Optimally Selecting Representative Agents from a Metric Space

A clustering is a subset $X\subseteq C$ with $1\leq|X|\leq k$. For agent $i\in N$, the loss under $X$ is $\ell_{i}(X)=\min_{c\in X}d(i,c)$ ($i$’s distance to the closest center in the clustering).

We will augment the traditional clustering instance by primarily considering weighted clustering instances, used by Cookson et al. [2026] in the clustering setting. A weighted clustering instance takes a traditional clustering instance and adds a weight function $w\colon N\to\mathbb{Q}_{>0}$ such that $\sum_{i\in N}w(i)=1$. Further, for any $S\subseteq N$, we write $w(S)=\sum_{i\in S}w(i)$. A weighted instance can be thought of as representing a standard clustering instance where multiple agents may reside at the same point. The weight $w(i)$ of an agent $i\in N$ represents the total fraction of the agent population residing at that point. A weighted instance can be translated back into an unweighted one by scaling to a common denominator and adding the appropriate number of copies according to the weight of each agent. Weighted instances not only provide a more compact representation but also allow each point in the metric space to be represented by a unique element, which is particularly helpful for exposition. In the weighted metric setting, we can, without loss of generality, assume that our distance metric $d$ adheres to a strengthened version of the reflexivity axiom:

• •

  Identity of indiscernibles: $d(x,y)=0\iff x=y$

We no longer need multiple copies of each agent at a single point in the space, since we can simply represent the same information with a single agent who has a greater weight. Notably, this also means that if there is some $i\in N$ and $c\in C$ such that $d(i,c)=0$, then it must be the case that $i=c$; that is, they must be the same element¹¹ 1 Note that this also implies that for any $c,c^{\prime}\in C$ with $d(c,c^{\prime})=0$, we must have $c=c^{\prime}$. The traditional clustering setting allows for multiple potential centers to be located at the same place in the metric space, and for the returned clustering to have multiple such centers. Condensing all such centers into a single element in our model is without loss of generality for the existence of the fairness notions we consider. With loss functions that rely on an agent’s distance to their closest center, it is never beneficial to select two centers in the exact same location.. This is intentional. We also allow elements representing agents to serve as centers. This allows us to characterize instances as having $N\subseteq C$ or $N=C$, among other things, making exposition much simpler. We adopt weighted instances as the default throughout this paper and write them as $I=(N,C,d,k,w)$.

Additionally, throughout this paper, when considering instances with $N\subseteq C$, we assume that $k<|N|$. This is without loss of generality. If $|N|\leq k\leq|C|$, we can choose $X=N$ as our final clustering. Then $\ell_{i}(X)=0$ for every agent $i\in N$, so this clustering trivially satisfies all the fairness properties we consider in this paper.

Under the Hare quota, any group of agents with total weight at least $1/k$ is collectively entitled to one center. A clustering $X$ is in the $\alpha$-core (for $\alpha\geq 1$) if no entitled group can jointly $\alpha$-improve: there do not exist a center $c\in C$ and a set $S\subseteq N$ with $w(S)\geq 1/k$ such that

We say such a pair $(S,c)$ is a blocking pair and that the agents in $S$ $\alpha$-deviate (from $X$) to $c$.

Under the Droop quota, a group of agents whose total weight exceeds $1/(k+1)$ is entitled to one center. The $\alpha$-Droop core is defined analogously to the $\alpha$-core but with the Droop quota replacing the Hare quota. A clustering in the $\alpha$-Droop core is also in the $\alpha$-core.

A cooperative game with non-transferable utility (an NTU game) $(N,V)$ consists of a set of agents $N=[n]$ and a map $V$ that assigns to each nonempty coalition $\emptyset\neq S\subseteq N$ a payoff set $V(S)\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{S}$ satisfying the following conditions:

1. (1)

   $V(S)$ is a nonempty, proper, and closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^{S}$,

2. (2)

   $V(S)$ is comprehensive, i.e., if $\mathbf{y}\in V(S)$ and $\mathbf{z}\leq\mathbf{y}$ componentwise, then $\mathbf{z}\in V(S)$, and

3. (3)

   $V(S)$ is bounded above, i.e., there exists a constant $M$ such that $x_{i}\leq M$ for all $\mathbf{x}\in V(S)$ and $i\in S$.

For each coalition of agents $S$, $V(S)$ represents the utility vectors that the members of $S$ can obtain on their own. For each such utility vector $\mathbf{y}\in V(S)$, $y_{i}$ is the utility obtained by $i\in S$. $V(N)$ represents the set of utility vectors that can be obtained by the grand coalition (the entire group of agents) $N$. An outcome $\mathbf{x}\in V(N)$ is blocked by a coalition $S$ if there exists $\mathbf{y}\in V(S)$ such that $y_{i}>x_{i}$ for every $i\in S$. An outcome not blocked by any coalition is said to be in the core. The goal of an NTU game is to find a point in $V(N)$ that lies in the core. We call such points core points. If at least one core point exists for a given NTU game $(N,V)$, then we say that the core of that game is nonempty.

