arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.23686

Revisiting the Fairness of Pure Nash Equilibria of Round-Robin

Georgios Amanatidis·Haris Aziz·Georgios Birmpas·Federico Fusco·Stefano Leonardi·Rebecca Reiffenhäuser
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We prove that for additive valuations, not every pure Nash equilibrium of the Round-Robin mechanism induces an allocation that is envy-free up to one good (EF1) with respect to the agents' true valuations. This corrects an earlier claim of Amanatidis et al. (WINE 2021; Math. Oper. Res. 2024). On the positive side, every pure Nash equilibrium of every fixed recursively balanced picking sequence mechanism induces an allocation that is $1/2$-EF1 and proportional up to one good (PROP1). We prove the approximate EF1 guarantee through a potential function comparing two executions, and the proportionality guarantee via a deviation that preserves the agent's most valuable goods. We also give a family of Round Robin equilibria showing that it is not possible to have a strictly better guarantee than $2/3$-EF1 for all equilibria.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Federico Fusco, Stefano Leonardi, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser. 2026-10-16. Revisiting the Fairness of Pure Nash Equilibria of Round-Robin. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23686

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Sealed-bid Auctions on Blockchain with Timed Commitment Outsourcing

Sealed-bid auctions play a crucial role in blockchain ecosystems. Previous works introduced viable blockchain sealed-bid auction protocols, leveraging timed commitments for bid encryption. However, a crucial challenge remains unresolved in these works: Who should bear the cost of decrypting these timed commitments? This work introduces a timed commitment outsourcing market as a solution to this challenge. We first introduce an aggregation scheme for timed commitments, which combines all bidders' timed commitments into one while ensuring security and correctness and allowing a varying number of bidders. Next, we remodel the utility of auctioneers and timed commitment solvers, developing a new timed commitment competition mechanism and combining it with the sealed-bid auction to form a two-sided market. The protocol includes bid commitment collection, timed commitment solving, and payment. Through game-theoretical analysis, we prove that our protocol satisfies Dominant Strategy Incentive Compatibility (DSIC) for bidders and Bayesian Incentive Compatibility (BIC) for solvers, and achieves optimal revenue for the auctioneer among a large class of mechanisms. Finally, in the forced-opening-only model in which bidders cannot self-open, we prove that no mechanism can achieve positive expected revenue for the auctioneer while satisfying DSIC and Individual Rationality (IR) for both bidders and solvers, together with ex-post IR for the auctioneer.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Improved Weighted Maximin Share Guarantees for Indivisible Chores

We consider the problem of assigning indivisible chores to agents with different entitlements in the maximin share (\MMS) context. While constant-\MMS\ allocations are guaranteed to exist for both goods and chores in the symmetric setting, the situation becomes much more complex when agents have different entitlements. For the allocation of indivisible goods, it has been proven that an $n$-\WMMS\ (weighted \MMS) guarantee is the best one can hope for. For indivisible chores, however, it was recently proved that an $O(\log n)$-\WMMS\ assignment is guaranteed to exist. In this work, we improve this upper bound to a constant-\WMMS\ guarantee. We prove the existence of a $\tfrac{54}{5}$-$\WMMS$ assignment using a combinatorial layered moving-knife algorithm.\footnote{For concurrent and independent work by Li, Wang, and Xing~\cite{li2025constant}, see the \hyperref[remark:parallel-work]{remark on parallel work} in the introduction.} For every fixed $ε>0$, this yields a $(\tfrac{54}{5}+ε)$-$\WMMS$ assignment in polynomial time. Using a faster estimate of the weighted maximin shares instead gives a $\tfrac{108}{5}\cdot (1+ε)$-$\WMMS$ assignment in almost linear time. We also develop a chore-oblivious analysis that guarantees\linebreak $\WMMS$ approximation factors of approximately $2.06447$, $2.475855$, and $2.732051$ for three, four, and five agents, respectively.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Envy Cycle Elimination with Strategic Agents: Best Responses and Fairness Guarantees

With strong evidence in the literature showing that fairness and truthfulness are incompatible, there is a recent line of work focusing on the fairness properties of equilibria of simple fair division mechanisms, especially Round-Robin. We consider the Envy Cycle Elimination (E-C-E) procedure of Lipton et al. EC 2024, one of the most versatile tools in fair division. While this simple and intuitive algorithm achieves allocations that are envy-free up to one item (EF1) for any number of agents and general monotone valuation functions, surprisingly little is known about its behavior when agents act strategically. We demonstrate how the presence of incentives, although highly natural and relevant for the majority of applications, completely removes the intuitive clarity in the algorithm's execution, even for a few agents and very simple valuation functions. Additionally, while in the standard algorithmic setting there is great flexibility in how the details of E-C-E are implemented, here additional specifications are needed before the procedure is clearly defined, the choice of which has a potentially huge impact on the agents' behavior. Despite these obstacles, for various natural versions of E-C-E, we give the first results on the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria of the resulting mechanisms, and show there exist versions where fairness guarantees are approximately preserved for agents who play best responses\newx{, as long as there are at most three agents; for four or more agents, no such guarantee can hold for every best response, even at a pure Nash equilibrium. Our guarantees extend to monotone subadditive valuation functions. Moreover, best-responding additive agents always secure a constant fraction of their maximin share in the variants where the selected agent chooses her item.

cs.GT↗