arXiv subjects

Tomasz Ponitka

Publications and source records attributed to Tomasz Ponitka.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Epistemic Pairwise Maximin Share

We introduce epistemic pairwise maximin share (EPMMS), a new fairness notion for fair division of indivisible goods. Two fundamental notions in this setting are envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) and pairwise maximin share (PMMS), with PMMS being stronger than EFX. While EFX has been extensively studied, far less is known about PMMS. Recent work shows that relaxing EFX via an epistemic perspective leads to substantial progress on the EFX problem, raising the question of whether a similar approach can advance our understanding of PMMS. Motivated by this, we initiate the study of EPMMS, the epistemic relaxation of PMMS. EPMMS is more challenging than EEFX: the key approaches underlying recent progress on epistemic EFX inherently fail to extend to EPMMS. We establish the following results. (1) For additive valuations, $4/5$-EPMMS allocations exist and can be efficiently computed. (2) For bivalued valuations, EPMMS allocations exist and can be efficiently computed; in fact, we obtain the stronger guarantee of epistemic groupwise maximin share (EGMMS), which also strengthens the existence of MMS allocations for this setting. (3) We prove that EPMMS allocations exist in two settings where MMS allocations need not exist: instances with three additive agents or two types of additive agents.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Equal-Pay Contracts

We study multi-agent contract design, where a principal incentivizes a team of agents to take costly actions that jointly determine the project success via a combinatorial reward function. While prior work largely focuses on unconstrained contracts that allow heterogeneous payments across agents, many real-world environments limit payment dispersion. Motivated by this, we study equal-pay contracts, where all agents receive identical payments. Our results also extend to nearly-equal-pay contracts where any two payments are identical up to a constant factor. We provide both algorithmic and hardness results across a broad hierarchy of reward functions, under both binary and combinatorial action models. While we focus on equal-pay contracts, our analysis also yields new insights into unconstrained contract design, and resolves two important open problems. On the positive side, we design polynomial-time O(1)-approximation algorithms for (i) submodular rewards under combinatorial actions, and (ii) XOS rewards under binary actions. These guarantees are tight: We rule out the existence of (i) a PTAS for combinatorial actions, even for gross substitutes rewards (unless P = NP), and (ii) any O(1)-approximation for XOS rewards with combinatorial actions. Crucially, our hardness results hold even for unconstrained contracts, thereby settling the corresponding open problems in this setting. Finally, we quantify the loss induced by fairness via the price of equality, defined as the worst-case ratio between the optimal principal's utility achievable by unconstrained contracts and that achievable by equal-pay contracts. We obtain a bound of $Θ(\log n/ \log \log n)$, where $n$ is the number of agents. This gap is tight in a strong sense: the upper bound applies even for XOS rewards with combinatorial actions, while the lower bound arises already for additive rewards with binary actions.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Anonymous Contracts

We study a multi-agent contracting problem where agents exert costly effort to achieve individually observable binary outcomes. While the principal can theoretically extract the full social welfare using a discriminatory contract that tailors payments to individual costs, such contracts may be perceived as unfair. In this work, we introduce and analyze anonymous contracts, where payments depend solely on the total number of successes, ensuring identical treatment of agents. We first establish that every anonymous contract admits a pure Nash equilibrium. However, because general anonymous contracts can suffer from multiple equilibria with unbounded gaps in principal utility, we identify uniform anonymous contracts as a desirable subclass. We prove that uniform anonymous contracts guarantee a unique equilibrium, thereby providing robust performance guarantees. In terms of efficiency, we prove that under limited liability, anonymous contracts cannot generally approximate the social welfare better than a factor logarithmic in the spread of agent success probabilities. We show that uniform contracts are sufficient to match this theoretical limit. Finally, we demonstrate that removing limited liability significantly boosts performance: anonymous contracts generally achieve an $O(\log n)$ approximation to the social welfare and, surprisingly, can extract the full welfare whenever agents' success probabilities are distinct. This reveals a structural reversal: widely spread probabilities are the hardest case under limited liability, whereas identical probabilities become the hardest case when limited liability is removed.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

One Action Too Many: Inapproximability of Budgeted Combinatorial Contracts

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.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Online Fair Division With Subsidy: When Do Envy-Free Allocations Exist, and at What Cost?

