Verification of multi-layered assignment problems | Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Skip to main content
Log in

Verification of multi-layered assignment problems

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The class of assignment problems is a fundamental and well-studied class in the intersection of Social Choice, Computational Economics and Discrete Allocation. In a general assignment problem, a group of agents expresses preferences over a set of items, and the task is to allocate items to agents in an “optimal” way. A verification variant of this problem includes an allocation as part of the input, and the question becomes whether this allocation is “optimal”. In this paper, we generalize the verification variant to the setting where each agent is equipped with multiple incomplete preference lists: Each list (called a layer) is a ranking of items in a possibly different way according to a different criterion. In particular, we introduce three multi-layer verification problems, each corresponds to an optimality notion that weakens the notion of global optimality (that is, pareto optimality in multiple layers) in a different way. Informally, the first notion requires that, for each group of agents whose size is exactly some input parameter k, the agents in the group will not be able to trade their assigned items among themselves and benefit in at least \(\alpha \) layers; the second notion is similar, but it concerns all groups of size at most k rather than exactly k; the third notion strengthens these notions by requiring that groups of k agents will not be part of possibly larger groups that benefit in at least \(\alpha \) layers. We study the three problems from the perspective of parameterized complexity under several natural parameterizations such as the number of layers, the number of agents, the number of items, the number of allocated items, the maximum length of a preference list, and more. We present an almost comprehensive picture of the parameterized complexity of the problems with respect to these parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Similar extension was already studied in the field of multi-winner voting. See, e.g. [14, 29, 34, 38].

  2. All the “optimal” assignments that we construct in this paper will be legal for each agent group in a sufficient number of layers.

References

  1. Abdulkadiroglu, A., & Sonmez, T. (1998). Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica, 66(3), 689–702.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdulkadiroğlu, A., & Sönmez, T. (1999). House allocation with existing tenants. Journal of Economic Theory, 88(2), 233–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abraham, D. J., Cechlárová, K., Manlove, D. F., & Mehlhorn, K. (2004). Pareto optimality in house allocation problems. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on algorithms and computation, ISAAC’04 (pp. 3–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30551-4_3

  4. Alderfer, C. P., & McCord, C. G. (1970). Personal and situational factors in the recruitment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4), 377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ashlagi, I., Gamarnik, D., Rees, M. A., & Roth, A. E. (2012). The need for (long) chains in kidney exchange. National Bureau of Economic Research: Technical Report.

  6. Aziz, H., de Haan, R., & Rastegari, B. (2017). Pareto optimal allocation under uncertain preferences. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI-17 (pp. 77–83). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/12

  7. Aziz, H., Biro, P., de Haan, R., & Rastegari, B. (2018). Pareto optimal allocation under compact uncertain preferences. In Thirty third AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (01/02/19). https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/425734/

  8. Bellman, R. (1962). Dynamic programming treatment of the travelling salesman problem. Journal of ACM, 9(1), 61–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/321105.321111

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Björklund, A., Husfeldt, T., Kaski, P., & Koivisto, M. (2007). Fourier meets möbius: Fast subset convolution. In Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, STOC ’07 (pp. 67–74). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1250790.1250801

  10. Björklund, A., Husfeldt, T., & Nina, T. (2012). Shortest cycle through specified elements. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (p. 1747).

  11. Bodlaender, H. L., Downey, R. G., Fellows, M. R., & Hermelin, D. (2009). On problems without polynomial kernels. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 75(8), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2009.04.001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Bodlaender, H. L., Jansen, B. M. P., & Kratsch, S. (2014). Kernelization lower bounds by cross-composition. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 28(1), 277–305. https://doi.org/10.1137/120880240

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Bogomolnaia, A., & Moulin, H. (2001). A new solution to the random assignment problem. Journal of Economic Theory, 100, 295–328.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Bredereck, R., Fluschnik, T., & Kaczmarczyk, A. (2020). Multistage committee election. arXiv:200502300

  15. Browne, A. (2000). Lives ruined as nhs leaks patients’ notes. The Observer, June 25th.

  16. Calabro, C., Impagliazzo, R., & Paturi, R. (2009). The complexity of satisfiability of small depth circuits. In Parameterized and exact computation, 4th international workshop, IWPEC 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 10–11, 2009, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 75–85). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11269-0_6

  17. Chen, J., Niedermeier, R., & Skowron, P. (2018). Stable marriage with multi-modal preferences. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on economics and computation. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, EC ’18 (pp. 269–286). https://doi.org/10.1145/3219166.3219168

  18. Chernichovsky, D., & Kfir, R. (2019). The state of the acute care hospitalization system in Israel. State of the Nation Report.

