and-Eliminate algorithm of Amanatidis et al. [TCS, 2020] and we improve on the approximation guarantee analysis by carefully bounding the relevant value within any subinstance induced by the restriction of our allocation to a subset of agents. Our analysis is asymptotically tight for algorithms that share these properties and has the additional benefit of giving improved guarantees for restricted settings; in particular, when the agents agree on the top $n$ goods or when the number of agents is small. To illustrate the challenges of going beyond the guarantees of our algorithm, we also present a variant with an improved approximation of $(\sqrt{10}-1)/3 \approx 0.72$ for the case of three agents. To achieve this improvement we partially characterize the maximin share guarantees of short picking sequences for a small number of goods.

Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos et al.

Constrained maximization of submodular functions is a central problem in combinatorial optimization. In many realistic scenarios, multiple agents each need to maximize their own submodular objective over a common ground set, subject to individual constraints, with the requirement that their solutions be disjoint. We study this setting through the lens of algorithmic fairness and constrained fair division. Inspired by the fair division literature, we propose and analyze a simple Round-Robin protocol in which agents take turns building their solutions one item at a time; each agent is free to use any internal algorithm, and the protocol itself performs no computation. We show that agents following simple greedy policies enjoy solid guarantees for both monotone and non-monotone objectives subject to constraints as general as $p$-systems. For monotone objectives, a greedy agent $i$ with a $p_i$-system constraint achieves a $1/(n+p_i)$ fraction of the best value available when they first get to choose. On instances that are robust to competition -- where no agent's optimal value is greatly affected by losing some items to others -- these guarantees improve to a $1/Θ(p_i)$ approximation of the unconstrained optimum, which is asymptotically best-possible in polynomial time. We further establish novel fairness guarantees: greedy agents produce approximately feasible-envy-free-up-to-one-item (FEF1) and approximately feasible-envy-free-towards-unallocated-items (FEFu) allocations for monotone and non-monotone objectives. Via a simple augmented protocol and a self-contained polynomial-time proxy algorithm, we also obtain the first $Θ(1/p_i)$-approximate feasible maximin share (FMMS) guarantees for submodular agents with combinatorial constraints. Finally, although greedy policies may not be individually optimal, consistently improving upon them is NP-hard even in the simplest settings.

Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser

With strong evidence in the literature showing that fairness and truthfulness are incompatible, there is a recent line of work focusing on the fairness properties of equilibria of simple fair division mechanisms, especially Round-Robin. We consider the Envy Cycle Elimination (E-C-E) procedure of Lipton et al. [23], one of the most versatile tools in fair division. While this simple and intuitive algorithm achieves allocations that are envy-free up to one item (EF1) for any number of agents and general monotone valuation functions, surprisingly little is known about its behavior when agents act strategically. We demonstrate how the presence of incentives, although highly natural and relevant for the majority of applications, completely removes the intuitive clarity in the algorithm's execution, even for a few agents and very simple valuation functions. Additionally, while in the standard algorithmic setting there is great flexibility in how the details of E-C-E are implemented, here additional specifications are needed before the procedure is clearly defined, the choice of which has a potentially huge impact on the agents' behavior. Despite these obstacles, for various natural versions of E-C-E, we give the first results on the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria of the resulting mechanisms, and show there exist versions where fairness guarantees are approximately preserved for agents who play best responses.

Georgios Amanatidis, Alexandros Lolos, Evangelos Markakis et al.

We study an online fair division setting, where goods arrive one at a time and there is a fixed set of $n$ agents, each of whom has an additive valuation function over the goods. Once a good appears, the value each agent has for it is revealed and it must be allocated immediately and irrevocably to one of the agents. It is known that without any assumptions about the values being severely restricted or coming from a distribution, very strong impossibility results hold in this setting. To bypass the latter, we turn our attention to instances where the valuation functions are restricted. In particular, we study personalized $2$-value instances, where there are only two possible values each agent may have for each good, possibly different across agents, and we show how to obtain worst case guarantees with respect to well-known fairness notions, such as maximin share fairness and envy-freeness up to one (or two) good(s). We suggest a deterministic algorithm that maintains a $1/(2n-1)$-MMS allocation at every time step and show that this is the best possible any deterministic algorithm can achieve if one cares about every single time step; nevertheless, eventually the allocation constructed by our algorithm becomes a $1/4$-MMS allocation. To achieve this, the algorithm implicitly maintains a fragile system of priority levels for all agents. Further, we show that, by allowing some limited access to future information, it is possible to have stronger results with less involved approaches. By knowing the values of goods for $n-1$ time steps into the future, we design a matching-based algorithm that achieves an EF$1$ allocation every $n$ time steps, while always maintaining an EF$2$ allocation. Finally, we show that our results allow us to get the first nontrivial guarantees for additive instances in which the ratio of the maximum over the minimum value an agent has for a good is bounded.

