arXiv subjects

Shengwei Zhou

Publications and source records attributed to Shengwei Zhou.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Logarithmic Comparison-Query Complexity for EF1 Allocations

We study the comparison-query complexity of computing allocations that are envy-free up to one item (EF1) for $n$ agents with heterogeneous additive preferences over $m$ indivisible items. In this model, the algorithm may only query which of two bundles an agent prefers, without ever observing numerical valuations or costs. Prior work established $O(\log m)$ query bounds for at most three agents, leaving open whether query complexity logarithmic in $m$ is achievable for every fixed $n \ge 4$. We resolve this open question in the affirmative: for every fixed $n\ge2$, we design algorithms that compute EF1 allocations using $O(\log m)$ comparison queries, matching the known $Ω(\log m)$ lower bound. Our results hold for both chores with nonnegative costs and goods with nonnegative valuations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Best-of-Many-Worlds MMS Allocation for Chores with Sublinear Disposals

We study randomized allocations (lotteries) of indivisible chores under additive costs and introduce the notion of MMS1, which requires each agent's bundle to satisfy the maximin share (MMS) bound after the removal of at most one chore. Our main result establishes that every instance admits an ex-ante proportional lottery in whose support every allocation is MMS1 and all but $o(n)$ agents satisfy MMS. Consequently, every realized allocation can be made MMS by disposing of at most $o(n)$ chores. The proposed framework further achieves ex-ante proportionality alongside ex-post $4/3$-MMS, $o(n)$-AMMS, or $1$-out-of-$d$ MMS for $d=(1-o(1))n$. These guarantees substantially improve upon state-of-the-art bounds for MMS allocation for chores with disposal or subsidy, best-of-both-worlds fairness, approximate AMMS, and ordinal MMS approximations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Second-Best Gains from Trade in Matching Markets

We study gains from trade (GFT) in two-sided matching markets with independent private types and arbitrary downward-closed feasibility constraints. The second-best benchmark is the maximum expected GFT achievable by a Bayesian incentive-compatible, interim individually rational mechanism that is strongly budget balanced at every report profile. These constraints generally preclude attaining the first-best GFT and raise the question of how much efficiency must be lost. We prove that the second-best GFT is at least one half of the first-best GFT in every such matching market. This recovers and generalizes the recent $1/2$ guarantee for bilateral trade by Liu, Qin, Ren, and Wang to markets with multiple buyers and sellers and arbitrary downward-closed feasibility constraints. Together with their matching upper bound for bilateral trade, our result establishes a tight worst-case ratio of $1/2$ for this general class of matching markets. Our proof builds on the virtual-GFT framework of Brüstle, Cai, Wu, and Zhao to reduce the problem to a one-parameter Lagrangian. The main step is a geometric, edge-by-edge analysis based on first-best edge-selection regions, combined with a randomized contraction in rank space. The same analysis also determines the exact worst-case efficiency for every level of outside subsidy. In particular, even a small outside subsidy can significantly improve the worst-case guarantee.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

The Power of Simple Mechanisms: A Tight $e$-Approximation for Gains from Trade in Matching Markets

We study how well simple mechanisms approximate gains from trade (GFT) in two-sided matching markets with independent buyer values and seller costs, where feasible outcomes form an arbitrary downward-closed family of matchings. This model includes bilateral trade and double auctions as special cases. We focus on the Generalized Random-Offerer (GRO) mechanism, which is an equal mixture of the Generalized Sellers-Offering Mechanism (GSOM) and the Generalized Buyers-Offering Mechanism (GBOM). We determine GRO's exact worst-case approximation ratio with respect to first-best GFT, showing that it is $e$. This improves the previous $3.15$ approximation guarantee (Babaioff et al. STOC 2026) for the same mechanism. In bilateral trade, the result implies a $1/e$ guarantee for the random-offerer mechanism, improving the previous $1/π$ bound (Jo 2026). Our analysis uses a two-dimensional inequality in quantile space to compare first-best GFT with optimal one-sided auction profits. For each potential trade, we identify the region of buyer values and seller costs for which the first-best allocation selects that trade, and then randomly shrink this region in quantile space, yielding posted-price rules whose expected profits can be evaluated exactly. We establish tightness of the $e$ approximation by constructing markets with regular type distributions, pairwise disjoint trading edges, and a single knapsack constraint. On these instances, GRO's expected GFT approaches a $1/e$ fraction of first-best GFT, therefore ruling out any better guarantee even under these restrictions.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Revisiting EFX and fPO Allocations for Binary Chores