  19. Clinedinst, M. (2019). State of college admission.

  20. Cools, M., Moons, E., & Wets, G. (2010). Assessing the impact of weather on traffic intensity. Weather, Climate, and Society, 2(1), 60–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cygan, M., Fomin, F. V., Kowalik, L., Lokshtanov, D., Marx, D., Pilipczuk, M., Pilipczuk, M., & Saurabh, S. (2015). Parameterized algorithms. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Dickerson, J. P., Procaccia, A. D., & Sandholm, T. (2012). Optimizing kidney exchange with transplant chains: Theory and reality. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 711–718).

  23. Dickerson, J. P., Manlove, D. F., Plaut, B., Sandholm, T., & Trimble, J. (2016). Position-indexed formulations for kidney exchange. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on economics and computation (pp. 25–42).

  24. Downey, R. G., & Fellows, M. R. (2013). Fundamentals of parameterized complexity. Texts in computer science. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5559-1.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Fearnhead, P., & Taylor, B. M. (2011). On estimating the ability of nba players. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 7(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fellows, M., Hermelin, D., Rosamond, F., & Vialette, S. (2009). On the parameterized complexity of multiple-interval graph problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 410, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2008.09.065

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Floyd, R. W. (1962). Algorithm 97: Shortest path. Communications of the ACM, 5(6), 345. https://doi.org/10.1145/367766.368168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fomin, F. V., Lokshtanov, D., Saurabh, S., & Zehavi, M. (2019). Kernelization: Theory of parameterized preprocessing. Cambridge University Press.

  29. Freeman, R., Zahedi, S. M., & Conitzer, V. (2017). Fair social choice in dynamic settings. In Proceedings of the 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), international joint conferences on artificial intelligence Marina del Rey, CA.

  30. Gourvès, L., Lesca, J., & Wilczynski, A. (2017). Object allocation via swaps along a social network. In 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’17), Melbourne, Australia (pp. 213–219). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/31

  31. Impagliazzo, R., & Paturi, R. (2001). On the complexity of \(k\)-SAT. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 62(2), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2000.1727

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Impagliazzo, R., Paturi, R., & Zane, F. (2001). Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(4), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2001.1774

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Kinicki, A. J., & Lockwood, C. A. (1985). The interview process: An examination of factors recruiters use in evaluating job applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(85)90012-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lackner, M. (2020). Perpetual voting: Fairness in long-term decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 34, pp. 2103–2110).

  35. Lian, J. W., Mattei, N., Noble, R., & Walsh, T. (2018). The conference paper assignment problem: Using order weighted averages to assign indivisible goods. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI18/paper/view/17396

  36. Mulder, J., & de Bruijne, M. (2019). Willingness of online respondents to participate in alternative modes of data collection. Survey Practice, 12(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nass, S. J., Levit, L. A., & Gostin, L. O., et al. (2009). The value and importance of health information privacy. In S. J. Nass, L. A. Levit, & L. O. Gostin (Eds.), Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: Enhancing privacy, improving health through research. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Parkes, D., & Procaccia, A. (2013). Dynamic social choice with evolving preferences. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 27).

  39. Pietrzak, K. (2003). On the parameterized complexity of the fixed alphabet shortest common supersequence and longest common subsequence problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 67, 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0000(03)00078-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Plesńik, J. (1979). The np-completeness of the Hamiltonian cycle problem in planar diagraphs with degree bound two. Information Processing Letters, 8(4), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(79)90023-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Saleh, S. M., Sugiarto, S., Hilal, A., & Ariansyah, D. (2017). A study on the traffic impact of the road corridors due to flyover construction at surabaya intersection, banda aceh of indonesia. In AIP conference proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC (vol. 1903, p. 060005).

  42. Steindl, B., & Zehavi, M. (2020). Parameterized analysis of assignment under multiple preferences. arXiv:200400655

  43. The Council for Higher Education and The Planning and Budgeting Committee. (2014). The higher education system in Israel.

  44. Topcu, M., & Gulal, O. S. (2020). The impact of covid-19 on emerging stock markets. Finance Research Letters, 36, 101691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wahlström, M. (2013). Abusing the tutte matrix: An algebraic instance compression for the k-set-cycle problem. arxiv:1301.1517

  46. Wu, K., & DeVriese, A. (2016). How students pick their housing situations: Factors and analysis.

  47. Zeren, F., & HIZARCI, A. (2020). The impact of covid-19 coronavirus on stock markets: Evidence from selected countries. Muhasebe ve Finans Incelemeleri Dergisi, 3(1), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhou, L. (1990). On a conjecture by gale about one-sided matching problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 52(1), 123–135.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received funding from Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 1176/18 and United States - Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) Grant No. 2018302. We also thank anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barak Steindl.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the proceedings of EUMAS 2021

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steindl, B., Zehavi, M. Verification of multi-layered assignment problems. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 36, 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-022-09546-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-022-09546-w

Keywords

Navigation