Finding Fair and Efficient Allocations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible goods among a set of agents in a fair and efficient manner. An allocation is said to be fair if it is envy-free up to one good (EF1), which means that each agent prefers its own bundle over the bundle of any other agent up to the removal of one good. In addition, an allocation is deemed efficient if it satisfies Pareto optimality (PO). While each of these well-studied properties is easy to achieve separately, achieving them together is far from obvious. Recently, Caragiannis et al. (2016) established the surprising result that when agents have additive valuations for the goods, there always exists an allocation that simultaneously satisfies these two seemingly incompatible properties. Specifically, they showed that an allocation that maximizes the Nash social welfare (NSW) objective is both EF1 and PO. However, the problem of maximizing NSW is NP-hard. As a result, this approach does not provide an efficient algorithm for finding a fair and efficient allocation. In this paper, we bypass this barrier, and develop a pseudopolynomial time algorithm for finding allocations that are EF1 and PO; in particular, when the valuations are bounded, our algorithm finds such an allocation in polynomial time. Furthermore, we establish a stronger existence result compared to Caragiannis et al. (2016): For additive valuations, there always exists an allocation that is EF1 and fractionally PO. Another contribution of our work is to show that our algorithm provides a polynomial-time 1.45-approximation to the NSW objective. This improves upon the best known approximation ratio for this problem (namely, the 2-approximation algorithm of Cole et al. (2017)). Unlike many of the existing approaches, our algorithm is completely combinatorial.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2017.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 4.
9 papers.
- 2024Temporal Fair Division of Indivisible Itemscited by 11
- 2024No-Regret Learning for Fair Multi-Agent Social Welfare Optimizationcited by 7
- 2023EFX Allocations Exist for Binary Valuationscited by 3
- 2021PROPm Allocations of Indivisible Goods to Multiple Agentscited by 1
- 2026The Cost of EFX: Generalized-Mean Welfare and Complexity Dichotomies with Few Surplus Itemscited by 1
- 2022(Almost) Envy-Free, Proportional and Efficient Allocations of an Indivisible Mixed Mannacited by 0
- 2026Fair Division with Strictly Increasing Valuations: A Tight Threshold for Two-Agent EF1 and POcited by 0
- 2026Parameterized Fair Resource Allocation under Diversity Constraintscited by 0
- 2026EF1-Constrained Nash Social Welfare with Identical Additive Valuations: Complexity, Guarantees, and Experimentscited by 0
- 2026EF1-Constrained Nash Social Welfare with Identical Additive Valuations: Complexity, Guarantees, and Experiments3 Sep 2026
- 2026Parameterized Fair Resource Allocation under Diversity Constraints29 Jul 2026
- 2026Fair Division with Strictly Increasing Valuations: A Tight Threshold for Two-Agent EF1 and PO25 Jul 2026
- 2026The Cost of EFX: Generalized-Mean Welfare and Complexity Dichotomies with Few Surplus Items19 Jan 2026
- 2024Temporal Fair Division of Indivisible Items18 Oct 2024
- 2024No-Regret Learning for Fair Multi-Agent Social Welfare Optimization31 May 2024
- 2023EFX Allocations Exist for Binary Valuations10 Aug 2023
- 2022(Almost) Envy-Free, Proportional and Efficient Allocations of an Indivisible Mixed Manna6 Feb 2022
- 2021PROPm Allocations of Indivisible Goods to Multiple Agents24 May 2021