A, B to denote allocations that are exclusively integral and R for randomized allocations. On a high level, the PS-Lottery algorithm uses Birkhoff's We begin by proving a lemma that highlights a connection between not obvious manipulability and randomized mechanisms that output ex-ante proportional allocations. Lemma 5. Inequality (1) (the worst-case guarantee) is satisfied for every randomized mechanism Note that multiple randomized allocations may have the same expected fractional allocation. Recall that, Birkhoff's algorithm, given a square bistochastic matrix, decomposes it into a convex combination (or a lottery) over permutation matrices. Using Lemma 5 we can prove the following theorem.

It is well-understood that, in the absence of monetary transfers, fairness, efficiency and truthfulness cannot be reconciled, in a very strong sense.

We study an online fair division setting, where goods arrive one at a time and there is a fixed set of $n$ agents, each of whom has an additive valuation function over the goods. Once a good appears, the value each agent has for it is revealed and it must be allocated immediately and irrevocably to one of the agents. It is known that without any assumptions about the values being severely restricted or coming from a distribution, very strong impossibility results hold in this setting. To bypass the latter, we turn our attention to instances where the valuation functions are restricted. In particular, we study personalized $2$-value instances, where there are only two possible values each agent may have for each good, possibly different across agents, and we show how to obtain worst case guarantees with respect to well-known fairness notions, such as maximin share fairness and envy-freeness up to one (or two) good(s). We suggest a deterministic algorithm that maintains a $1/(2n-1)$-MMS allocation at every time step and show that this is the best possible any deterministic algorithm can achieve if one cares about every single time step; nevertheless, eventually the allocation constructed by our algorithm becomes a $1/4$-MMS allocation. To achieve this, the algorithm implicitly maintains a fragile system of priority levels for all agents. Further, we show that, by allowing some limited access to future information, it is possible to have stronger results with less involved approaches. By knowing the values of goods for $n-1$ time steps into the future, we design a matching-based algorithm that achieves an EF$1$ allocation every $n$ time steps, while always maintaining an EF$2$ allocation. Finally, we show that our results allow us to get the first nontrivial guarantees for additive instances in which the ratio of the maximum over the minimum value an agent has for a good is bounded.

For the assignment problem where multiple indivisible items are allocated to a group of agents given their ordinal preferences, we design randomized mechanisms that satisfy first-choice maximality (FCM), i.e., maximizing the number of agents assigned their first choices, together with Pareto efficiency (PE). Our mechanisms also provide guarantees of ex-ante and ex-post fairness. The generalized eager Boston mechanism is ex-ante envy-free, and ex-post envy-free up to one item (EF1). The generalized probabilistic Boston mechanism is also ex-post EF1, and satisfies ex-ante efficiency instead of fairness. We also show that no strategyproof mechanism satisfies ex-post PE, EF1, and FCM simultaneously. In doing so, we expand the frontiers of simultaneously providing efficiency and both ex-ante and ex-post fairness guarantees for the assignment problem.

We study the fundamental problem of allocating indivisible goods to agents with additive preferences. We consider eliciting from each agent only a ranking of her $k$ most preferred goods instead of her full cardinal valuations. We characterize the value of $k$ needed to achieve envy-freeness up to one good and approximate maximin share guarantee, two widely studied fairness notions. We also analyze the multiplicative loss in social welfare incurred due to the lack of full information with and without the fairness requirements.

We consider a fair division model in which agents have general valuations for bundles of indivisible items. We propose two new axiomatic properties for allocations in this model: EF1+- and EFX+-. We compare these with the existing EF1 and EFX. Although EF1 and EF1+- allocations often exist, our results assert eloquently that EFX+- and PO allocations exist in each case where EFX and PO allocations do not exist. Additionally, we prove several new impossibility and incompatibility results.

We consider a fair division setting where indivisible items are allocated to agents. Each agent in the setting has strictly negative, zero or strictly positive utility for each item. We, thus, make a distinction between items that are good for some agents and bad for other agents (i.e. mixed), good for everyone (i.e. goods) or bad for everyone (i.e. bads). For this model, we study axiomatic concepts of allocations such as jealousy-freeness up to one item, envy-freeness up to one item and Pareto-optimality. We obtain many new possibility and impossibility results in regard to combinations of these properties. We also investigate new computational tasks related to such combinations. Thus, we advance the state-of-the-art in fair division of mixed manna.