We consider two models of fair division with indivisible items: one for goods and one for bads. For goods, we study two generalized envy freeness proxies (EF1 and EFX for goods) and three common welfare (utilitarian, egalitarian and Nash) efficiency notions. For bads, we study two generalized envy freeness proxies (1EF and XEF for goods) and two less common diswelfare (egalitarian and Nash) efficiency notions. Some existing algorithms for goods do not work for bads. We thus propose several new algorithms for the model with bads. Our new algorithms exhibit many nice properties. For example, with additive identical valuations, an allocation that maximizes the egalitarian diswelfare or Nash diswelfare is XEF and PE. Finally, we also give simple and tractable cases when these envy freeness proxies and welfare efficiency are attainable in combination (e.g. 0/1 valuations, 0/ − 1 valuations, house allocations).

We consider a fair division setting in which items arrive one by one and are allocated to agents via two existing mechanisms: LIKE and BALANCED LIKE. The LIKE mechanism is strategy-proof whereas the BALANCED LIKE mechanism is not. Whilst LIKE is strategy-proof, we show that it is not group strategy-proof. Indeed, our first main result is that no online mechanism is group strategyproof. We then focus on pure Nash equilibria of these two mechanisms. Our second main result is that computing a pure Nash equilibrium is tractable for LIKE and intractable for BALANCED LIKE. Our third main result is that there could be multiple such profiles and counting them is also intractable even when we restrict our attention to equilibria with a specific property (e.g. envy-freeness).