Georgios Amanatidis, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alkmini Sgouritsa

We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of agents with additive valuation functions, aiming to achieve approximate envy-freeness up to any good ($α$-EFX). The state-of-the-art results on the problem include that (exact) EFX allocations exist when (a) there are at most three agents, or (b) the agents' valuation functions can take at most two values, or (c) the agents' valuation functions can be represented via a graph. For $α$-EFX, it is known that a $0.618$-EFX allocation exists for any number of agents with additive valuation functions. In this paper, we show that $2/3$-EFX allocations exist when (a) there are at most \emph{seven agents}, (b) the agents' valuation functions can take at most \emph{three values}, or (c) the agents' valuation functions can be represented via a \emph{multigraph}. Our results can be interpreted in two ways. First, by relaxing the notion of EFX to $2/3$-EFX, we obtain existence results for strict generalizations of the settings for which exact EFX allocations are known to exist. Secondly, by imposing restrictions on the setting, we manage to beat the barrier of $0.618$ and achieve an approximation guarantee of $2/3$. Therefore, our results push the \emph{frontier} of existence and computation of approximate EFX allocations, and provide insights into the challenges of settling the existence of exact EFX allocations.

Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Federico Fusco et al.

We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of strategic agents with additive valuation functions. We assume no monetary transfers and, therefore, a mechanism in our setting is an algorithm that takes as input the reported -- rather than the true -- values of the agents. Our main goal is to explore whether there exist mechanisms that have pure Nash equilibria for every instance and, at the same time, provide fairness guarantees for the allocations that correspond to these equilibria. We focus on two relaxations of envy-freeness, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), and we positively answer the above question. In particular, we study two algorithms that are known to produce such allocations in the non-strategic setting: Round-Robin (EF1 allocations for any number of agents) and a cut-and-choose algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden [SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 2020] (EFX allocations for two agents). For Round-Robin we show that all of its pure Nash equilibria induce allocations that are EF1 with respect to the underlying true values, while for the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden we show that the corresponding allocations not only are EFX but also satisfy maximin share fairness, something that is not true for this algorithm in the non-strategic setting! Further, we show that a weaker version of the latter result holds for any mechanism for two agents that always has pure Nash equilibria which all induce EFX allocations.

Georgios Amanatidis, Federico Fusco, Philip Lazos et al.

Submodular maximization is a classic algorithmic problem with multiple applications in data mining and machine learning; there, the growing need to deal with massive instances motivates the design of algorithms balancing the quality of the solution with applicability. For the latter, an important measure is the adaptive complexity, which captures the number of sequential rounds of parallel computation needed by an algorithm to terminate. In this work we obtain the first constant factor approximation algorithm for non-monotone submodular maximization subject to a knapsack constraint with near-optimal $O(\log n)$ adaptive complexity. Low adaptivity by itself, however, is not enough: a crucial feature to account for is represented by the total number of function evaluations (or value queries). Our algorithm asks $\tilde{O}(n^2)$ value queries, but can be modified to run with only $\tilde{O}(n)$ instead, while retaining a low adaptive complexity of $O(\log^2n)$. Besides the above improvement in adaptivity, this is also the first combinatorial approach with sublinear adaptive complexity for the problem and yields algorithms comparable to the state-of-the-art even for the special cases of cardinality constraints or monotone objectives.

Georgios Amanatidis, Federico Fusco, Philip Lazos et al.

Constrained submodular maximization problems encompass a wide variety of applications, including personalized recommendation, team formation, and revenue maximization via viral marketing. The massive instances occurring in modern day applications can render existing algorithms prohibitively slow, while frequently, those instances are also inherently stochastic. Focusing on these challenges, we revisit the classic problem of maximizing a (possibly non-monotone) submodular function subject to a knapsack constraint. We present a simple randomized greedy algorithm that achieves a $5.83$ approximation and runs in $O(n \log n)$ time, i.e., at least a factor $n$ faster than other state-of-the-art algorithms. The robustness of our approach allows us to further transfer it to a stochastic version of the problem. There, we obtain a 9-approximation to the best adaptive policy, which is the first constant approximation for non-monotone objectives. Experimental evaluation of our algorithms showcases their improved performance on real and synthetic data.