mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Fair Allocation of Indivisible Public Goods

arXiv 1805.03164 ↗First posted 8 May 2018cs.GT cs.CY cs.DScited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We consider the problem of fairly allocating indivisible public goods. We model the public goods as elements with feasibility constraints on what subsets of elements can be chosen, and assume that agents have additive utilities across elements. Our model generalizes existing frameworks such as fair public decision making and participatory budgeting. We study a groupwise fairness notion called the core, which generalizes well-studied notions of proportionality and Pareto efficiency, and requires that each subset of agents must receive an outcome that is fair relative to its size. In contrast to the case of divisible public goods (where fractional allocations are permitted), the core is not guaranteed to exist when allocating indivisible public goods. Our primary contributions are the notion of an additive approximation to the core (with a tiny multiplicative loss), and polynomial time algorithms that achieve a small additive approximation, where the additive factor is relative to the largest utility of an agent for an element. If the feasibility constraints define a matroid, we show an additive approximation of 2. A similar approach yields a constant additive bound when the feasibility constraints define a matching. More generally, if the feasibility constraints define an arbitrary packing polytope with mild restrictions, we show an additive guarantee that is logarithmic in the width of the polytope. Our algorithms are based on variants of the convex program for maximizing the Nash social welfare, but differ significantly from previous work in how it is used. Our guarantees are meaningful even when there are fewer elements than the number of agents. As far as we are aware, our work is the first to approximate the core in indivisible settings.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 8 May 2018.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 3; 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 6; 2026: 4.

22 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2022Fairness in Federated Learning via Core-Stabilitycited by 23
  2. 2022Welfare and Fairness in Multi-objective Reinforcement Learningcited by 20
  3. 2023Temporal Fairness in Multiwinner Votingcited by 14
  4. 2024Temporal Elections: Welfare, Strategyproofness, and Proportionalitycited by 11
  5. 2025Generative Social Choice: The Next Generationcited by 10
  6. 2025Strengthening Proportionality in Temporal Votingcited by 9
  7. 2021How Good is a Video Summary? A New Benchmarking Dataset and Evaluation Framework Towards Realistic Video Summarizationcited by 6
  8. 2025Not in My Backyard! Temporal Voting Over Public Chorescited by 6
  9. 2024Group Fairness in Peer Reviewcited by 5
  10. 2021Core-Stable Committees under Restricted Domainscited by 3
  11. 2023The Leximin Approach for a Sequence of Collective Decisionscited by 3
  12. 2022Fairness in Contextual Resource Allocation Systems: Metrics and Incompatibility Resultscited by 2
10 more
  1. 2021Robust Allocations with Diversity Constraintscited by 1
  2. 2021What Should We Optimize in Participatory Budgeting? An Experimental Studycited by 1
  3. 2024Harm Ratio: A Novel and Versatile Fairness Criterioncited by 1
  4. 2025A Linear Theory of Multi-Winner Votingcited by 1
  5. 2025Generating Fair Consensus Statements with Social Choice on Token-Level MDPscited by 1
  6. 2026Fair Transit Stop Placement: A Clustering Perspective and Beyondcited by 1
  7. 2025Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problemcited by 0
  8. 2026Procedural Fairness in Multi-Agent Banditscited by 0
  9. 2026From Competition to Collaboration: Designing Sustainable Mechanisms Between LLMs and Online Forumscited by 0
  10. 2026A General Theory of Proportionality with Additive Utilitiescited by 0