IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcomop/vyid10.1007_s10878-020-00581-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The price of fairness for a two-agent scheduling game minimizing total completion time

Author

Listed:
  • Yubai Zhang

    (East China University of Science and Technology)

  • Zhao Zhang

    (Zhejiang Normal University)

  • Zhaohui Liu

    (East China University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

This paper studies the price of fairness in a two-agent single machine scheduling game. In this game, two agents compete to perform their jobs on a common single machine. Both of the two agents want to minimize their own total completion time. One of them has exactly two jobs. All processing times are positive. We show that all Kalai-Smorodinsky fair schedules can be found in linear time, and its price of fairness equals a half.

Suggested Citation

  • Yubai Zhang & Zhao Zhang & Zhaohui Liu, 0. "The price of fairness for a two-agent scheduling game minimizing total completion time," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v::y::i::d:10.1007_s10878-020-00581-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10878-020-00581-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10878-020-00581-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10878-020-00581-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allesandro Agnetis & Pitu B. Mirchandani & Dario Pacciarelli & Andrea Pacifici, 2004. "Scheduling Problems with Two Competing Agents," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 229-242, April.
    2. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    3. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2011. "The Price of Fairness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 17-31, February.
    4. Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2017. "Price of Fairness for allocating a bounded resource," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 933-943.
    5. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The equal-loss principle for bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 103-106.
    6. Wellman, Michael P. & Walsh, William E. & Wurman, Peter R. & MacKie-Mason, Jeffrey K., 2001. "Auction Protocols for Decentralized Scheduling," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 271-303, April.
    7. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agnetis, Alessandro & Chen, Bo & Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea, 2019. "Price of fairness in two-agent single-machine scheduling problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 79-87.
    2. Yubai Zhang & Zhao Zhang & Zhaohui Liu, 2022. "The price of fairness for a two-agent scheduling game minimizing total completion time," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 2104-2122, October.
    3. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    4. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    5. Adhau, Sunil & Mittal, M.L. & Mittal, Abhinav, 2013. "A multi-agent system for decentralized multi-project scheduling with resource transfers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 646-661.
    6. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    7. Gur, Yonatan & Iancu, Dan & Warnes, Xavier, 2020. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Research Papers 3813, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    9. Kapeller, Jakob & Steinerberger, Stefan, 2017. "Stability, fairness and random walks in the bargaining problem," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 488(C), pages 60-71.
    10. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip & Newton, Jonathan, 2018. "Conventional contracts, intentional behavior and logit choice: Equality without symmetry," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 273-294.
    11. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2017. "Axiomatizations of the equal-loss and weighted equal-loss bargaining solutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 1-9, June.
    12. l'Haridon, Olivier & Malherbet, Franck & Pérez-Duarte, Sébastien, 2013. "Does bargaining matter in the small firms matching model?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 42-58.
    13. Forgo, F. & Szidarovszky, F., 2003. "On the relation between the Nash bargaining solution and the weighting method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 108-116, May.
    14. Wolbeck, Lena Antonia, 2019. "Fairness aspects in personnel scheduling," Discussion Papers 2019/16, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    15. M. Voorneveld & A. Nouweland & R. McLean, 2011. "Axiomatizations of the Euclidean compromise solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 427-448, August.
    16. Alexandre Jacquillat & Vikrant Vaze, 2018. "Interairline Equity in Airport Scheduling Interventions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 941-964, August.
    17. Kroll, Eike B. & Morgenstern, Ralf & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2014. "Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 261-272.
    18. Martin Sandbu, 2008. "Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 589-619, December.
    19. Greer Gosnell & Alessandro Tavoni, 2017. "A bargaining experiment on heterogeneity and side deals in climate negotiations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 575-586, June.
    20. LAMAS, ALEJANDRO & CHEVALIER, Philippe, 2013. "Jumping the hurdles for collaboration: fairness in operations pooling in the absence of transfer payments," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013073, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v::y::i::d:10.1007_s10878-020-00581-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.