Bayesian Fair Division: Truthfulness in Picking Sequence with Correlated Valuations

Biaoshuai Tao; Xiaolin Bu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 17 references

Bayesian Fair Division: Truthfulness in Picking Sequence with Correlated Valuations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For two agents, strong stochastic dominance of posterior beliefs makes truth-telling a Bayesian Nash equilibrium under randomized sequential allocation; with three or more agents, a bait manipulation defeats it.

desk verdict Solid sufficiency result for two-agent Bayesian truthfulness with concrete negative examples; the alleged Lemma 2 gap is a misreading, though continuous-case details need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07414 v1 pith:JE3P3WVG submitted 2026-08-07 cs.GT

Xiaolin Bu , Biaoshuai Tao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GT MSC 91B3291A1091A80

keywords Bayesianfairdivisionsequentialallocationround-robinmechanismtruthfulnessNashequilibriumcorrelatedvaluationsstrongstochasticdominancemonotonelikelihoodratio

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Sequential allocation mechanisms such as round-robin are easy to manipulate when agents know each other's preferences: a player can park a favorite item and compete for something else. The paper asks whether this manipulation disappears when each agent only knows a distribution over the others' valuations and those valuations are positively correlated. It establishes that for two agents the answer is yes, provided the correlation is strong enough — a condition it names strong stochastic dominance — and that under this condition truth-telling is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium for every randomized picking order. The same condition is not enough with three or more agents: the paper exhibits a new 'bait' manipulation in which a player leaves a valuable item for an opponent to waste a turn on. A separate result shows that the resulting Bayesian equilibria need not satisfy the fairness guarantee EF1, unlike Nash equilibria of round-robin in the complete-information model.

What carries the argument

The central object is strong stochastic dominance (SSD): for distributions $p_1,p_2$ on values, $p_1 \succeq_{\mathrm{ssd}} p_2$ if for every $v_1\le v_2$, $$\Pr_{X\sim p_1}(X\ge v_1 \mid X\le v_2)\ge \Pr_{Y\sim p_2}(Y\ge v_1 \mid Y\le v_2).$$ This is a history-robust version of stochastic dominance: it survives conditioning on the event that the other agent's value is below a previously revealed maximum $T$. The proof combines a gradual-revelation reinterpretation of the sequential process — an agent maintains $T$ as the other agent's last picked value and treats each remaining item's value distribution as $p(\cdot|v,T=T)$ — with a 'one-position misalignment' coupling between the truthful process and a process in which two adjacent items in the report are swapped; SSD is exactly what lets the coupling order the two agents' values. The negative result for three agents removes this one-position alignment: with two opponents, a deviating report can leave a favorite item as bait and change a second opponent's future pick.

What would settle it

Compute, for a finite two-agent instance satisfying strong stochastic dominance, the expected utility of every strict report ranking against a truthful opponent under a fixed picking sequence; if any misreport beats truth-telling, Theorem 1 is false. A natural first search is over the small-$\varepsilon$ boundary cases of Section 3.1 modified to satisfy SSD, including all tie-breaking permutations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: if each agent's posterior belief about the other agent's value for an item is 'strongly stochastically dominated' by her posterior for a higher-valued item, then for two agents truth-telling is a best response to truth-telling under the randomized sequential allocation mechanism, for any picking sequence. The paper also proves that the monotone likelihood ratio property of the common prior implies this posterior condition, so MLRP makes the randomized round-robin and all other sequential allocation protocols Bayesian incentive compatible for two agents; bi-valued valuations and the single-type independent model are special cases. For three or more agents, the paper gives a counterexample satisfying MLRP in which truth-telling is not an equilibrium, due to a baiting manipulation different from the classical 'defer a low-competition favorite' deviation. It further constructs a two-agent Bayesian Nash equilibrium of randomized round-robin whose outcome violates EF1.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that the conditional distribution of the opponent's value given the currently revealed maximum $T$ is well defined and that an optimal deviation exists; for continuous or uncountable value spaces neither construction is given in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For two agents, any randomized sequential allocation mechanism — including round-robin with any picking order — becomes Bayesian incentive compatible whenever the posterior satisfies SSD.
When the prior satisfies MLRP, truthfulness follows; in particular every two-agent bi-valued instance and every single-type independent instance has truth-telling as a Bayesian Nash equilibrium.
With three or more agents the two-agent guarantee cannot be recovered by strengthening positive correlation alone, since MLRP itself admits a profitable bait manipulation.
Bayesian Nash equilibria of randomized round-robin can output non-EF1 allocations, so the fairness properties that hold at Nash equilibria of the complete-information model do not transfer to the Bayesian model.
Truth-telling as a Bayesian Nash equilibrium is strictly weaker than dominant-strategy truthfulness: bi-valued two-agent settings are BNE-truthful but not strategy-proof.
The 'defer a highly valued, less competitive item' manipulation is eliminated under positive correlation, but a different manipulation appears only when multiple opponents are present.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's proof suggests that the independent per-agent random tie-breaking order is load-bearing: if one replaced it with a single global tie-breaking order, the coupling behind Lemma 1 would stop working, so SSD might no longer imply truthfulness.
The three-agent counterexample likely extends to every $n\ge 3$ by adding dummy agents or dummy items, which would make exact Bayesian truthfulness of sequential allocation a genuinely two-agent phenomenon.
The gradual-revelation threshold $T$ could yield a quantitative measure of manipulation gain: for priors close to satisfying SSD, the expected gain from the best non-truthful report should be bounded by the size of the SSD violations, giving a route to approximate truthfulness.
The same SSD test could be applied to other sequential protocols, such as draft mechanisms or cut-and-choose with correlated Bayesian beliefs, to see whether the two-agent truthfulness phenomenon is specific to picking sequences.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read the Bu–Tao paper on Bayesian fair division with correlated valuations. Two things to know up front. The central sufficiency result—strong stochastic dominance makes truth-telling a BNE for two-agent randomized sequential allocation—is plausible and the negative examples are explicit and checkable. And the stress-test note you sent me about Lemma 2 does not hold up on a close read.