We study the problem of fairly allocating $m$ indivisible items arriving online, among $n$ (offline) agents. Although envy-freeness has emerged as the archetypal fairness notion, envy-free (EF) allocations need not exist with indivisible items. To bypass this, a prominent line of research demonstrates that there exist allocations that can be made envy-free by allowing a subsidy. Extensive work in the offline setting has focused on finding such envy-freeable allocations with bounded subsidy. We extend this literature to an online setting where items arrive one at a time and must be immediately and irrevocably allocated. Our contributions are two-fold: 1. Maintaining EF Online: We show that envy-freeability cannot always be preserved online when the valuations are submodular or supermodular, even with binary marginals. In contrast, we design online algorithms that maintain envy-freeability at every step for the class of additive valuations, and for its superclasses including $k$-demand and SPLC valuations. 2. Ensuring Low Subsidy: We investigate the quantity of subsidy required to guarantee envy-freeness online. Surprisingly, even for additive valuations, the minimum subsidy may be as large as $Ω(mn)$, in contrast to the offline setting, where the bound is $O(n)$. On the positive side, we identify valuation classes where the minimum subsidy is small (i.e., does not depend on $m$), including $k$-valued, rank-one, restricted additive, and identical valuations, and we obtain (mostly) tight subsidy bounds for these classes.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Probing EFX via PMMS: (Non-)Existence Results in Discrete Fair Division

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 $a_i > b_i$ such that agent $i$ assigns value $v_i(\{g\}) \in \{a_i, b_i\}$ to each good $g$. We establish an analogous existence result for PMMS allocations when $a_i$ is divisible by $b_i$. We also prove that PMMS allocations exist for binary-valued MMS-feasible valuations, where each bundle $S$ has value $v_i(S) \in \{0, 1\}$. 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.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Budget-Feasible Contracts

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. In this work, we study multi-agent contracts with binary actions under budget constraints. Our contribution is threefold. First, we show that all previously known approximation guarantees on the principal's utility extend (asymptotically) to budgeted settings. Second, through the lens of budget constraints, we uncover insightful connections between the standard objective of maximizing the principal's utility and other relevant objectives. Specifically, we identify a broad class of objectives, which we term BEST (BEyond STandard) objectives, including reward, social welfare, and principal's utility, and show that they are all equivalent (up to a constant factor), leading to approximation guarantees for all BEST objectives. Third, we introduce the price of frugality, which quantifies the loss due to budget constraints, and establish near-tight bounds on this measure, providing deeper insights into the tradeoffs between budgets and incentives.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

The Panel Complexity of Sortition: Is 12 Angry Men Enough?

Sortition is the practice of delegating public decision-making to randomly selected panels. Recently, it has gained momentum worldwide through its use in citizens' assemblies, sparking growing interest within the computer science community. One key appeal of sortition is that random panels tend to be more representative of the population than elected committees or parliaments. Our main conceptual contribution is a novel definition of representative panels, based on the Wasserstein distance from statistical learning theory. Using this definition, we develop a framework for analyzing the panel complexity problem -- determining the required panel size to ensure desirable properties. We focus on three key desiderata: (1) that efficiency at the panel level extends to the whole population, measured by social welfare; (2) that fairness guarantees for the panel translate to fairness for the population, captured by the core; and (3) that the probability of an outlier panel, for which the decision significantly deviates from the optimal one, remains low. We establish near-tight panel complexity guarantees for these desiderata across two fundamental social choice settings: participatory budgeting and facility location.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

The Pseudo-Dimension of Contracts

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. Finally, we extend our techniques in three important ways. First, we provide refined pseudo-dimension and sample complexity guarantees for the combinatorial actions model, revealing a novel connection between the number of critical values and sample complexity. Second, we extend our results to menus of contracts, showing that their pseudo-dimension scales linearly with the menu size. Third, we adapt our algorithms to the online learning setting, where we show that, a polynomial number of type samples suffice to learn near-optimal bounded contracts. Combined with prior work, this establishes a formal separation between expert advice and bandit feedback for this setting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Proportionally Fair Makespan Approximation

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 $\Omega(\log m/ \log \log m)$-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.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

On Optimal Tradeoffs between EFX and Nash Welfare

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 $α\in [0,1]$, there exists a partial allocation that is $α$-EFX and $\frac{1}{α+1}$-MNW, and this tradeoff is tight (for any $α$). We also show that for $α\in[0,φ-1 \approx 0.618]$ these partial allocations can be turned into complete allocations where all items are assigned. Furthermore, for any $α\in [0, 1/2]$, we show that the tight tradeoff of $α$-EFX and $\frac{1}{α+1}$-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.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Breaking the Envy Cycle: Best-of-Both-Worlds Guarantees for Subadditive Valuations

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 $\frac{1}{2}$-envy-free, ex-post $\frac{1}{2}$-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.

cs.GT↗