The set of core imputations of the assignment game forms a (non-finite) distributive lattice. So far, efficient algorithms were known for computing only its two extreme imputations; however, each of them maximally favors one side and disfavors the other side of the bipartition, leading to inequitable profit sharing. Another issue is that a sub-coalition consisting of one player (or a set of players from the same side of the bipartition) can make zero profit, therefore a core imputation is not obliged to give them any profit. Hence core imputations make no fairness guarantee at the level of individual agents. This raises the question of computing { more equitable core imputations}. In this paper, we give combinatorial (i.e., the mechanism does not invoke an LP-solver) polynomial time mechanisms for computing the leximin and leximax core imputations for the assignment game. These imputations achieve ``fairness'' in different ways: whereas leximin tries to make poor agents more rich, leximax tries to make rich agents less rich. In general, the two imputations are different. Our mechanisms were derived by a suitable adaptation of the classical primal-dual paradigm from combinatorial optimization. The ``engine'' driving them involves recent insights, obtained via complementarity, into core imputations {Va.New-characterizations} and the pristine combinatorial structure of matching. We have identified other natural games which could benefit from our approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vijay V. Vazirani (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: