Paul Gölz | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

PMMS Allocations Need Not Exist for 3 Agents with Additive Valuations

This note gives an instance demonstrating that the pairwise maximin share (PMMS) property cannot be satisfied by any allocation in certain fair division problems with indivisible goods and additive valuations. The instance requires only $n=3$ agents and $m=9$ goods, and is accompanied by a proof that no PMMS allocation exists. A separate instance shows (certified by exhaustive enumeration with a computer) that PMMS cannot be approximated within a ratio above $78/79 \approx 0.987$.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Approval-Based Apportionment: Like Portioning, Approximately like Committee Voting

We study approval-based apportionment, a variant of committee elections in which candidates ("parties") can be selected several times. We show that the proportionality axioms EJR, EJR+, and FJR coincide, and so do PJR, PJR+, and FPJR; that Lindahl priceability, an axiom implying core stability, is equivalent to a notion of approximate optimality with respect to the proportional approval voting (PAV) score; and that locally PAV-optimal committees are priceable. Approval-based apportionment (where a candidate receives an integer number of seats) lies between committee elections (zero or one seat) and portioning (a fractional number of seats). We formally connect portioning and apportionment by giving a construction that lifts axioms from apportionment to portioning and preserves implications between them. Several of our new implications between apportionment axioms are natural from a portioning perspective, leading us to believe that apportionment sits closer to portioning than to committee elections. None of them holds in committee elections, but several extend approximately, which makes apportionment a fruitful setting for conjecturing approximate relationships in approval-based committee elections.

cs.GT↗