We study fair and efficient allocations of indivisible chores under binary additive costs, with a focus on unequal entitlements and best-of-both-worlds guarantees. While binary valuations have been extensively studied for goods, their chore counterpart remains much less understood. A notable exception is due to Tao et al. (TCS 2025), who established that EFX and fPO are compatible for binary chores with equal entitlements. We revisit binary chores under unequal entitlements and establish the computation of allocations that satisfy WEFX and fPO. Our key technical contribution is a new lexicographic potential function tailored to chores: any allocation minimizing this potential ensures both WEFX and fPO. This potential further guides a polynomial-time local-search algorithm for computing allocations with such fairness and efficiency guarantees. For best-of-both-worlds guarantees, we show that unequal entitlements create a sharp obstruction: even with two agents and identical binary additive costs, no lottery can simultaneously satisfy ex-ante WEF and ex-post WEF1. In contrast, for equal entitlements, we construct in polynomial time a lottery that is ex-ante EF and fPO, while every realization is both EFX and fPO.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

When Maximum Nash Welfare Becomes Strongly Fair: Bi-valued Goods

For the fair allocation of indivisible goods, the milestone work of Caragiannis et al. (2019) revolutionized the understanding of Maximum Nash Welfare (MNW) allocations by revealing their "unreasonable" ability to balance fairness (EF1) and efficiency (PO) for general additive functions. Subsequent work established that MNW allocations simultaneously satisfy EFX and GMMS (and consequently MMS and PMMS) for binary instances (Amanatidis et al. 2021 and Barman et al. 2018), and satisfy EFX for bi-valued instances (Amanatidis et al. 2021). In this paper, we revisit the (personalized) bi-valued instances and provide a tight characterization of the approximation guarantees of MNW allocations with respect to EFX, PMMS, and GMMS, showing that these guarantees are significantly stronger than what is known for general valuations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even for the slightly more general setting of tri-valued instances, the fairness guarantees of MNW deteriorate significantly, which establishes a sharp boundary on the instances for which MNW allocations are strongly fair.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Comparison-Based Fair Division of Indivisible Chores

We investigate the query complexity of fairly allocating $m$ indivisible chores among $n$ agents with additive cost functions. We depart from the standard cardinal model and assume only comparison access: an algorithm may ask an agent which of two bundles is less costly, but never observes numerical costs. Our first results concern proportionality up to one item (PROP1). We design comparison-based algorithms that compute PROP1 allocations using $O(n^3\log m)$ comparison queries. When the chores are arranged in a fixed order and allocations are required to be contiguous, we compute a contiguous PROP1 allocation using $O(n^3 \log^2 m)$ comparison queries. Our main result concerns the maximin share (MMS) guarantee. We show that for any fixed number of agents $n$ and constant $\varepsilon>0$, a $\left(13/11 +\varepsilon\right)$-MMS allocation can be computed with a comparison complexity logarithmic in $m$. Remarkably, comparison access suffices to match the state-of-the-art $13/11$ cardinal-access guarantee of Huang and Segal-Halevi up to an arbitrarily small loss. Furthermore, our result implies that the MMS distortion of comparison access (i.e., the worst-case multiplicative loss in MMS fairness incurred by observing only comparisons rather than numerical costs) is at most $13/11$. Finally, we show that, for three agents, an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) can be computed using $O(\log m)$ comparison queries.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

An FPTAS for 7/9-Approximation to Maximin Share Allocations

We present a new algorithm that achieves a $\frac{7}{9}$-approximation for the \emph{maximin share (MMS)} allocation of indivisible goods under additive valuations, improving the current best ratio of $\frac{10}{13}$~\cite{conf/soda/HeidariKSS26}. Building on a new analytical framework, we further obtain an FPTAS that achieves a $\frac{7}{9}-\varepsilon$ approximation in $\tfrac{1}{\varepsilon} \cdot \mathrm{poly}(n,m)$ time. The main technical ingredient is a dynamic witness-allocation framework that certifies adaptive reductions throughout the allocation process.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Almost Envy-Freeness for Additive Mixed Manna with Entitlements: Deterministic and Randomized Guarantees

We investigate the fair allocation of indivisible items among agents with asymmetric entitlements in mixed manna settings, where the items consist of both goods and chores. For additive valuations, we establish that weighted envy-free up to one item (WEF1) allocations always exist and can be computed in polynomial time. We also study fair and efficient allocation and show that weighted envy-freeness up to one transfer (WEF1T) is compatible with fractional Pareto optimality (fPO) for every mixed-manna instance. This relaxation from WEF1 to WEF1T is tight, as demonstrated by our impossibility result. We further show a best-of-both-worlds result via a finite lottery that guarantees weighted envy-freeness (WEF) in expectation, with every realized allocation satisfying WEF1T and achieving the tight characterization complemented by the existing impossibility result.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Non-Existence of EFX Chore Allocations for Monotone Cost Functions with Binary Marginals

