Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.35280

Truthful-in-Expectation MMS Allocations for Chores

Zehan Lin·Biaoshuai Tao·Xiaowei Wu·Yuhao Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study truthful-in-expectation (TIE) mechanisms for allocating indivisible chores alongside ex-post maximin share (MMS) guarantees. For goods, Bu and Tao (FOCS 2025) established a (1/n)-approximation for TIE mechanisms, and this was substantially improved by Babaioff, Feige, and Manaker Morag (FOCS 2026), who established an Ω(1/\log n) approximation, where n is the number of agents. The corresponding problem for chores has received less attention. The best-known result is due to Aziz, Li, and Wu (MAPR 2024), who gave a TIE mechanism with an O(\sqrt{\log n}) MMS approximation guarantee that holds only in expectation. They also established a 6/5 lower bound for TIE mechanisms for two agents. In this paper, we present the first TIE mechanism for chores that achieves a constant ex-post MMS approximation guarantee. Specifically, our mechanism guarantees an ex-post ratio of 1.97 for any number of agents n, which improves to 4/3 for n=2 and 3/2 for n=3. On the hardness side, we tighten the two-agent lower bound to 4/3, showing that our mechanism is optimal for n=2. More generally, we establish a lower bound of 13/12 on the ex-post MMS approximation ratio achievable by TIE mechanisms for every n\ge 3.

Explore related subjects

cs.GTcs.DS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zehan Lin, Biaoshuai Tao, Xiaowei Wu, Yuhao Zhang. 2026-09-28. Truthful-in-Expectation MMS Allocations for Chores. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35280

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Throttling Equilibria in Auction Markets

Throttling is a popular method of budget management for online ad auctions in which the platform modulates the participation probability of an advertiser in order to smoothly spend her budget across many auctions. In this work, we investigate the setting in which all of the advertisers simultaneously employ throttling to manage their budgets, and we do so for both first-price and second-price auctions. We analyze the structural and computational properties of the resulting equilibria. For first-price auctions, we show that a unique equilibrium always exists, is well-behaved and can be computed efficiently via tatonnement-style decentralized dynamics. In contrast, for second-price auctions, we prove that even though an equilibrium always exists, the problem of finding even an approximate equilibrium is PPAD-complete, there can be multiple equilibria, and it is NP-hard to find the revenue maximizing one. We also compare the equilibrium outcomes of throttling to those of multiplicative pacing, which is the other most popular and well-studied method of budget management. Finally, we characterize the Price of Anarchy of these equilibria for liquid welfare by showing that it is at most 2 for both first-price and second-price auctions, and demonstrating that our bound is tight.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Efficiency of Generalized Proportional First-Price Auctions Under Auto-bidding

Auto-bidding is now widely adopted in online advertising platforms, allowing advertisers to specify high-level campaign objectives--such as maximizing total value subject to a return-on-spend (ROS) constraint--rather than manual per-query bids. A central question in algorithmic mechanism design is characterizing the worst-case efficiency loss, or Price of Anarchy (PoA), across auction formats in this prior-free setting. While randomized auctions are known to strictly improve efficiency over deterministic mechanisms for two bidders, two fundamental questions have remained open: (1) what is the optimal PoA for two bidders, and (2) can any mechanism beat the barrier of 2 for general $n \ge 3$ bidders? We resolve both questions using the family of $r$-proportional first-price auctions ($\text{pFPA}_r$), in which each bidder wins with probability proportional to their bid raised to an exponent $r > 0$ and pays their bid upon winning. First, for two bidders, we prove that the standard proportional first-price auction ($r = 1$) achieves a tight $\text{PoA} \le 1.5$, complemented by a matching lower bound showing that no anonymous, monotone mechanism can do better. Second, for general $n \ge 2$ bidders, setting $r = 2n$ achieves $\text{PoA} \le 2 - \frac{1}{4n+1} = 2 - Ω(1/n)$ across all undominated bid profiles, breaking the deterministic barrier of 2 for every finite $n$ and asymptotically matching the known $2 - Θ(1/n)$ lower bound.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Honest Reporting in Scored Oversight: True-KL0 Property via the Prekopa Principle

We prove the True-KL$_0$ property for a parametric family of heterogeneous scoring rules arising in scored elicitation mechanisms (AI oversight, forecasting, expert surveys). An agent with private type $M>1$, scored through a $d$-dimensional outcome interface, reports to a principal who evaluates via a power-$p$ pseudospherical scoring rule, $p \in (d,d+1)$; $M$ captures the agent's information quality relative to a reference. Honest reporting is dominant-strategy optimal for every $d$ and every $p>1$, without a prior over the agent's type: a consequence of strict properness and identifiability, with a quadratic misreport-loss rate. True-KL$_0$, the property $R(M,p,d)<1$ for all $M>1$, $d \in \{2,3,4\}$, $p \in (d,d+1)$, is the quantitative core: $R$ is the Rayleigh quotient of the radial misreport channel of an annular oversight model, and True-KL$_0$ certifies a uniform curvature-domination margin for that channel: $1-R \ge 0.26$ ($R \le 0.7324$, semi-rigorous numerical certificate). Two structural tools drive the proof: (i) a substitution $y=(x+1)/(x-1)$ rewrites the loss integral $I_L$ as $\int_1^M F(y)(M^2-y^2)^{d/2} dy$ with $M$-independent weight $F(y)>0$; (ii) log-concavity of $I_L$ in $M$: algebraic for $d=2$ up to a small certified compact verification, via Prekopa's theorem plus semi-rigorous certificates for $d \in \{3,4\}$. True-KL$_0$ then follows from elementary tail bounds plus a certified bound on $M \in [1.001, 20]$. We also characterise the dimensional boundary: True-KL$_0$ holds for all $p \in (d,d+1)$ when $d \le 4$; $d=5$ is the unique transition, with $p_{crit}(5) \in [5.5718, 5.5750]$ (mpmath, not interval-certified); for $d=6,7$ (and conjecturally all $d \ge 6$) no threshold exists: the bound fails at every sampled $p \in (d,d+1)$.

cs.GT↗