10.1145/3351095.3372847acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfatConference Proceedings
research-article
Free Access

Fairness and utilization in allocating resources with uncertain demand

ABSTRACT

Resource allocation problems are a fundamental domain in which to evaluate the fairness properties of algorithms. The trade-offs between fairness and utilization have a long history in this domain. A recent line of work has considered fairness questions for resource allocation when the demands for the resource are distributed across multiple groups and drawn from probability distributions. In such cases, a natural fairness requirement is that individuals from different groups should have (approximately) equal probabilities of receiving the resource. A largely open question in this area has been to bound the gap between the maximum possible utilization of the resource and the maximum possible utilization subject to this fairness condition.

Here, we obtain some of the first provable upper bounds on this gap. We obtain an upper bound for arbitrary distributions, as well as much stronger upper bounds for specific families of distributions that are typically used to model levels of demand. In particular, we find --- somewhat surprisingly --- that there are natural families of distributions (including Exponential and Weibull) for which the gap is non-existent: it is possible to simultaneously achieve maximum utilization and the given notion of fairness. Finally, we show that for power-law distributions, there is a non-trivial gap between the solutions, but this gap can be bounded by a constant factor independent of the parameters of the distribution.

References

  1. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Dah-Ming Chiu and Raj Jain. 1989. Analysis of the Increase and Decrease Algorithms for Congestion Avoidance in Computer Networks. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 17, 1 (June 1989), 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dah Ming Chiu and Raj Jain. 1989. Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 17 (06 1989), 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aaron Clauset. 2018. Trends and fluctuations in the severity of interstate wars. Science Advances 4, 2 (2018). arXiv:https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao3580.full.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Aaron Clauset, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman. 2007. Power-law distributions in empirical data. arXiv e-prints, Article arXiv:0706.1062 (Jun 2007), arXiv:0706.1062 pages. arXiv:physics.data-an/0706.1062Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Demers, S. Keshav, and S. Shenker. 1989. Analysis and Simulation of a Fair Queueing Algorithm. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 19, 4 (Aug. 1989), 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Hadi Elzayn, Shahin Jabbari, Christopher Jung, Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zachary Schutzman. 2019. Fair Algorithms for Learning in Allocation Problems. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency- FAT*'19 (2019). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Danielle Ensign, Sorelle A. Friedler, Scott Neville, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2018. Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.), Vol. 81. PMLR, New York, NY, USA, 160--171. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/ensign18a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ricardo Estrada and Miroslav Pavlovic. 2016. L'Hôpital's Monotone rule, Gromov's theorem, and operations that preserve the monotonicity of quotients. Publications de l'Institut Mathematique 101(115), 2017, 11--24 101 (12 2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating Inequality. St. Martin's Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuzman Ganchev, Michael Kearns, Yuriy Nevmyvaka, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2009. Censored exploration and the dark pool problem. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. AUAI Press, 185--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jeffrey M. Jaffe. 1981. Bottleneck flow control. IEEE Transactions on Communications 29 (1981), 954--962.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Frank P Kelly, Aman K Maulloo, and David KH Tan. 1998. Rate control for communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. Journal of the Operational Research society 49, 3 (1998), 237--252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ariel D. Procaccia. 2013. Cake cutting: not just child's play. Commun. ACM 56, 7 (2013), 78--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yanyan Wang, Vicki M. Bier, and Baiqing Sun. [n. d.]. Measuring and Achieving Equity in Multiperiod Emergency Material Allocation. Risk Analysis 0, 0 ([n. d.]). arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/risa.13342 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Supplemental Material

Index Terms

  1. Fairness and utilization in allocating resources with uncertain demand

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)175
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)175

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!