We study the allocation of indivisible goods among agents with identical additive valuations, focusing on envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and Nash social welfare (NSW). Since every maximum-NSW allocation is EF1 under additive valuations, the associated threshold problem inherits the known strong NP-hardness of NSW maximization under identical additive valuations and is strongly NP-complete. We therefore focus on welfare guarantees satisfied by arbitrary EF1 allocations. Although every such allocation is known to achieve an $e^{-1/e}$-approximation to the unrestricted optimal NSW, we identify conditions yielding stronger guarantees. Under uniform valuations, every EF1 allocation is NSW-optimal. Under an $\varepsilon$-small-item condition, every EF1 allocation achieves an explicit approximation ratio $ρ_n(\varepsilon)$ satisfying $ρ_n(\varepsilon) = 1-O(\varepsilon^2)$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$ for fixed $n$. We further consider the stronger sequential requirement that EF1 be maintained after every item assignment. For this setting, we propose \emph{PriorityNet}, a deep reinforcement learning framework trained using Proximal Policy Optimization and equipped with prospective EF1 action masking. The mask restricts every decision to assignments that preserve EF1, thereby guaranteeing prefix-wise EF1 by construction without post-processing repair. Across 3,000 test instances in each of the offline and random-order online regimes ($n\in[2,20]$ and $m\in[5,100]$), PriorityNet attains mean normalized $\operatorname{NSW}$ values of $0.9911$ and $0.9701$, respectively. Relative to offline Longest Processing Time (LPT) and online least-valued-bundle baselines, it achieves instance-wise win-minus-loss rates of $+27.10\%$ and $+17.87\%$, while matching the offline baseline's mean normalized welfare to four decimal places and modestly improving the online mean from $0.9694$ to $0.9701$.
Hadi Hosseini, Shraddha Pathak, Lirong Xia +1cs.GT cs.AI econ.TH
Recent work in fair division has focused on either simultaneously satisfying closely related fairness notions or achieving a single notion across the ex-ante and ex-post worlds. We study the compatibility of two fundamentally different fairness notions: envy-freeness and equitability. For indivisible goods-only and chores-only settings, we study the existence and complexity of simultaneously satisfying their relaxations, revealing sharp contrasts between the two settings. We show that EF1+EQ1 may fail to exist even for normalized, additive valuations. Our main algorithmic result computes an EF1+EQ1 allocation for normalized binary goods with at most seven agents. In sharp contrast, binary chores admit the stronger EFX+EQX guarantee for any number of agents, even without normalization. We further initiate the study of cross-notion ex-ante--ex-post guarantees, asking whether randomized allocations can provide ex-ante guarantees for one notion while preserving ex-post guarantees for another.
We study fair allocations of indivisible goods among agents with heterogeneous monotone valuations. As fair we consider the allocations that are envy-free-up-to-any-good (EFX). Finding if EFX alloca- tions always exist, even for agents with additive valuations, is a major open problem in Fair Division. Christodoulou et al. (2023) introduced the (multi-hyper)graph setting, where agents and goods are represented by vertices and edges of a graph, respectively, and only the endpoints of an edge may have non-zero marginal value for it. We show that for hypergraphs with girth at least 4 and agents with general monotone valuations there always exists an EFX allocation and can be constructed in polynomial time. We generalize our approach to also show that multi-hypergraphs with girth (on the simple hypergraph) at least 4 always admit an EFX allocation, as long as there exists a single vertex whose incident edges have multiplicity at most the size of that edge minus 2; our construction in this case needs pseudo-polynomial time.
We study whether strictly positive marginal values restore the compatibility of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and Pareto optimality (PO) for indivisible goods. For two agents, we identify the exact threshold in the number of goods. Every instance with at most seven goods and strictly increasing valuations admits an allocation that is both EF1 and PO, without any submodularity assumption. In contrast, we construct an eight-good instance with normalized, integer-valued, strictly increasing, submodular valuations in which every EF1 allocation is strictly Pareto dominated. Thus, eight goods are necessary and sufficient for a two-agent counterexample. Finally, we strengthen the three-agent NP-hardness result of Chandramouleeswaran and Nimbhorkar (2026): deciding whether an EF1 and PO allocation exists remains NP-hard for normalized, integer-valued, monotone submodular valuations even when zero marginals are confined to eight fixed agent-good pairs, all involving a single agent.
Saar Cohen, Nicholas Teh, Paul W. Goldberg +1cs.GT cs.AI cs.LG cs.MA econ.TH
We study an online variant of discrete fair division under generalized assignment budget constraints. Goods arrive one at a time and must be assigned irrevocably to a feasible agent or to charity, which holds all unallocated goods, while fairness is evaluated only against budget-feasible subsets of every recipient's bundle. We first show that, without additional structure, no deterministic online algorithm can guarantee any fixed approximation to feasible envy-freeness, even in highly symmetric instances. We then identify bounded density spread as a structural condition that restores meaningful guarantees, obtaining approximation algorithms for arbitrary item sizes and showing that, under common valuations and sufficiently small goods, these guarantees can be strengthened to an optimal deterministic frontier. We further study resource augmentation, where the online algorithm is allowed slightly larger budgets than the fairness benchmark, and characterize the resulting improvement in the achievable guarantees. Finally, we develop a learning-augmented framework based on predicting joint value-size types, proving consistency under perfect predictions, robustness to prediction error, and showing that separate predictions of value and size marginals are insufficient to recover strong fairness guarantees.