On Allocating Goods to Maximize Fairness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the Max-Min Allocation problem: given a set A of m agents and a set I of n items, where agent A ¿ A has utility uA,i for item i ¿ I, our goal is to allocate items to agents so as to maximize fairness. Specifically, the utility of an agent is the sum of its utilities for the items it receives, and we seek to maximize the minimum utility of any agent. While this problem has received much attention recently, its approximability has not been well-understood thus far: the best known approximation algorithm achieves an O¿(¿m)-approximation, and in contrast, the best known hardness of approximation stands at 2. Our main result is an algorithm that achieves an O¿(n¿)-approximation for any ¿ = ¿((log log n)/(log n)) in time nO(1/¿). In particular, we obtain poly-logarithmic approximation in quasipolynomial time, and for every constant ¿ > 0, we obtain an O¿(n¿)-approximation in polynomial time. An interesting technical aspect of our algorithm is that we use as a building block a linear program whose integrality gap is ¿(¿m). We bypass this obstacle by iteratively using the solutions produced by the LP to construct new instances with significantly smaller integrality gaps, eventually obtaining the desired approximation. As a corollary of our main result, we also show that for any constant ¿ > 0, an O(m¿)-approximation can be achieved in quasi-polynomial time. We also investigate the special case of the problem, where every item has non-zero utility for at most two agents. This problem is hard to approximate up to any factor better than 2. We give a factor 2-approximation algorithm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".