Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.35801

Exact Hill Shares Are Simultaneous Guarantees

Abstract

Fair division of indivisible bads seeks allocations that guarantee every agent a bundle whose cost is no larger than a meaningful fairness benchmark. The canonical minimax share has widely been used; unfortunately, it is not a simultaneous guarantee. Hill (Ann. Probab., 1987) initiated a complementary approach in which the share depends only on the number of agents and the largest possible single-item value. Li et al. (ACM Trans. Econ. Comput., 2024) gave the exact Hill formula and proved that its monotone closure is a simultaneous guarantee. The closure treats the largest-item cost only as an upper bound and can be strictly larger than the share conditioned on the \emph{actual} largest item. They asked whether this smaller exact share is itself simultaneously guaranteed for three or more agents. We resolve this open question affirmatively. For any number of agents and arbitrary heterogeneous largest-item costs, there is one allocation that satisfies every agent's exact Hill's share. We further provide a polynomial-time algorithm computes such an allocation. Our algorithm combines an ordered moving knife with a tail-domination invariant, and a one-sided trimmed subset-sum routine for the two-agent endpoint without computing an exact minimax partition.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bo Li, Hanyu Li, Chenghua Liu. 2026-09-18. Exact Hill Shares Are Simultaneous Guarantees. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35801

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Project Submission Games in Participatory Budgeting

We introduce the framework of project submission games, capturing the behavior of project proposers in participatory budgeting (and multiwinner elections). Here, each proposer submits a subset of project proposals, aiming at maximizing the total cost of those that get funded. We focus on finding conditions under which pure Nash equilibria (NE) exist in our games, and on the complexity of checking whether they exist. We also seek algorithms for computing best responses for the proposers

cs.GT↗

Domination-Avoiding Learning Agents Cannot Collude

An influential paper of Calvano et al. empirically demonstrated that Q-learning agents spontaneously collude when placed as sellers that compete on prices in a natural market model. More recent results of Fish et al. empirically demonstrated that similar collusion happens with commercial LLMs. We formally prove that such collusion can also happen with external-regret-minimizing agents. We identify a very general class of agents, which we term Domination-Avoiding agents, that provably do not collude in such markets. This class contains all Mean-Based agents and all internal-regret-minimizing agents, as well as others such as Multiplicative-Weight agents with variable learning rate and contextual variants thereof. More generally we show that, in any game, this class of agents is guaranteed to jointly learn to almost never play strategies that are eliminated by repeated elimination of purely dominated strategies.

cs.GT↗

Settling the Complexity of Hylland--Zeckhauser Equilibria

The Hylland--Zeckhauser (HZ) mechanism is a foundational framework for allocating indivisible goods in one-sided matching markets via lotteries supported by competitive prices and equal artificial budgets. We resolve the exact computational complexity of the HZ scheme by proving that computing an exact HZ equilibrium is FIXP-complete, thereby settling a conjecture of Vazirani and Yannakakis. Notably, this hardness persists even when computing the equilibrium allocation alone. We establish our hardness result via a reduction that encodes quadratic fixed-point equations into a reciprocal variational inequality. On the algorithmic side, we present a deterministic polynomial-time approximation algorithm that achieves an additive error of $0.0755211 + δ$ for any $δ> 0$, significantly improving upon the previous $1/e$ guarantee.

cs.GT↗