Allocating Indivisible Goods to Strategic Agents: Pure Nash Equilibria and Fairness

Recent work in fair division has focused on either simultaneously satisfying closely related fairness notions or achieving a single notion across the ex-ante and ex-post worlds. We study the compatibility of two fundamentally different fairness notions: envy-freeness and equitability. For indivisible goods-only and chores-only settings, we study the existence and complexity of simultaneously satisfying their relaxations, revealing sharp contrasts between the two settings. For normalized binary goods, we give a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an EF1+EQ1 allocation with at most seven agents, but also construct a normalized instance with a larger number of agents for which no such allocation exists. In sharp contrast, binary chores admit the stronger EFX+EQX guarantee for any number of agents, even without normalization. We further initiate the study of cross-notion ex-ante and ex-post guarantees, asking whether randomized allocations can provide ex-ante guarantees for one notion while preserving ex-post guarantees for another.

We study whether strictly positive marginal values restore the compatibility of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and Pareto optimality (PO) for indivisible goods. For two agents, we identify the exact threshold in the number of goods. Every instance with at most seven goods and strictly increasing valuations admits an allocation that is both EF1 and PO, without any submodularity assumption. In contrast, we construct an eight-good instance with normalized, integer-valued, strictly increasing, submodular valuations in which every EF1 allocation is strictly Pareto dominated. Thus, eight goods are necessary and sufficient for a two-agent counterexample. Finally, we strengthen the three-agent NP-hardness result of Chandramouleeswaran and Nimbhorkar (2026): deciding whether an EF1 and PO allocation exists remains NP-hard for normalized, integer-valued, monotone submodular valuations even when zero marginals are confined to eight fixed agent-good pairs, all involving a single agent.

We study the allocation of indivisible goods among agents with identical additive valuations, focusing on envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and Nash social welfare (NSW). Since every maximum-NSW allocation is EF1 under additive valuations, the associated threshold problem inherits the known strong NP-hardness of NSW maximization under identical additive valuations and is strongly NP-complete. We therefore focus on welfare guarantees satisfied by arbitrary EF1 allocations. Although every such allocation is known to achieve an $e^{-1/e}$-approximation to the unrestricted optimal NSW, we identify conditions yielding stronger guarantees. Under uniform valuations, every EF1 allocation is NSW-optimal. Under an $\varepsilon$-small-item condition, every EF1 allocation achieves an explicit approximation ratio $ρ_n(\varepsilon)$ satisfying $ρ_n(\varepsilon) = 1-O(\varepsilon^2)$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$ for fixed $n$. We further consider the stronger sequential requirement that $\operatorname{EF1}$ be maintained after every item assignment. For this setting, we introduce PriorityNet, a deep reinforcement learning framework trained with Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and equipped with prospective $\operatorname{EF1}$ action masking, which guarantees prefix-wise $\operatorname{EF1}$ by construction. Across 3,000 test instances in each of the offline full-information and random-order online regimes ($n\in[2,20]$, $m\in[5,100]$), PriorityNet achieves mean normalized $\operatorname{NSW}$ values of $0.9911$ and $0.9701$, respectively. Relative to the offline Longest Processing Time (LPT) heuristic and the online least-valued-bundle rule, it attains instance-wise win-minus-loss rates of $+27.10\%$ and $+17.87\%$. Its aggregate welfare matches the offline LPT baseline to four decimal places and modestly improves upon the online baseline, from $0.9694$ to $0.9701$.