On MMS allocations with few items

Uriel Feige

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.06125

On MMS allocations with few items

Uriel Feige

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the problem of allocating $m$ indivisible items to $n$ agents. For $n \ge 2$, we define $μ(n)$ as the largest $m$ for which every allocation instance with $n$ agents and $m$ items has an allocation that gives each agent at least her maximin share (MMS). We prove that for general monotone valuations, $μ(n) = n + Θ(\log n)$. This holds both for goods and for chores. For arbitrary valuations (not monotone), we prove that $μ(n) = \log n + O(1)$.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Uriel Feige. 2026-10-05. On MMS allocations with few items. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06125

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Online Fair Allocation with Best-of-Many-Worlds Guarantees

We investigate the online fair allocation problem with sequentially arriving items under various input models, with the goal of balancing fairness and efficiency. We propose the unconstrained PACE (Pacing According to Current Estimated utility) algorithm, a parameter-free allocation dynamic that requires no prior knowledge of the input while using only integral allocations. PACE attains near-optimal convergence or approximation guarantees under stationary, stochastic-but-nonstationary, and adversarial input types, thereby achieving the first best-of-many-worlds guarantee in online fair allocation. Beyond theoretical bounds, PACE is highly simple, efficient, and decentralized, and is thus likely to perform well on a broad range of real-world inputs. Numerical results support the conclusion that PACE works well under a variety of input models. We find that PACE performs very well on two real-world datasets even under the true temporal arrivals in the data, which are highly nonstationary.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Playing with Peaks: A Game-Theoretic Comparison of Electricity Pricing Mechanisms

As electricity consumption grows, reducing peak demand--the maximum load on the grid--has become critical for preventing infrastructure strain and blackouts. Pricing mechanisms that incentivize consumers with flexible loads to shift consumption away from high-demand periods have emerged as effective tools, yet different mechanisms are used in practice with unclear relative performance. This work compares two widely implemented approaches: anytime peak pricing (AP), where consumers pay for their individual maximum consumption, and coincident peak pricing (CP), where consumers pay for their consumption during the system-wide peak period. To compare these mechanisms, we model the electricity market as a strategic game and characterize the peak demand in equilibrium under both AP and CP. Our main result demonstrates that with perfect information, equilibrium peak demand under CP never exceeds that under AP; on the other hand, with imperfect information, the coordination introduced by CP can backfire and induce larger equilibrium peaks than AP. These findings demonstrate that potential gains from coupling users' costs (as done in CP) must be weighed against these miscoordination risks. We conclude with preliminary results indicating that progressive demand cost structures--rather than per-unit charges--may mitigate these risks while preserving coordination benefits, achieving desirable performance in both deterministic and stochastic settings.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Model Voters Strategize? An Oracle-Based Benchmark for Manipulation under Voting Rules

Strategic voting is a canonical failure mode for collective choice: a voter may obtain a more preferred outcome by reporting a ballot that differs from its true preferences. This paper introduces an oracle-based benchmark for testing whether large language model (LLM) voters can discover and execute such manipulations. Each instance gives an LLM voter a true preference ranking, the other voters' ballots, a deterministic voting rule, and a prompt condition. An exact oracle enumerates every feasible report by the LLM voter, computes the sincere outcome, identifies all profitable reports, and records the best achievable outcome. The benchmark therefore supplies ground truth for strategic success without human labels or subjective grading of explanations. The benchmark covers plurality, Borda, approval, instant-runoff voting, and Copeland-style pairwise majority voting; prompt conditions separate sincere, strategic, civic, and expert framings. To keep the primary study defensible while preserving the main comparisons, the registered core design fixes a single electorate size, uses 600 balanced election instances, and produces 9,600 model--prompt responses when run with four model configurations and four prompt conditions. Because existing peer-reviewed work does not report manipulation discovery, optimal manipulation, false manipulation, near-miss, or invalid-ballot rates for this exact task, we do not impute LLM performance from unrelated studies. Instead, we report exact oracle-calibration baselines that bound and contextualize subsequent model results. By reducing strategic-voting behavior to exact counterfactual evaluation, the benchmark turns the question ``Do LLM voters vote sincerely or strategically?'' into a reproducible social-choice experiment.

cs.GT↗