The note says scenario 1 in the coupling is inconsistent because if agent 2 takes the same set in both processes and h2 is not taken, agent 1 cannot receive h2 under bP and h1 under P. But the note misses that Phase II starts with agent 1 already picking: under bP she takes h1 immediately, under P she takes h2. So h1 is gone from bP and h2 is gone from P before agent 2 moves. In scenario 1, agent 2 then takes the same remaining set, h2 stays available in bP and h1 stays available in P, and the next agent-1 turn indeed gives h2 under bP, h1 under P, with identical leftovers. That is consistent.

What is new: the correlated-type model, the SSD condition that fixes the failure of plain stochastic dominance, the two-agent theorem, the three-agent 'bait' manipulation, and the EF1 failure under BNE. The three-agent counterexample is concrete, with a strict gain from 119 to 119.75. The paper correctly positions itself relative to Gkatzelis et al. 2023, recovering the one-type case as a special corollary. Self-citations are not load-bearing.

Soft spots, in proportion. The abstract says 'precisely characterize,' but the result is one-directional: SSD is sufficient, and they show SD is not enough, but they don't prove SSD necessary. The continuous case is underformalized: Lemma 1 asserts an optimal deviation exists without a compactness or measurable-selection argument, and the conditioning in p(u|v,T=t) needs a regular conditional probability when the value space is uncountable. These are technical gaps, likely repairable, and a referee should ask for details. The proof of Lemma 2 is dense and easy to misread—the stress-test is evidence—so the exposition should be rewritten for clarity, but I do not see a substantive flaw.

Bottom line: this is a serious paper with real content. The main theorem's proof has soft spots but the central argument holds up; the counterexamples are solid. I would send it to a good AGT venue and request revisions that tighten the continuous case and soften the 'characterize' claim. For anyone working in Bayesian fair division, the SSD notion and the three-agent example are worth engaging with.

Recommendation: accept for peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Bayesian model of fair division with correlated valuations, where each item has an unobservable type and agents update beliefs about others' values after observing their own. The main positive result (Theorem 1) states that for two agents, if the posterior belief satisfies a newly defined 'strong stochastic dominance' (SSD), then truth-telling is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium under randomized sequential allocation mechanisms, for any picking sequence. The proof structure is: Lemma 1 reduces to strict rankings, Lemma 2 (the core) shows an optimal strict ranking must be consistent with the agent's true values, and Lemma 3 shows ties among equal-valued items can be merged. The paper also shows that monotone likelihood ratio in the prior implies SSD, yielding corollaries for bi-valued and one-type settings. On the negative side, it gives a two-agent counterexample showing ordinary stochastic dominance is insufficient, a three-agent counterexample showing SSD/MLRP does not extend to more than two agents (with a new 'bait' manipulation), and a construction of a Bayesian Nash equilibrium under randomized round-robin that violates EF1.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a solid contribution: it gives the first Bayesian truthfulness characterization for sequential allocation with correlated valuations, identifies a genuinely new manipulation phenomenon for multiple agents, and sharply contrasts Bayesian and non-Bayesian equilibrium guarantees. The explicit three-agent and EF1 counterexamples are concrete, with computed probabilities that check out, and the MLRP-to-SSD implication is a useful bridge to a familiar property. The two-agent positive theorem is the central claim; it is plausible and the overall narrative is coherent. However, the proof of the central lemma currently has a gap that must be repaired before the theorem is fully supported.

