Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distributed envy minimization for resource allocation

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Minimizing envy in distributed discrete resource or task allocation, is an unusual distributed optimization challenge, since the quality of the allocation for each of the agents is dependent, not only on its own allocation, but on the allocation of others as well. Thus, in order to perform distributed search for allocations with minimal envy there is a need to design innovative algorithms that can cope with the challenging constraint structure of an envy minimization problem. Distributed methods for minimizing envy among agents in indivisible resource allocation problems are presented. First, Distributed Envy Minimization Problems (DEMP) are formulated as Distributed Constraint Reasoning problems. When the DEMPs are large, and cannot be solved by a complete search an incomplete local search algorithm is presented. Each transfer of a good from one agent to another involves the change of state of more than one agent. Thus, a minimizing envy local search algorithm must build upon actions (transfers) that include multiple agents. Since DEMPs are particularly susceptible to local minima during local search, the paper proposes an algorithm that alternates between two different hill climbing search phases. The first phase uses one-transfer steps while the other exploits envy cycle elimination steps. An algorithm that minimizes envy while preserving efficiency, is proposed. The proposed algorithm finds a Pareto optimal allocation with low envy. In the context of resource allocation problems, a Pareto optimal solution is particularly desirable since it presents a stable solution. The proposed algorithm first finds a divisible Pareto optimal envy-free allocation using a Fisher market equilibrium. This allocation is transferred into an indivisible allocation of goods while maintaining the Pareto optimal characteristic of the allocation and a low envy level among agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amador, S., Okamoto, S., & Zivan, R. (2014). Dynamic multi-agent task allocation with spatial and temporal constraints. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1384–1390.

  2. Barbanel, J. (1999). Partition ratios, pareto optimal cake division, and related notions. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 32, 401–428.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Brams, S. J., & Taylor, A. D. (1996). Fair division: From cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Brams, S. J., Feldman, M., Lai, J. K., Morgenstern, J., & Procaccia, A. D. (2012). On maxsum fair cake divisions. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

  5. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., & Maudet, N. (2007). Allocating goods on a graph to eliminate envy. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 700–705.

  6. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Estivie, S., & Maudet, N. (2007). Reaching envy-free states in distributed negotiation settings. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1239–1244.

  7. Devanur, N. R., Papadimitriou, C. H., Saberi, A., & Vazirani, V. V. (2002). Market equilibrium via a primal-dual-type algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS, pp. 389–395.

  8. Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., & Toni, F. (2006). Negotiating socially optimal allocations of resources. Journal of Artificial Intelligence (JAIR), 25, 315–348.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Foley, D. (1967). Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale economic essays vol. 7.

  10. Gale, D. (1960). The theory of linear economic models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gershman, A., Meisels, A., & Zivan, R. (2009). Asynchronous forward bounding. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 34, 25–46.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Grinshpoun, T., Grubshtein, A., Zivan, R., Netzer, A., & Meisels, A. (2013). Asymmetric distributed constraint optimization problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 195, 613–647.

  13. Hirayama, K., & Yokoo, M. (1997). Distributed partial constraint satisfaction problem. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-97), pp. 222–236.

  14. Jain, K. (2004). A polynomial time algorithm for computing an arrow-debreu market equilibrium for linear utilities. In: Proceedings of the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 286–294.

  15. Kleinberg, J. M., Rabani, Y., & Tardos, É. (2001). Fairness in routing and load balancing. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(1), 2–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Larrosa, J., & Meseguer, P. (1996). Phase transition in max-csp. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96), Budapest, pp. 190–194.

  17. Lee, C. Y., Moon, Y. P., & Cho, Y. J. (2004). A lexicographically fair allocation of discrete bandwidth for multirate multicast traffics. Computers & Operations Research, 31(14), 2349–2363.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Lipton, R. J., Markakis, E., Mossel, E., & Saberi, A. (2004). On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 125–131.

  19. Lisý, V., Zivan, R., Sycara, K. P., & Pechoucek, M. (2010). Deception in networks of mobile sensing agents. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-10), Toronto, pp. 1031–1038.

  20. Lynch, N. A. (1996). Distributed algorithms. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Maheswaran, R. T., Pearce, J. P., & Tambe, M. (2004). Distributed algorithms for DCOP: A graphical-game-based approach. In: Proceedings of the Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems PDCS), pp. 432–439.

  22. Maheswaran, R. T., Tambe, M., Bowring, E., Pearce, J. P., & Varakantham, P. (2004). Taking DCOP to the real world: Efficient complete solutions for distributed multi-event scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-04), New York, NY, pp. 310–317.

  23. Meisels, A. (2007). Distributed search by constrained agents: Algorithms, performance, communication. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moulin, H. (1988). Axioms of cooperative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Moulin, H. (2004). Fair division and collective welfare. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Netzer, A., Grubshtein, A., & Meisels, A. (2012). Concurrent forward bounding for distributed constraint optimization problems. Artificial Intelligence (AIJ), 193, 186–216.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Nguyen, T., & Rothe, J. (2013). How to decrease the degree of envy in allocations of indivisible goods. Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT), 8176, 271–284.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Okimoto, T., Joe, Y., Iwasaki, A., Yokoo, M., & Faltings, B. (2011). Pseudo-tree-based incomplete algorithm for distributed constraint optimization with quality bounds. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 660–674.

  29. Pearce, J. P., & Tambe, M. (2007). Quality guarantees on k-optimal solutions for distributed constraint optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1446–1451.

  30. Petcu, A., & Faltings, B. (2005). Approximations in distributed optimization. In: Proceedings of the Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP, pp. 802–806.

  31. Reijnierse, J. H., & Potters, J. A. M. (1998). On finding an envy-free pareto-optimal division. Mathematical Programming, 83, 291–311.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosenschein, J. S., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of encounter: Designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stranders, R., Farinelli, A., Rogers, A., & Jennings, N. R. (2009) Decentralised coordination of continuously valued control parameters using the max-sum algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference Autonomous Agents Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-09), Budapest, pp. 601–608.

  34. Vetschera, R. (2010). A general branch-and-bound algorithm for fair division problems. Computers & Operations Research, 37(12), 2121–2130.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Xiaotie Deng, C. H. P., & Safra, S. (2002). On the complexity of equilibria. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 67–71.

  36. Yeoh, W., Felner, A., & Koenig, S. (2010). BnB-ADOPT: An asynchronous branch-and-bound DCOP algorithm. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 38, 85–133.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Yokoo, M. (2000). Algorithms for distributed constraint satisfaction problems: A review. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3, 198–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, L. (2011). Proportional response dynamics in the fisher market. Theoretical Computer Science, 412(24), 2691–2698.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang, W., Xing, Z., Wang, G., & Wittenburg, L. (2005). Distributed stochastic search and distributed breakout: properties, comparison and applications to constraints optimization problems in sensor networks. Artificial Intelligence, 161(1–2), 55–88.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Zivan, R., & Meisels, A. (2006). Message delay and DisCSP search algorithms. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), 46, 415–439.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Arnon Netzer, Amnon Meisels & Roie Zivan

Authors
  1. Arnon Netzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amnon Meisels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roie Zivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnon Netzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Netzer, A., Meisels, A. & Zivan, R. Distributed envy minimization for resource allocation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 30, 364–402 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9291-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9291-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation