Approximating One-Sided and Two-Sided Nash Social Welfare With Capacities
We study the problem of maximizing Nash social welfare, which is the geometric mean of agents' utilities, in two well-known models. The first model involves one-sided preferences, where a set of indivisible items is allocated among a group of agents (commonly studied in fair division). The seco...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | We study the problem of maximizing Nash social welfare, which is the
geometric mean of agents' utilities, in two well-known models. The first model
involves one-sided preferences, where a set of indivisible items is allocated
among a group of agents (commonly studied in fair division). The second model
deals with two-sided preferences, where a set of workers and firms, each having
numerical valuations for the other side, are matched with each other (commonly
studied in matching-under-preferences literature). We study these models under
capacity constraints, which restrict the number of items (respectively,
workers) that an agent (respectively, a firm) can receive.
We develop constant-factor approximation algorithms for both problems under a
broad class of valuations. Specifically, our main results are the following:
(a) For any $\epsilon > 0$, a $(6+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the
one-sided problem when agents have submodular valuations, and (b) a
$1.33$-approximation algorithm for the two-sided problem when the firms have
subadditive valuations. The former result provides the first constant-factor
approximation algorithm for Nash welfare in the one-sided problem with
submodular valuations and capacities, while the latter result improves upon an
existing $\sqrt{OPT}$-approximation algorithm for additive valuations. Our
result for the two-sided setting also establishes a computational separation
between the Nash and utilitarian welfare objectives. We also complement our
algorithms with hardness-of-approximation results. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2411.14007 |