skip to main content
10.1145/3033274.3085123acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Controlled Dynamic Fair Division

Published: 20 June 2017 Publication History

Abstract

In the single-resource dynamic fair division framework there is a homogeneous resource that is shared between agents dynamically arriving and departing over time. When n agents are present, there is only one truly ``fair'' allocation: each agent receives 1/n of the resource. Implementing this static solution in the dynamic world is notoriously impractical; there are too many disruptions to existing allocations: for a new agent to get her fair share, all other agents must give up a small piece.
A natural remedy is simply to restrict the number of allowed disruptions when a new agent arrives. [16] considered this setting, and introduced a natural benchmark - the fairness ratio - the ratio of the minimal share to the ideal share (1/k when there are k agents in the system). They described an algorithm that obtains the optimal fairness ratio when d ≥ 1 disruptions are allowed per arriving agent. However, in systems with high arrival rates even one disruption per arrival can be too costly. We consider the scenario when fewer than one disruption per arrival is allowed. We show that we can maintain high levels of fairness even with significantly fewer than one disruption per arrival. In particular, we present an instance-optimal algorithm (the input to the algorithm is a vector of allowed disruptions) and show that the fairness ratio of this algorithm decays logarithmically with c, where c is the longest number of consecutive time steps in which we are not allowed any disruptions.
We then consider dynamic fair division with multiple, heterogeneous resources. In this model, agents demand the resources in fixed proportions, known in economics as Leontief preferences. We show that the general problem is NP-hard, even if the resource demands are binary and known in advance. We study the case where the fairness criterion is Dominant Resource Fairness (DRF), and the demand vectors are binary. We design a generic algorithm for this setting using a reduction to the single-resource case. To prove an impossibility result, we take an integer program for the problem and analyze an algorithm for constructing dual solutions to a ``residual'' linear program; this approach may be of independent interest.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (06b_02friedman.mp4)

References

[1]
Martin Aleksandrov, Haris Aziz, Serge Gaspers, and Toby Walsh. 2015. Online fair division: analysing a food bank problem. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 2540--2546.
[2]
Noga Alon. 1987. Splitting necklaces. Advances in Mathematics 63, 3 (1987), 247--253.
[3]
Haris Aziz and Simon Mackenzie. 2016. A Discrete and Bounded Envy-Free Cake Cutting Protocol for Any Number of Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.03655 (2016).
[4]
Haris Aziz and Simon Mackenzie. 2016. A discrete and bounded envy-free cake cutting protocol for four agents. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 454--464.
[5]
Arka A. Bhattacharya, David Culler, Eric Friedman, Ali Ghodsi, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2013. Hierarchical Scheduling for Diverse Datacenter Workloads. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC '13). 4:1--4:15.
[6]
Steven J Brams and Alan D Taylor. 1995. An envy-free cake division protocol. Amer. Math. Monthly (1995), 9--18.
[7]
Eric Budish. 2011. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy 119, 6 (2011), 1061--1103.
[8]
Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, HervéMoulin, Ariel D Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, Junxing Wang, et al. 2016. The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare. Technical Report.
[9]
Edith Cohen, Graham Cormode, Nick G. Duffield, and Carsten Lund. 2016. On the Tradeoff between Stability and Fit. ACM Trans. Algorithms 13, 1 (2016), 7:1--7:24.
[10]
Richard Cole and Vasilis Gkatzelis. 2015. Approximating the Nash social welfare with indivisible items. In Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 371--380.
[11]
Nikhil R Devanur, Christos H Papadimitriou, Amin Saberi, and Vijay V Vazirani. 2008. Market equilibrium via a primal--dual algorithm for a convex program. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 55, 5 (2008), 22.
[12]
Danny Dolev, Dror G. Feitelson, Joseph Y. Halpern, Raz Kupferman, and Nathan Linial. 2012. No Justified Complaints: On Fair Sharing of Multiple Resources. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 68--75.
[13]
Lester E Dubins and Edwin H Spanier. 1961. How to cut a cake fairly. American mathematical monthly (1961), 1--17.
[14]
Leah Epstein and Asaf Levin. 2011. Robust algorithms for preemptive scheduling. In European Symposium on Algorithms. Springer, 567--578.
[15]
Eric Friedman, Ali Ghodsi, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. 2014. Strategyproof allocation of discrete jobs on multiple machines. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation. ACM, 529--546.
[16]
Eric J. Friedman, Christos-Alexandros Psomas, and Shai Vardi. 2015. Dynamic Fair Division with Minimal Disruptions. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '15, Portland, OR, USA, June 15-19, 2015. 697--713.
[17]
Ali Ghodsi, Vyas Sekar, Matei Zaharia, and Ion Stoica. 2012. Multi-resource fair queueing for packet processing. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 42, 4 (2012), 1--12.
[18]
Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2011. Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI'11). 24--24.
[19]
Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2013. Choosy: Max-min Fair Sharing for Datacenter Jobs with Constraints. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys '13). 365--378.
[20]
Albert Gu, Anupam Gupta, and Amit Kumar. 2016. The power of deferral: maintaining a constant-competitive steiner tree online. SIAM J. Comput. 45, 1 (2016), 1--28.
[21]
Mingyu Guo, Vincent Conitzer, and Daniel M Reeves. 2009. Competitive repeated allocation without payments. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics. Springer, 244--255.
[22]
Anupam Gupta and Amit Kumar. 2014. Online steiner tree with deletions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 455--467.
[23]
Anupam Gupta, Amit Kumar, and Cliff Stein. 2014. Maintaining assignments online: Matching, scheduling, and flows. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 468--479.
[24]
Avital Gutman and Noam Nisan. 2012. Fair allocation without trade. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 2. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 719--728.
[25]
Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Matei Zaharia, Ali Ghodsi, Anthony D Joseph, Randy H Katz, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2011. Mesos: A Platform for Fine-Grained Resource Sharing in the Data Center. In NSDI, Vol. 11. 22--22.
[26]
Michael Isard, Vijayan Prabhakaran, Jon Currey, Udi Wieder, Kunal Talwar, and Andrew Goldberg. 2009. Quincy: fair scheduling for distributed computing clusters. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd symposium on Operating systems principles. ACM, 261--276.
[27]
Carlee Joe-Wong, Soumya Sen, Tian Lan, and Mung Chiang. 2013. Multiresource allocation: Fairness-eficiency tradeoffs in a unifying framework. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) 21, 6 (2013), 1785--1798.
[28]
Ehud Kalai and Meir Smorodinsky. 1975. Other solutions to Nash's bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1975), 513--518.
[29]
Ian Kash, Ariel D Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. 2013. No agent left behind: Dynamic fair division of multiple resources. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. 351--358.
[30]
David Kurokawa, Ariel D Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. 2015. Leximin allocations in the real world. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 345--362.
[31]
Dejan S Milojičić, Fred Douglis, Yves Paindaveine, Richard Wheeler, and Songnian Zhou. 2000. Process migration. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 32, 3 (2000), 241--299.
[32]
John F Nash Jr. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1950), 155--162.
[33]
Abraham Othman, Christos Papadimitriou, and Aviad Rubinstein. 2014. The complexity of fairness through equilibrium. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation. ACM, 209--226.
[34]
David C. Parkes, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. 2012. Beyond Dominant Resource Fairness: Extensions, Limitations, and Indivisibilities. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC '12). 808--825.
[35]
Elisha A Pazner and David Schmeidler. 1978. Egalitarian equivalent allocations: A new concept of economic equity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1978), 671--687.
[36]
Steven Phillips and Jeffery Westbrook. 1993. Online load balancing and network flow. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, 402--411.
[37]
Lucian Popa, Gautam Kumar, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Sylvia Ratnasamy, and Ion Stoica. 2012. FairCloud: sharing the network in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2012 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication. ACM, 187--198.
[38]
Peter Sanders, Naveen Sivadasan, and Martin Skutella. 2009. Online scheduling with bounded migration. Mathematics of Operations Research 34, 2 (2009), 481--498.
[39]
Erel Segal-Halevi. 2016. How to Re-Divide a Cake Fairly. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00286 (2016).
[40]
Hadas Shachnai, Gal Tamir, and Tami Tamir. 2012. A Theory and Algorithms for Combinatorial Reoptimization. In LATIN 2012: Theoretical Informatics - 10th Latin American Symposium, Proceedings. 618--630.
[41]
David Shue, Michael J Freedman, and Anees Shaikh. 2012. Performance isolation and fairness for multi-tenant cloud storage. In Presented as part of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 12). 349--362.
[42]
Hugo Steinhaus. 1948. The problem of fair division. Econometrica 16, 1 (1948).
[43]
Walter Stromquist. 1980. How to cut a cake fairly. Amer. Math. Monthly (1980), 640--644.
[44]
Abhishek Verma, Luis Pedrosa, Madhukar Korupolu, David Oppenheimer, Eric Tune, and John Wilkes. 2015. Large-scale cluster management at Google with Borg. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Systems. ACM, 18.
[45]
Toby Walsh. 2011. Online cake cutting. In Algorithmic Decision Theory. Springer, 292--305.
[46]
Wei Wang, Baochun Li, and Ben Liang. 2014. Dominant resource fairness in cloud computing systems with heterogeneous servers. In INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE. IEEE, 583--591.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
EC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
June 2017
740 pages
ISBN:9781450345279
DOI:10.1145/3033274
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 ACM 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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 June 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. dynamic fair division
  2. fair division
  3. resource allocation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

EC '17
Sponsor:
EC '17: ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
June 26 - 30, 2017
Massachusetts, Cambridge, USA

Acceptance Rates

EC '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 75 of 257 submissions, 29%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 664 of 2,389 submissions, 28%

Upcoming Conference

EC '25
The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 7 - 11, 2025
Stanford , CA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)150
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44
Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Online Fair Allocation of Perishable ResourcesSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4739232Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Dynamic Multi-Resource Fair Allocation with Elastic DemandsJournal of Grid Computing10.1007/s10723-024-09754-622:1Online publication date: 27-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Incentives in Dominant Resource Fair Allocation Under Dynamic DemandsAlgorithmic Game Theory10.1007/978-3-031-71033-9_7(108-125)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2024
  • (2023)Fair Multi-Resource Allocation in Heterogeneous Servers With an External Resource TypeIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking10.1109/TNET.2022.321342631:3(1244-1262)Online publication date: Jun-2023
  • (2023)Multiresource fair allocation with time window constraintsThe Journal of Supercomputing10.1007/s11227-023-05248-679:14(15927-15954)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2023
  • (2022)Dynamic fair division with partial informationProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3600270.3600538(3703-3715)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2022
  • (2021)Stateful DRF: Considering the Past in a Multi-Resource AllocationIEEE Transactions on Computers10.1109/TC.2020.300600770:7(1094-1105)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2021
  • (2020)How Effective Can Simple Ordinal Peer Grading Be?ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/34123478:3(1-37)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2020
  • (2020)Mechanism Design for Online Resource AllocationACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review10.1145/3410048.341005548:1(11-12)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2020
  • (2020)Online Optimization with Predictions and Non-convex LossesACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review10.1145/3410048.341005448:1(9-10)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media