We study the existence of envy-free up to any item (EFX) allocations of indivisible chores when agents have monotone cost functions with binary marginals. For indivisible goods, the corresponding existence question is known to have an affirmative answer for general monotone functions with binary marginals. For chores, however, the existence of EFX allocation was previously known only for more restricted classes, while the general binary-marginal case remained unresolved. In this paper, we provide two counterexamples based on the same 18-agent, 53-chore word gadget, with one cost profile for binary XOS costs and another for binary supermodular costs. In both cases, a complete EFX allocation need not exist. Finally, we formalize and verify our main results in Lean 4.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Fair Division by Contribution: A Shapley Value Perspective

In many resource allocation problems, agents' valuations are best interpreted not as subjective preferences, but as the value they generate from receiving resources. Such valuations capture productivity, effectiveness, or technology, and may differ significantly across agents. In these settings, classical fairness notions such as proportionality or envy-freeness fail to reflect agents' heterogeneous contributions to the collective outcome. Motivated by this perspective, we introduce \emph{Shapley Value Fairness (SVF)} for the allocation of divisible goods without monetary transfers. SVF interprets an agent's entitlement as her expected marginal contribution to optimal social welfare, and uses the Shapley value of the associated welfare maximization game as a normative fairness benchmark. We position SVF relative to existing fairness notions and show that it provides a natural bridge between fairness and efficiency in contribution-based environments. Since exact implementation of the Shapley value is generally infeasible without transfers, SVF naturally leads to the problem of finding allocations that approximate this benchmark as well as possible. We provide a systematic worst-case analysis of the achievable Shapley approximation ratio. For general concave valuations, we establish a tight $Θ(\ln n)$ bound. For capped concave valuations with bounded demands, this bound improves to $Θ(\ln D)$, where $D$ is the maximum aggregate demand for any item. For linear valuations, we further refine the bound to $Θ(\min\{k, \ln γ, \ln n\})$ in terms of the number of agent types $k$ and the value fluctuation ratio $γ$, and show that all bounds are asymptotically tight. Regarding per-instance guarantees, we show that a near-optimal approximation allocation can be computed efficiently (with high probability) via sampling for general concave valuations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Allocating Chores with Restricted Additive Costs: Achieving EFX, MMS, and Efficiency Simultaneously

In a web-based review platform, papers from various research fields must be assigned to a group of reviewers. Each paper has an inherent cost, which represents the effort required for reading and evaluating it (e.g., the paper's length). Reviewers can bid on papers they are interested in, and if they are assigned a paper they have bid on, no cost is incurred. Otherwise, the inherent cost $c(e)$ for paper $e$ applies. We capture this with a model of restricted additive costs: every item $e$ has a cost $c(e)$, and each agent either incurs $0$ or $c(e)$ for $e$. In this work, we study how to allocate such chores fairly and efficiently. We propose an algorithm for computing allocations that are both EFX and MMS. Furthermore, we show that our algorithm achieves a $2$-approximation of the optimal social cost, and the approximation ratio is optimal. We also show that slightly weaker fairness guarantees can be obtained if one requires the algorithm to run in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Incentive Analysis of Collusion in Fair Division

We study fair division problems with strategic agents capable of gaining advantages by manipulating their reported preferences. Although several impossibility results have revealed the incompatibility of truthfulness with standard fairness criteria, subsequent works have circumvented this limitation through the incentive ratio framework. Previous studies demonstrate that fundamental mechanisms like Maximum Nash Welfare (MNW) and Probabilistic Serial (PS) for divisible goods, and Round-Robin (RR) for indivisible goods achieve an incentive ratio of $2$, implying that no individual agent can gain more than double his truthful utility through manipulation. However, collusive manipulation by agent groups remains unexplored. In this work, we define strong group incentive ratio (SGIR) and group incentive ratio (GIR) to measure the gain of collusive manipulation, where SGIR and GIR are respectively the maximum and minimum of the incentive ratios of corrupted agents. Then, we tightly characterize the SGIRs and GIRs of MNW, PS, and RR. In particular, the GIR of MNW is $2$ regardless of the coalition size. Moreover, for coalition size $c \geq 1$, the SGIRs of MNW and PS, and the GIRs of PS and RR are $c + 1$. Finally, the SGIR of RR is unbounded for coalition size $c \geq 2$. Our results reveal fundamental differences of these three mechanisms in their vulnerability to collusion.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Degree-bounded Online Bipartite Matching: OCS vs. Ranking

