MMS allocation may not exist.

We study fair division of indivisible goods under the maximin share (MMS) fairness criterion in settings where agents are grouped into a small number of types, with agents within each type having identical valuations. For the special case of a single type, an exact MMS allocation is always guaranteed to exist. However, for two or more distinct agent types, exact MMS allocations do not always exist, shifting the focus to establishing the existence of approximate-MMS allocations. A series of works over the last decade has resulted in the best-known approximation guarantee of $\frac{3}{4} + \frac{3}{3836}$. In this paper, we improve the approximation guarantees for settings where agents are grouped into two or three types, a scenario that arises in many practical settings. Specifically, we present novel algorithms that guarantee a $\frac{4}{5}$-MMS allocation for two agent types and a $\frac{16}{21}$-MMS allocation for three agent types. Our approach leverages the MMS partition of the majority type and adapts it to provide improved fairness guarantees for all types.

In fair division of indivisible goods,  ℓ-out-of-d maximin share (MMS) is the value that an agent can guarantee by partitioning the goods into d bundles and choosing the ℓ least preferred bundles. Most existing works aim to guarantee to all agents a constant fraction of their 1-out-of-n MMS. But this guarantee is sensitive to small perturbation in agents' cardinal valuations. We consider a more robust approximation notion, which depends only on the agents' ordinal rankings of bundles. We prove the existence of ℓ-out-of-⌊(ℓ + 1/2)n⌋ MMS allocations of goods for any integer ℓ ≥ 1, and present a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a 1-out-of-⌈3n/2⌉ MMS allocation when ℓ=1. We further develop an algorithm that provides a weaker ordinal approximation to MMS for any ℓ > 1.

We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among n agents. Various fairness notions have been proposed within the rapidly growing field of fair division, but the Nash social welfare (NSW) serves as a focal point. In part, this follows from the ‘unreasonable’ fairness guarantees provided, in the sense that a max NSW allocation meets multiple other fairness metrics simultaneously, all while satisfying a standard economic concept of efficiency, Pareto optimality. However, existing approximation algorithms fail to satisfy all of the remarkable fairness guarantees offered by a max NSW allocation, instead targeting only the specific NSW objective. We address this issue by presenting a 2 max NSW, Prop-1, 1/(2n) MMS, and Pareto optimal allocation in strongly polynomial time. Our techniques are based on a market interpretation of a fractional max NSW allocation. We present novel definitions of fairness concepts in terms of market prices, and design a new scheme to round a market equilibrium into an integral allocation in a way that provides most of the fairness properties of an integral max NSW allocation.

We study the problem of allocating indivisible goods among n agents in a fair manner. For this problem, maximin share (MMS) is a well-studied solution concept which provides a fairness threshold. Specifically, maximin share is defined as the minimum utility that an agent can guarantee for herself when asked to partition the set of goods into n bundles such that the remaining (n-1) agents pick their bundles adversarially. An allocation is deemed to be fair if every agent gets a bundle whose valuation is at least her maximin share. Even though maximin shares provide a natural benchmark for fairness, it has its own drawbacks and, in particular, it is not sufficient to rule out unsatisfactory allocations. Motivated by these considerations, in this work we define a stronger notion of fairness, called groupwise maximin share guarantee (GMMS). In GMMS, we require that the maximin share guarantee is achieved not just with respect to the grand bundle, but also among all the subgroups of agents. Hence, this solution concept strengthens MMS and provides an ex-post fairness guarantee. We show that in specific settings, GMMS allocations always exist. We also establish the existence of approximate GMMS allocations under additive valuations, and develop a polynomial-time algorithm to find such allocations. Moreover, we establish a scale of fairness wherein we show that GMMS implies approximate envy freeness. Finally, we empirically demonstrate the existence of GMMS allocations in a large set of randomly generated instances. For the same set of instances, we additionally show that our algorithm achieves an approximation factor better than the established, worst-case bound.

We consider Max-min Share (MmS) fair allocations of indivisible chores (items with negative utilities). We show that allocation of chores and classical allocation of goods (items with positive utilities) have some fundamental connections but also differences which prevent a straightforward application of algorithms for goods in the chores setting and vice-versa. We prove that an MmS allocation does not need to exist for chores and computing an MmS allocation - if it exists - is strongly NP-hard. In view of these non-existence and complexity results, we present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm for MmS fairness for chores. We then introduce a new fairness concept called optimal MmS that represents the best possible allocation in terms of MmS that is guaranteed to exist. We use connections to parallel machine scheduling to give (1) a polynomial-time approximation scheme for computing an optimal MmS allocation when the number of agents is fixed and (2) an effective and efficient heuristic with an ex-post worst-case analysis.

The fairness notion of maximin share (MMS) guarantee underlies a deployed algorithm for allocating indivisible goods under additive valuations. Our goal is to understand when we can expect to be able to give each player his MMS guarantee. Previous work has shown that such an MMS allocation may not exist, but the counterexample requires a number of goods that is exponential in the number of players; we give a new construction that uses only a linear number of goods. On the positive side, we formalize the intuition that these counterexamples are very delicate by designing an algorithm that provably finds an MMS allocation with high probability when valuations are drawn at random.