Abstract:We study the problem of fairly and truthfully allocating $m$ indivisible items to $n$ agents with additive preferences. Specifically, we consider truthful mechanisms outputting allocations that satisfy EF$^{+u}_{-v}$, where, in an EF$^{+u}_{-v}$ allocation, for any pair of agents $i$ and $j$, agent $i$ will not envy agent $j$ if $u$ items were added to $i$'s bundle and $v$ items were removed from $j$'s bundle. Previous work easily indicates that, when restricted to deterministic mechanisms, truthfulness will lead to a poor guarantee of fairness: even with two agents, for any $u$ and $v$, EF$^{+u}_{-v}$ cannot be guaranteed by truthful mechanisms when the number of items is large enough. In this work, we focus on randomized mechanisms, where we consider ex-ante truthfulness and ex-post fairness. For two agents, we present a truthful mechanism that achieves EF$^{+0}_{-1}$ (i.e., the well-studied fairness notion EF$1$). For three agents, we present a truthful mechanism that achieves EF$^{+1}_{-1}$. For $n$ agents in general, we show that there exist truthful mechanisms that achieve EF$^{+u}_{-v}$ for some $u$ and $v$ that depend only on $n$ (not $m$). We further consider fair and truthful mechanisms that also satisfy the standard efficiency guarantee: Pareto-optimality. We provide a mechanism that simultaneously achieves truthfulness, EF$1$, and Pareto-optimality for bi-valued utilities (where agents' valuation on each item is either $p$ or $q$ for some $p>q\geq0$). For tri-valued utilities (where agents' valuations on each item belong to $\{p,q,r\}$ for some $p>q>r\geq0$) and any $u,v$, we show that truthfulness is incompatible with EF$^{+u}_{-v}$ and Pareto-optimality even for two agents.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### What problems does this paper attempt to solve? This paper mainly studies how to design mechanisms that are both fair and truthful when allocating indivisible items. Specifically, the authors focus on the problem of allocating indivisible items among multiple agents so that each agent is satisfied with the allocation result and does not feel envy. At the same time, they hope to ensure that these mechanisms are "truthful", that is, the best strategy for each agent is to report their preferences honestly. #### Specific problem description: 1. **Conflict between fairness and truthfulness**: - In deterministic mechanisms, truthfulness and fairness are usually incompatible. For example, when the number of agents is 2, for any non - negative integers $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $, there does not exist a deterministic mechanism that is both truthful and can guarantee EF$^+\alpha-\beta$. - To overcome this limitation, the authors turn to randomized mechanisms, hoping to achieve better fairness and truthfulness by introducing randomness. 2. **Relaxed definition of fairness**: - Since a strictly envy - free (EF) allocation may not exist in the case of indivisible items, the authors consider relaxed definitions of fairness, such as EF$^+\alpha-\beta$. This means that for any pair of agents $ i $ and $ j $, if at most $ \alpha $ items are added to agent $ i $ and at most $ \beta $ items are removed from agent $ j $'s item bundle, agent $ i $ will not envy agent $ j $. 3. **Design of randomized mechanisms**: - The authors design multiple randomized mechanisms to achieve specific fairness and truthfulness goals. For example: - For the case of two agents, a truthful randomized mechanism that can achieve EF1 (almost envy - free) is proposed. - For the case of three agents, a truthful randomized mechanism that can achieve EF + 1 - 1 is proposed. - For a general number of agents $ n $, it is shown that there exists a truthful randomized mechanism that can achieve EF$^+(n - 1)^2-(n - 1)$. 4. **Combination of efficiency and fairness**: - In addition to fairness and truthfulness, the authors also explore how to design efficient randomized mechanisms that simultaneously satisfy Pareto - optimality. For example, for bi - valued utilities, a mechanism that can simultaneously achieve truthfulness, EF1, and Pareto - optimality is provided. #### Technical challenges: - Designing truthful and fair fractional allocation rules. - Ensuring that the fractional allocation can be decomposed into a series of almost fair integral allocations. - Analyzing whether the fractional allocation lies within the convex hull of fair integral allocations. Through these studies, the authors aim to provide new solutions to the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items and explore the potential of randomization in solving this problem.

Truthful and Almost Envy-Free Mechanism of Allocating Indivisible Goods: the Power of Randomness

Truthful Fair Mechanisms for Allocating Mixed Divisible and Indivisible Goods

Fair and Almost Truthful Mechanisms for Additive Valuations and Beyond

Fair and Truthful Mechanisms for Dichotomous Valuations

Randomized Strategyproof Mechanisms with Best of Both Worlds Fairness and Efficiency

Fair and Efficient Allocations Without Obvious Manipulations

On Truthful Mechanisms without Pareto-efficiency: Characterizations and Fairness

Fair Division of Indivisible Goods Among Strategic Agents

Fairness and efficiency in strategy-proof object allocation mechanisms

Truthfulness, Proportional Fairness, and Efficiency

On Existence of Truthful Fair Cake Cutting Mechanisms

Best-of-Both-Worlds Fair Allocation of Indivisible and Mixed Goods

First-Choice Maximality Meets Ex-ante and Ex-post Fairness

Fair and Truthful Allocations Under Leveled Valuations

Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division

Position Fair Mechanisms Allocating Indivisible Goods

Finding Fair Allocations under Budget Constraints

Fair Division of Mixed Divisible and Indivisible Goods

Repeated Fair Allocation of Indivisible Items

Round-Robin Beyond Additive Agents: Existence and Fairness of Approximate Equilibria