We study the fair division of indivisible items and provide new insights into the EFX problem, which is widely regarded as the central open question in fair division, and the PMMS problem, a strictly stronger variant of EFX. Our first result constructs a three-agent instance with two monotone valuations and one additive valuation in which no PMMS allocation exists. Since EFX allocations are known to exist under these assumptions, this establishes a formal separation between EFX and PMMS. We prove existence of fair allocations for three important special cases. We show that EFX allocations exist for personalized bivalued valuations, where for each agent i there exist values aᵢ > bᵢ such that agent i assigns value vᵢ({g}) ∈ {aᵢ, bᵢ} to each good g. We establish an analogous existence result for PMMS allocations when aᵢ is divisible by bᵢ. We also prove that PMMS allocations exist for binary-valued MMS-feasible valuations, where each bundle S has value vᵢ(S) ∈ {0, 1}. Notably, this result holds even without assuming monotonicity of valuations and thus applies to the fair division of chores and mixed manna. Finally, we study a class of valuations called pair-demand valuations, which extend the well-studied unit-demand valuations to the case where each agent derives value from at most two items, and we show that PMMS allocations exist in this setting. Our proofs are constructive, and we provide polynomial-time algorithms for all three existence results.

We study multi-agent contract design with combinatorial actions, under budget constraints, and for a broad class of objective functions, including profit (principal's utility), reward, and welfare. Our first result is a strong impossibility: For submodular reward functions, no randomized poly-time algorithm can approximate the optimal budget-feasible value within \textit{any finite factor}, even with demand-oracle access. This result rules out extending known constant-factor guarantees from either (i) unbudgeted settings with combinatorial actions or (ii) budgeted settings with binary actions, to their combination. The hardness is tight: It holds even when all but one agent have binary actions and the remaining agent has just one additional action. On the positive side, we show that gross substitutes rewards (a well-studied strict subclass of submodular functions) admit a deterministic poly-time $O(1)$-approximation, using only value queries. Our results thus draw the first sharp separation between budgeted and unbudgeted settings in combinatorial contracts, and identifies gross substitutes as a tractable frontier for budgeted combinatorial contracts. Finally, we present an FPTAS for additive rewards, demonstrating that arbitrary approximation is tractable under any budget. This constitutes the first FPTAS for the multi-agent combinatorial-actions setting, even in the absence of budget constraints.

We study fair mechanisms for the classic job scheduling problem on unrelated machines with the objective of minimizing the makespan. This problem is equivalent to minimizing the egalitarian social cost in the fair division of chores. The two prevalent fairness notions in the fair division literature are envy-freeness and proportionality. Prior work has established that no envy-free mechanism can provide better than an Ω(log m / log log m)-approximation to the optimal makespan, where m is the number of machines, even when payments to the machines are allowed. In strong contrast to this impossibility, our main result demonstrates that there exists a proportional mechanism (with payments) that achieves a 3/2-approximation to the optimal makespan, and this ratio is tight. To prove this result, we provide a full characterization of allocation functions that can be made proportional with payments. Furthermore, we show that for instances with normalized costs, there exists a proportional mechanism that achieves the optimal makespan. We conclude with important directions for future research concerning other fairness notions, including relaxations of envy-freeness. Notably, we show that the technique leading to the impossibility result for envy-freeness does not extend to its relaxations.

Algorithmic contract design studies scenarios where a principal incentivizes an agent to exert effort on her behalf. In this work, we focus on settings where the agent's type is drawn from an unknown distribution, and formalize an offline learning framework for learning near-optimal contracts from sample agent types. A central tool in our analysis is the notion of pseudo-dimension from statistical learning theory. Beyond its role in establishing upper bounds on the sample complexity, pseudo-dimension measures the intrinsic complexity of a class of contracts, offering a new perspective on the tradeoffs between simplicity and optimality in contract design. Our main results provide essentially optimal tradeoffs between pseudo-dimension and representation error (defined as the loss in principal's utility) with respect to linear and bounded contracts. Using these tradeoffs, we derive sample- and time-efficient learning algorithms, and demonstrate their near-optimality by providing almost matching lower bounds on the sample complexity. Conversely, for unbounded contracts, we prove an impossibility result showing that no learning algorithm exists.

The problem of computing near-optimal contracts in combinatorial settings has recently attracted significant interest in the computer science community. Previous work has provided a rich body of structural and algorithmic insights into this problem. However, most of these results rely on the assumption that the principal has an unlimited budget for incentivizing agents, an assumption that is often unrealistic in practice. This motivates the study of the optimal contract problem under budget constraints.

A major problem in fair division is how to allocate a set of indivisible resources among agents fairly and efficiently. The goal of this work is to characterize the tradeoffs between two well-studied measures of fairness and efficiency --- envy freeness up to any item (EFX) for fairness, and Nash welfare for efficiency --- by saying, for given constants α and β, whether there exists an α-EFX allocation that guarantees a β-fraction of the maximum Nash welfare (β-MNW). For additive valuations, we show that for any α ∈ [0,1], there exists a partial allocation that is α-EFX and 1/(α+1)-MNW. This tradeoff turns out to be tight (for every α) as demonstrated by an impossibility result that we give. We also show that for α ∈ [0, φ-1 ≃ 0.618] these partial allocations can be turned into complete allocations where all items are assigned. Furthermore, for any α ∈ [0, 1/2], we show that the tight tradeoff of α-EFX and 1/(α+1)-MNW with complete allocations holds for the more general setting of subadditive valuations. Our results improve upon the current state of the art, for both additive and subadditive valuations, and match the best-known approximations of EFX under complete allocations, regardless of Nash welfare guarantees. Notably, our constructions for additive valuations also provide EF1 and constant approximations for maximin share guarantees.

We study best-of-both-worlds guarantees for the fair division of indivisible items among agents with subadditive valuations. Our main result establishes the existence of a random allocation that is simultaneously ex-ante 1/2-envy-free, ex-post 1/2-EFX and ex-post EF1, for every instance with subadditive valuations. We achieve this result by a novel polynomial-time algorithm that randomizes the well-established envy cycles procedure in a way that provides ex-ante fairness. Notably, this is the first best-of-both-worlds fairness guarantee for subadditive valuations, even when considering only EF1 without EFX.