mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Allocating Indivisible Goods to Strategic Agents: Pure Nash Equilibria and Fairness

arXiv 2109.08644 ↗First posted 17 Sep 2021cs.GT cs.AI cs.DMcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of strategic agents with additive valuation functions. We assume no monetary transfers and, therefore, a mechanism in our setting is an algorithm that takes as input the reported -- rather than the true -- values of the agents. Our main goal is to explore whether there exist mechanisms that have pure Nash equilibria for every instance and, at the same time, provide fairness guarantees for the allocations that correspond to these equilibria. We focus on two relaxations of envy-freeness, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), and we positively answer the above question. In particular, we study two algorithms that are known to produce such allocations in the non-strategic setting: Round-Robin (EF1 allocations for any number of agents) and a cut-and-choose algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden [SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 2020] (EFX allocations for two agents). For Round-Robin we show that all of its pure Nash equilibria induce allocations that are EF1 with respect to the underlying true values, while for the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden we show that the corresponding allocations not only are EFX but also satisfy maximin share fairness, something that is not true for this algorithm in the non-strategic setting! Further, we show that a weaker version of the latter result holds for any mechanism for two agents that always has pure Nash equilibria which all induce EFX allocations.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2021.

Builds on

22 of 61 references.

References · 22

  1. 2017Almost Envy-Freeness with General Valuationscited by 22
  2. 2020EFX Exists for Three Agentscited by 14
  3. 2019A Little Charity Guarantees Almost Envy-Freenesscited by 12
  4. 2020Maximum Nash Welfare and Other Stories About EFXcited by 12
  5. 2020Fair and Truthful Mechanisms for Dichotomous Valuationscited by 12
  6. 2019Envy-freeness up to any item with high Nash welfare: The virtue of donating itemscited by 10
  7. 2020Fair Division with Binary Valuations: One Rule to Rule Them Allcited by 10
  8. 2016Nash Social Welfare Approximation for Strategic Agentscited by 9
  9. 2017Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods: Improvement and Generalizationcited by 9
  10. 2015Approximation Algorithms for Computing Maximin Share Allocationscited by 8
  11. 2019An Improved Approximation Algorithm for Maximin Sharescited by 8
  12. 2019Multiple Birds with One Stone: Beating 1/2 for EFX and GMMS via Envy Cycle Eliminationcited by 8
10 more
  1. 2018Comparing Approximate Relaxations of Envy-Freenesscited by 7
  2. 2016On Truthful Mechanisms for Maximin Share Allocationscited by 6
  3. 2017Groupwise Maximin Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goodscited by 6
  4. 2021Improving EFX Guarantees through Rainbow Cycle Numbercited by 6
  5. 2017Truthful Allocation Mechanisms Without Payments: Characterization and Implications on Fairnesscited by 4
  6. 2016Complexity of Manipulating Sequential Allocationcited by 3
  7. 2017Equilibria in Sequential Allocationcited by 3
  8. 2020Existence of EFX for Two Additive Valuationscited by 3
  9. 2019Algorithms for Manipulating Sequential Allocationcited by 2
  10. 2021(Almost Full) EFX Exists for Four Agents (and Beyond)cited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1.

3 papers.