We revisit the online bipartite matching problem on $d$-regular graphs, for which Cohen and Wajc (SODA 2018) proposed an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $1-2\sqrt{H_d/d} = 1-O(\sqrt{(\log d)/d})$ and showed that it is asymptotically near-optimal for $d=ω(1)$. However, their ratio is meaningful only for sufficiently large $d$, e.g., the ratio is less than $1-1/e$ when $d\leq 168$. In this work, we study the problem on $(d,d)$-bounded graphs (a slightly more general class of graphs than $d$-regular) and consider two classic algorithms for online matching problems: \Ranking and Online Correlated Selection (OCS). We show that for every fixed $d\geq 2$, the competitive ratio of OCS is at least $0.835$ and always higher than that of \Ranking. When $d\to \infty$, we show that OCS is at least $0.897$-competitive while \Ranking is at most $0.816$-competitive. We also show some extensions of our results to $(k,d)$-bounded graphs.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2025

When is Truthfully Allocating Chores no Harder than Goods?

We study the problem of fairly and efficiently allocating a set of items among strategic agents with additive valuations, where items are either all indivisible or all divisible. When items are goods, numerous positive and negative results are known regarding the fairness and efficiency guarantees achievable by truthful mechanisms, whereas our understanding of truthful mechanisms for chores remains considerably more limited. In this paper, we discover various connections between truthful good and chore allocations, greatly enhancing our understanding of the latter via tools from the former. For indivisible chores with two agents, by leveraging the observation that a simple bundle-swapping operation transforms several properties for goods including truthfulness to the corresponding properties for chores, we characterize truthful mechanisms and derive tight guarantees of various fairness notions achieved by truthful mechanisms. Moreover, for homogeneous divisible chores, by generalizing the above transformation to an arbitrary number of agents, we characterize truthful mechanisms with two agents, show that every truthful mechanism with two agents admits an efficiency ratio of $0$, and derive a large family of strictly truthful, envy-free (EF), and proportional mechanisms for an arbitrary number of agents. Finally, for indivisible chores with an arbitrary number of agents having bi-valued cost functions, we give an ex-ante truthful, ex-ante Pareto optimal, ex-ante EF, and ex-post envy-free up to one item mechanism, improving the best guarantees for bi-valued instances by prior works.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Approximately EFX and PO Allocations for Bivalued Chores

We consider the computation for allocations of indivisible chores that are approximately EFX and Pareto optimal (PO). Recently, Garg et al. (2024) show the existence of $3$-EFX and PO allocations for bi-valued instances, where the cost of an item to an agent is either $1$ or $k$ (where $k > 1$) by rounding the (fractional) earning restricted equilibrium. In this work, we improve the approximation ratio to $(2-1/k)$, while preserving the Pareto optimality. Instead of rounding fractional equilibrium, our algorithm starts with the integral EF1 equilibrium for bi-valued chores, introduced by Garg et al. (AAAI 2022) and Wu et al. (EC 2023), and reallocates items until approximate EFX is achieved. We further improve our result for the case when $k=2$ and devise an algorithm that computes EFX and PO allocations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Guaranteeing MMS for All but One Agent When Allocating Indivisible Chores

We study the problem of allocating $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with additive cost functions under the fairness notion of maximin share (MMS). In this work, we propose a notion called $α$-approximate all-but-one maximin share ($α$-AMMS) which is a stronger version of $α$-approximate MMS. An allocation is called $α$-AMMS if $n-1$ agents are guaranteed their MMS values and the remaining agent is guaranteed $α$-approximation of her MMS value. We show that there exist $α$-AMMS allocations, with $α= 9/8$ for three agents; $α= 4/3$ for four agents; and $α= (n+1)^2/4n$ for $n\geq 5$ agents.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Tree Splitting Based Rounding Scheme for Weighted Proportional Allocations with Subsidy

We consider the problem of allocating $m$ indivisible items to a set of $n$ heterogeneous agents, aiming at computing a proportional allocation by introducing subsidy (money). It has been shown by Wu et al. (WINE 2023) that when agents are unweighted a total subsidy of $n/4$ suffices (assuming that each item has value/cost at most $1$ to every agent) to ensure proportionality. When agents have general weights, they proposed an algorithm that guarantees a weighted proportional allocation requiring a total subsidy of $(n-1)/2$, by rounding the fractional bid-and-take algorithm. In this work, we revisit the problem and the fractional bid-and-take algorithm. We show that by formulating the fractional allocation returned by the algorithm as a directed tree connecting the agents and splitting the tree into canonical components, there is a rounding scheme that requires a total subsidy of at most $n/3 - 1/6$.

cs.GT↗