major comments (3)

[§3.3.2, Proposition 1] The proof of Proposition 1 is incomplete in the subcase where agent 1 picks first and j > 2. The text says 'after agent 1 takes one item in each of the processes, we can directly apply the induction hypothesis.' But after these first picks the two instances have remaining item sets M\{g1,g2} and M\{g1,g_j}, respectively, and the induction hypothesis requires that in the first of these the next item agent 2 would pick (if available) is the item missing from the second instance, namely g_j. This condition does not follow from the original assumption that g_j is the next item agent 2 picks in G = M\{g1}. Since Proposition 1 is used in the analysis of scenario 3 of the coupling, this gap is load-bearing for Lemma 2 and hence for Theorem 1. The proposition itself appears true, but the written proof does not supply a correct induction argument.
[§3.3.1 and Theorem 1] The paper claims the type and value spaces may be infinite or uncountable, but the gradual-revelation process and the definition of p(·|v,T=T) condition on the exact realized maximum T without a regular conditional probability construction. In the continuous case such conditioning events may have probability zero, so the equivalence of the gradual-revelation view is not formally established. Similarly, Lemma 1 'starts with an arbitrary optimal strategy' and Lemma 2 relies on existence of an optimal strict-ranking strategy; no compactness, continuity, or measurable-selection argument is given for the continuous case. For finite or discrete value spaces the proof is fine, but as stated the theorem's claimed generality is not fully supported. Please either restrict Theorem 1 to finite/discrete value spaces or supply the measure-theoretic details.
[§3.1, SD counterexample] The counterexample showing that ordinary stochastic dominance is insufficient relies on asserted enumerations: the text states 'A direct enumeration from the posterior beliefs gives x1 = Θ(ε^2) and x2 = Θ(ε)' and then concludes the deviation is profitable by choosing ε and δ suitably. The enumeration is not shown, and since this counterexample motivates the entire SSD definition, the reader needs to be able to verify the probability calculations. Please provide the full enumeration or a more detailed derivation of x1 and x2.

minor comments (4)

[§3.3.2, scenario 1] The description of scenario 1 is terse and potentially confusing: it says 'she will receive h2 under bP and h1 under P' without noting that agent 1 has already received h1 in bP and h2 in P at the first turn of Phase II. Because both items are received by agent 1 across the two Phase-II picks, the final allocation is indeed identical, but the wording should be clarified to avoid the appearance of an inconsistency.
[§1.1, 'precisely characterize'] The abstract and introduction say the paper 'precisely characterizes the extent of this rough consistency,' but the paper actually proves a sufficient condition (SSD) and shows that a weaker condition (SD) is insufficient; it does not prove necessity of SSD for truthfulness. The wording overstates the result and should be softened.
[§3.4, Lemma 4] The proof of Lemma 4 uses the extension x/0 = +∞ and states a weighted-average inequality with 'it is straightforward to see'; this step is terse. I recommend expanding the argument slightly, since the infinity cases and the induction leading to Inequality (5) are easy to miscopy.
[§4, Lemma 6] The BNE construction in Lemma 6 asserts without full verification that 'every best response to v̄1 must have the form of r1' and that 'it is easy to verify' for the other specified report. Given the complexity of the case analysis, please provide the missing verification or a more explicit argument for these claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a sufficiency theorem proved from a distributional assumption, the negative examples are constructed independently, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1, states that strong stochastic dominance (SSD) of the posterior belief implies truth-telling is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium. SSD is defined purely as a distributional condition (Definition 3) in terms of conditional tail probabilities; it is not defined in terms of equilibrium, truthfulness, or the sequential mechanism. The proof proceeds through Lemma 1 (strict rankings can be assumed by a mixed-strategy averaging argument), Lemma 2 (an optimal strict ranking aligns with true values, proved via a coupling of two random processes), and Lemma 3 (indifferent items can be tied without loss). None of these lemmas assume the conclusion: Lemma 2 uses SSD to compare posterior distributions over agent 2's item values, which is exactly the input assumption rather than the target equilibrium statement. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction; no quantity used in the proof is defined in terms of the truthfulness outcome. The three-agent counterexample in Section 3.5 is an explicit constructed instance with a computed truthful utility below 119 and a misreport utility of 119.75, so the negative result is independent evidence rather than a circular consequence of the positive theorem. The self-citations to Bu et al. (2023) and Bu and Tao (2024) appear only in related-work comparisons and do not carry the proof of Theorem 1. The comparison to Gkatzelis et al. (2023) is contextual and not used as a uniqueness or existence theorem. The MLRP-to-SSD implication in Lemma 4 is proved directly from Bayes' rule and the likelihood-ratio ordering; Corollaries 1-3 are straightforward consequences. Any issues with the internal coupling case analysis in Section 3.3.2 would be a correctness or soundness gap in a proof attempt, not circularity, because the attempted proof does not tacitly assume the ranking consistency it is trying to establish. The paper is self-contained against its own assumptions and benchmarks the negative result against an explicit instance, so the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Bayesian correlated-valuation model and the new SSD condition; no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Valuations are additive and non-negative for goods, and the chores/mixed extension is claimed without proof.
Stated in Section 2; additivity is used throughout, and the chores/mixed extension in Section 1.1 is not proved.
domain assumption All items share a common prior type distribution tau; item types are independent; agents update by Bayes' rule from a common prior.
Section 2.1 defines the Bayesian model; the coupling in Lemma 2 relies on the posterior p(·|v1_g) depending only on own value and on independence across items.
domain assumption The randomized sequential mechanism uses independently sampled tie-breaking permutations per agent; the truthfulness result does not cover deterministic tie-breaking.
Algorithm 2 and the footnote in Section 2.3; Lemma 1 uses independence of pi_1 from agent 2 to justify averaging over strict refinements.
domain assumption An optimal deviation strategy for agent 1 exists, as Lemma 1 begins with 'an arbitrary optimal strategy'.
The model allows uncountable value spaces, but no compactness, upper semicontinuity, or measurable selection argument is given; this is a gap in the best-response proof.
domain assumption Conditional distributions of the opponent's value given a realized maximum-value threshold T are well-defined even for continuous value distributions.
Section 3.3.1 defines p(u|v,T=T) after conditioning on a point value of T; continuous cases need regular conditional probabilities, which are not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Fair Division: Truthfulness in Picking Sequence with Correlated Valuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE3P3WVG

@misc{pith2026260807414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Fair Division: Truthfulness in Picking Sequence with Correlated Valuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE3P3WVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07414}
}

read the original abstract

Sequential allocation mechanisms contain a class of widely studied mechanisms (e.g., round-robin) in the fair division of indivisible goods, where agents take turns picking items in a predefined picking order. It is known that the sequential allocation mechanisms are not truthful: when an agent's most preferred item is not valued by others, the agent may manipulate the mechanism by choosing to defer picking that item and instead competing for another slightly less preferred item that is valued by others. Two underlying reasons are that each agent has perfect knowledge of the others' valuations, and each item's value to each agent can differ significantly. Will the mechanism be more truthful when each agent only has partial information about the others' valuations, which are known to be roughly consistent? This naturally motivates the study of the Bayesian fair division model. In this paper, we answer this question affirmatively for two agents. Under the Bayesian model, we precisely characterize the extent of this ``rough consistency'' that incentivizes agents' truth-telling. In particular, we show that for the case of two agents, when the valuations are positively correlated, truth-telling forms a Bayesian Nash equilibrium under the sequential allocation mechanisms. However, we show that truthfulness fails to extend to the setting with more than two agents. For more than two agents, we reveal a new type of manipulation that is different from the above-mentioned manipulation that defers a highly valued but less competitive item. Our result reveals a fundamental limitation on the truthfulness of sequential mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07414 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[4]

On Truthful Mechanisms without Pareto-efficiency: Characterizations and Fairness

On Truthful Mechanisms without Pareto-efficiency: Characterizations and Fairness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11131(2024). Siddharth Barman and Paritosh Verma

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[6]

Artificial Intelligence319 (2023), 103904

On existence of truthful fair cake cutting mechanisms. Artificial Intelligence319 (2023), 103904. Xiaolin Bu and Biaoshuai Tao

work page 2023
[7]

Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, and Maria Kyropoulou

Truthful and Almost Envy-Free Mechanism of Allocating Indivisible Goods: the Power of Randomness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13634(2024). Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, and Maria Kyropoulou

work page arXiv 2024
[9]

Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division

Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02040 (2023). Daniel Halpern, Ariel D Procaccia, Alexandros Psomas, and Nisarg Shah

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[16]

