In approval-based budget division, a budget needs to be distributed to some candidates based on the voters' approval ballots over these candidates. In the pursuit of simple, well-behaved, and approximately fair rules for this setting, we introduce the class of sequential payment rules, where each voter controls a part of the budget and repeatedly spends his share on his approved candidates to determine the final distribution. We show that all sequential payment rules satisfy a demanding population consistency notion and we identify two particularly appealing rules within this class called the maximum payment rule (MP) and the 1/3-multiplicative sequential payment rule (1/3-MSP). More specifically, we prove that (i) MP is, apart from one other rule, the only monotonic sequential payment rule and gives a 2-approximation to a fairness notion called average fair share, and (ii) 1/3-MSP gives a 3/2-approximation to average fair share, which is optimal among sequential payment rules.

In pursuit of participatory budgeting (PB) outcomes with broader fairness guarantees, we initiate the study of lotteries over discrete PB outcomes. As the projects have heterogeneous costs, the amount spent may not be equal ex ante and ex post. To address this, we develop a technique to bound the amount by which the ex-post spend differs from the ex-ante spend---the property is termed budget balanced up to one project (BB1). With respect to fairness, we take a best-of-both-worlds perspective, seeking outcomes that are both ex-ante and ex-post fair. Towards this goal, we initiate a study of ex-ante fairness properties in PB, including Individual Fair Share (IFS), Unanimous Fair Share (UFS) and their stronger variants, as well as Group Fair Share (GFS). We show several incompatibility results between these ex-ante fairness notions and existing ex-post concepts based on justified representation. One of our main contributions is a randomized algorithm which simultaneously satisfies ex-ante Strong UFS, ex-post full justified representation (FJR) and ex-post BB1 for PB with binary utilities.

The fair allocation of resources to agents is a fundamental problem in society and has received significant attention and rapid developments from the game theory and artificial intelligence communities in recent years. The majority of the fair division literature can be divided along at least two orthogonal directions: goods versus chores, and divisible versus indivisible resources. In this survey, besides describing the state of the art, we outline a number of interesting open questions in three mixed fair division settings: (i) indivisible goods and chores, (ii) divisible and indivisible goods (i.e., mixed goods), and (iii) fair division of indivisible goods with subsidy.

Fair division considers the allocation of scarce resources among agents in such a way that every agent gets a fair share. It is a fundamental problem in society and has received significant attention and rapid developments from the game theory and artificial intelligence communities in recent years. The majority of the fair division literature can be divided along at least two orthogonal directions: goods versus chores, and divisible versus indivisible resources. In this survey, besides describing the state of the art, we outline a number of interesting open questions and future directions in three mixed fair division settings: (i) indivisible goods and chores, (ii) divisible and indivisible goods (mixed goods), and (iii) indivisible goods with subsidy which can be viewed like a divisible good.

We consider a voting scenario in which the resource to be voted upon may consist of both indivisible and divisible goods. This generalizes both the well-studied model of multiwinner voting and the recently introduced model of cake sharing. Under approval votes, we propose two variants of the extended justified representation (EJR) notion from multiwinner voting, a stronger one called EJR for mixed goods (EJR-M) and a weaker one called EJR up to 1 (EJR-1). We extend three multiwinner voting rules to our setting—GreedyEJR, the method of equal shares (MES), and proportional approval voting (PAV)—and show that while all three generalizations satisfy EJR-1, only the first one provides EJR-M. In addition, we derive tight bounds on the proportionality degree implied by EJR-M and EJR-1, and investigate the proportionality degree of our proposed rules.

We study the problem of designing truthful and fair mechanisms when allocating a mixture of divisible and indivisible goods. We first show that there does not exist an EFM (envy-free for mixed goods) and truthful mechanism in general. This impossibility result holds even if there is only one indivisible good and one divisible good and there are only two agents. Thus, we focus on some more restricted settings. Under the setting where agents have binary valuations on indivisible goods and identical valuations on a single divisible good (e.g., money), we design an EFM and truthful mechanism. When agents have binary valuations over both divisible and indivisible goods, we first show there exist EFM and truthful mechanisms when there are only two agents or when there is a single divisible good. On the other hand, we show that the mechanism maximizing Nash welfare cannot ensure EFM and truthfulness simultaneously.

The classic cake cutting problem concerns the fair allocation of a heterogeneous resource among interested agents. In this paper, we study a public goods variant of the problem, where instead of competing with one another for the cake, the agents all share the same subset of the cake which must be chosen subject to a length constraint. We focus on the design of truthful and fair mechanisms in the presence of strategic agents who have piecewise uniform utilities over the cake. On the one hand, we show that the leximin solution is truthful and moreover maximizes an egalitarian welfare measure among all truthful and position oblivious mechanisms. On the other hand, we demonstrate that the maximum Nash welfare solution is truthful for two agents but not in general. Our results assume that mechanisms can block each agent from accessing parts that the agent does not claim to desire; we provide an impossibility result when blocking is not allowed.

We study the allocation of indivisible goods that form an undirected graph and quantify the loss of fairness when we impose a constraint that each agent must receive a connected subgraph. Our focus is on well-studied fairness notions including envy-freeness and maximin share fairness. We introduce the price of connectivity to capture the largest multiplicative gap between the graph-specific and the unconstrained maximin share and derive bounds on this quantity which are tight for large classes of graphs in the case of two agents and for paths and stars in the general case. For instance, with two agents we show that for biconnected graphs it is possible to obtain at least 3/4 of the maximin share with connected allocations, while for the remaining graphs the guarantee is at most 1/2. In addition, we determine the optimal relaxation of envy-freeness that can be obtained with each graph for two agents and characterize the set of trees and complete bipartite graphs that always admit an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) for three agents. Our work demonstrates several applications of graph-theoretic tools and concepts to fair division problems.

Energy harvesting techniques have been increasingly employed in both consumer and industrial applications to provide clean energy supply. Among the many available energy harvesting techniques, ambient energy harvesting (AEH) is a promising one as it harvests free energy from the environment and, thus, is economically efficient. AEH techniques, however, heavily depend on the dynamic environment and are thus uncontrollable and unstable. More recently, the wireless power transfer (WPT) technique has attracted significant attentions due to its highly controllable feature when powering low-cost devices. Unfortunately, WPT faces strict regulatory limitations to provide high power density and requires charging infrastructures installed to perform effective wireless energy transfer. The pros and cons of the two techniques motivate this work to design a hybrid energy harvesting method by charging a device using a combination of AEH and WPT to maximize the throughput of a wireless system. Specifically, this work first proposes an optimal offline charging scheme to maximize the point-to-point data throughput of a wireless system by fully utilizing the ambient energy and providing extra power supply through WPT to determine the transmission rates. An online heuristic algorithm is further proposed to improve the computational efficiency for practical scenarios when the system has the estimation of future AEH patterns. Our experimental results show that the proposed approaches are effective in maximizing the data throughput when compared to the state of the art.

We study the allocation of indivisible goods that form an undirected graph and quantify the loss of fairness when we impose a constraint that each agent must receive a connected subgraph. Our focus is on the well-studied fairness notion of maximin share fairness. We introduce the price of connectivity to capture the largest gap between the graph-specific and the unconstrained maximin share, and derive bounds on this quantity which are tight for large classes of graphs in the case of two agents and for paths and stars in the general case. For instance, with two agents we show that for biconnected graphs it is possible to obtain at least 3/4 of the maximin share with connected allocations, while for the remaining graphs the guarantee is at most 1/2. Our work demonstrates several applications of graph-theoretic tools and concepts to fair division problems.

We study fair resource allocation when the resources contain a mixture of divisible and indivisible goods, focusing on the well-studied fairness notion of maximin share fairness (MMS). With only indivisible goods, a full MMS allocation may not exist, but a constant multiplicative approximate allocation always does. We analyze how the MMS approximation guarantee would be affected when the resources to be allocated also contain divisible goods. In particular, we show that the worst-case MMS approximation guarantee with mixed goods is no worse than that with only indivisible goods. However, there exist problem instances to which adding some divisible resources would strictly decrease the MMS approximation ratios of the instances. On the algorithmic front, we propose a constructive algorithm that will always produce an \alpha-MMS allocation for any number of agents, where \alpha takes values between 1/2 and 1 and is a monotonically increasing function determined by how agents value the divisible goods relative to their MMS values.

We study the problem of fair division when the resources contain both divisible and indivisible goods. Classic fairness notions such as envy-freeness (EF) and envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) cannot be directly applied to the mixed goods setting. In this work, we propose a new fairness notion envy-freeness for mixed goods (EFM), which is a direct generalization of both EF and EF1 to the mixed goods setting. We prove that an EFM allocation always exists for any number of agents. We also propose efficient algorithms to compute an EFM allocation for two agents and for n agents with piecewise linear valuations over the divisible goods. Finally, we relax the envy-free requirement, instead asking for ϵ-envy-freeness for mixed goods (ϵ-EFM), and present an algorithm that finds an ϵ-EFM allocation in time polynomial in the number of agents, the number of indivisible goods, and 1/ϵ.

We investigate the efficiency of fair allocations of indivisible goods using the well-studied price of fairness concept. Previous work has focused on classical fairness notions such as envy-freeness, proportionality, and equitability. However, these notions cannot always be satisfied for indivisible goods, leading to certain instances being ignored in the analysis. In this paper, we focus instead on notions with guaranteed existence, including envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), balancedness, maximum Nash welfare (MNW), and leximin. We mostly provide tight or asymptotically tight bounds on the worst-case efficiency loss for allocations satisfying these notions.