For a coalition $S$, let $\widetilde{V}(S)=V(S)\times\mathbb{R}^{N\setminus S}$. Intuitively, this represents all utility vectors in which the agents in $S$ obtain some utility vector from $V(S)$, while the agents in $N\setminus S$ receive arbitrary utilities. The set of core points in $V(N)$ is exactly

where $\operatorname{int}\widetilde{V}(S)$ denotes the interior of $\widetilde{V}(S)$. Due to the structure of $\widetilde{V}(S)$, a vector $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ belongs to $\operatorname{int}\widetilde{V}(S)$ if and only if there exists a vector $\mathbf{z}\in\widetilde{V}(S)$ such that $z_{i}>x_{i}$ for all $i\in S$. Thus, it is quite easy to see that a vector $\mathbf{x}\in V(N)$ is blocked by a coalition $S$ if and only if it is in $\operatorname{int}\widetilde{V}(S)$.

Scarf’s seminal theorem for NTU games [Scarf, 1967] provides a sufficient condition for $V(N)$ to admit at least one utility vector in the core.

A family $\mathcal{S}\subseteq 2^{N}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ of nonempty coalitions is called balanced if there exist nonnegative weights $(\lambda_{S})_{S\in\mathcal{S}}$ such that for each $i\in N$, we have $\sum_{S\in\mathcal{S}:i\in S}\lambda_{S}=1$. An NTU game $(N,V)$ is balanced if for every balanced family $\mathcal{S}$ of coalitions, $\bigcap_{S\in\mathcal{S}}\widetilde{V}(S)\subseteq V(N)$.

Scarf’s theorem states the following:

We define a fractional clustering to be a vector $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{C}_{\geq 0}$ with $\mathbf{x}(C)\leq 1$. $\mathbf{x}(C)=1$ will correspond to a clustering of size $k$. Note that an integral clustering $X\subseteq C$ with $|X|\leq k$ can be embedded into a fractional clustering by setting $x_{c}=\frac{1}{k}$ for each $c\in X$ and $x_{c}=0$ otherwise.

For a coalition $S$, let $\mathcal{X}(S)$ be the set of fractional clusterings with which $S$ may deviate:

Intuitively, since a fractional clustering can have total mass $1$, any coalition of agents is allowed to deviate with its own fractional clustering whose total mass is proportional to its weight $w(S)$. Equivalently, since mass $\frac{1}{k}$ represents one center, a coalition of weight $\frac{1}{k}$ has enough mass to deviate with one center under the corresponding integral interpretation.

Let $\delta=\min\{w(S):S\subseteq N,w(S)>\frac{1}{k+1}\}$. Hence, a group of agents $S\subseteq N$ qualifies as a potential deviating coalition under the Droop quota if and only if $w(S)\geq\delta$. Fix a constant $D>\max_{i\in N,c\in C}d(i,c)$. For each agent $i\in N$ and $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{C}$, let

That is, if $\mathbf{x}$ is a fractional clustering with $\mathbf{x}(C)\geq\delta$, $R_{i}(\mathbf{x})$ denotes the smallest radius $r$ such that the ball centered at $i$ with radius $r$ includes at least $\delta$ of the mass of $\mathbf{x}$. If $\mathbf{x}(C)<\delta$, we let $R_{i}(\mathbf{x})=D$, which by definition is larger than the distance of $i$ to any possible center. We treat $R_{i}$ as the fractional version of agent $i$’s loss function.

We will leverage Scarf’s theorem to show the following:

The proof of the existence of $\mathbf{x}^{*}$ is the most technical step of this paper. We defer it to the end and first show that, assuming the existence of such a fractional clustering $\mathbf{x}^{*}$, the existence of an integral clustering in the $2$-Droop core follows quite easily.

Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 show that for any clustering instance with $N\subseteq C$ and $C$ finite, a clustering in the $2$-Droop core always exists. To prove Theorem 1.1, it remains to show that this still holds when $C$ is infinite.

It remains to prove Lemma 3.1 using Scarf’s theorem.

While Theorem 1.1 completely settles the question of the optimal core bounds for the $N\subseteq C$ special case of proportionally fair clustering, several interesting generalizations of the model remain open. One of the most compelling is the sortition model of Ebadian and Micha [2025]. In this model, we have $N=C$, and the goal is to find a lottery over clusterings that provides a core-approximation guarantee for every realized clustering while ensuring that each agent is selected with probability $\nicefrac{{k}}{{|N|}}$. Interestingly, Ebadian and Micha [2025] showed a lower bound of $2$ on the ex post core-approximation factor for any such lottery. The techniques used in this paper do not appear to extend easily to establishing a lottery over clusterings that makes this lower bound tight.

While the $N\subseteq C$ case is now fully resolved, the general case remains open. As stated previously, the recent lower bounds of Cookson et al. [2026] place the known bounds for the general case at $[2.1508,1+\sqrt{2}]$. This is especially interesting because it establishes a separation between the general case and the $N\subseteq C$ case. The condition $N\subseteq C$ provides enough structure to the instance that a $2$-approximation is always possible, while this is not the case in the general setting. Resolving the gap in the general setting appears to be the largest theoretical open problem remaining in the study of the core in clustering.

Theorem 1.1 shows the existence of a clustering in the $2$-Droop core. It is easy to see that, at least when the candidate set is finite, if we are given the fractional clustering vector $\mathbf{x}^{*}$ whose existence is established using Scarf’s theorem, then $\mathbf{x}^{*}$ can be rounded to the final integral clustering in polynomial time. However, it is known that, in general, finding the utility vector implied by Scarf’s theorem is PPAD-complete [Kintali et al., 2013]. Thus, this does not give a clear path to determining whether the fractional clustering $\mathbf{x}^{*}$ can be computed in polynomial time in this setting.