Bridging Theory and Perception in Fair Division: A Study on Comparative and Fair Share Notions

TL;DR

This paper explores the gap between theoretical fairness notions and human perception in resource division, analyzing how different fairness frameworks align with human judgments through a comprehensive study.

Contribution

It introduces a comparative analysis of threshold-based and comparison-based fairness notions and evaluates their practical perception via human subject experiments.

Findings

Perception of fairness varies significantly across different notions.

Externalities and subjective valuations influence fairness judgments.

Theoretical guarantees do not always align with human perceptions.

Abstract

The allocation of resources among multiple agents is a fundamental problem in both economics and computer science. In these settings, fairness plays a crucial role in ensuring social acceptability and practical implementation of resource allocation algorithms. Traditional fair division solutions have given rise to a variety of approximate fairness notions, often as a response to the challenges posed by non-existence or computational intractability of exact solutions. However, the inherent incompatibility among these notions raises a critical question: which concept of fairness is most suitable for practical applications? In this paper, we examine two broad frameworks -- threshold-based and comparison-based fairness notions -- and evaluate their perceived fairness through a comprehensive human subject study. Our findings uncover novel insights into the interplay between perception of fairness, theoretical guarantees, the role of externalities and subjective valuations, and underlying cognitive processes, shedding light on the theory and practice of fair division.