28 Jamie Tucker-Foltz and Richard Zeckhauser

Obvious manipulations.Journal of Economic Theory185 (2020), 104970. 28 Jamie Tucker-Foltz and Richard Zeckhauser

work page 2020
[17]

Management Science(2024)

Playing Divide-and-Choose Given Uncertain Preferences. Management Science(2024). Toby Walsh

work page 2024
[1971]

Josu´e Ortega and Erel Segal-Halevi

A class of sequential games.Operations Research19, 2 (1971), 270–277. Josu´e Ortega and Erel Segal-Halevi

work page 1971
[2000]

Szilvia P´apai

Strategyproof multiple assignment using quotas.Review of Economic Design5 (2000), 91–105. Szilvia P´apai

work page 2000

Show all 17 references

[2001]

Alexandros Psomas and Paritosh Verma

Strategyproof and nonbossy multiple assignments.Journal of Public Economic Theory 3, 3 (2001), 257–271. Alexandros Psomas and Paritosh Verma

2001
[2006]

27 Xiaolin Bu, Jiaxin Song, and Biaoshuai Tao

Better ways to cut a cake.Notices of the AMS53, 11 (2006), 1314–1321. 27 Xiaolin Bu, Jiaxin Song, and Biaoshuai Tao

2006
[2009]

InAlgorithmic Decision Theory: First International Conference, ADT 2009, Venice, Italy, October 20-23,

On low- envy truthful allocations. InAlgorithmic Decision Theory: First International Conference, ADT 2009, Venice, Italy, October 20-23,

2009
[2016]

InProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems

Manipulations in two-agent sequential allocation with random sequences. InProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems. 141–149. Peter Troyan and Thayer Morrill

2016
[2017]

InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

Truthful allocation mechanisms without payments: Characterization and implications on fairness. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 545–562. Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Federico Fusco, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, and Rebecca Re...

2017
[2020]

InWeb and Internet Economics: 16th International Conference, WINE 2020, Beijing, China, December 7–11, 2020, Proceedings

Fair division with binary valuations: One rule to rule them all. InWeb and Internet Economics: 16th International Conference, WINE 2020, Beijing, China, December 7–11, 2020, Proceedings

2020
[2022]

Szilvia P´apai

Obvious manipulations in cake-cutting.Social Choice and Welfare(2022), 1–20. Szilvia P´apai

2022
[2023]

Haris Aziz, Paul Goldberg, and Toby Walsh

Best of both worlds: Ex ante and ex post fairness in resource allocation.Operations Research(2023). Haris Aziz, Paul Goldberg, and Toby Walsh. 2017b. Equilibria in sequential allocation. InAlgorithmic Decision Theory: 5th International Conference, ADT 2017, Luxembourg, Luxembo...

2023
[2024]

Mathematics of operations research49, 4 (2024), 2425–2445

Allocating indivisible goods to strategic agents: Pure nash equilibria and fairness. Mathematics of operations research49, 4 (2024), 2425–2445. Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, and Rebecca Reiffenh¨auser

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

On Truthful Mechanisms without Pareto-efficiency: Characterizations and Fairness

On Truthful Mechanisms without Pareto-efficiency: Characterizations and Fairness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11131(2024). Siddharth Barman and Paritosh Verma

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [6]

Artificial Intelligence319 (2023), 103904

On existence of truthful fair cake cutting mechanisms. Artificial Intelligence319 (2023), 103904. Xiaolin Bu and Biaoshuai Tao

work page 2023

[3] [7]

Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, and Maria Kyropoulou

Truthful and Almost Envy-Free Mechanism of Allocating Indivisible Goods: the Power of Randomness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13634(2024). Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, and Maria Kyropoulou

work page arXiv 2024

[4] [9]

Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division

Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02040 (2023). Daniel Halpern, Ariel D Procaccia, Alexandros Psomas, and Nisarg Shah

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [16]

28 Jamie Tucker-Foltz and Richard Zeckhauser

Obvious manipulations.Journal of Economic Theory185 (2020), 104970. 28 Jamie Tucker-Foltz and Richard Zeckhauser

work page 2020

[6] [17]

Management Science(2024)

Playing Divide-and-Choose Given Uncertain Preferences. Management Science(2024). Toby Walsh

work page 2024

[7] [1971]

Josu´e Ortega and Erel Segal-Halevi

A class of sequential games.Operations Research19, 2 (1971), 270–277. Josu´e Ortega and Erel Segal-Halevi

work page 1971

[8] [2000]

Szilvia P´apai

Strategyproof multiple assignment using quotas.Review of Economic Design5 (2000), 91–105. Szilvia P´apai

work page 2000