Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Matching Markets with Chores

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extends HZ matching markets from goods to chores and mixed manna, and proves the pricing-based and earnings-based equilibrium notions coincide.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee: the utility-shifting idea is clean and the earnings equivalence is a real result, but the printed proofs of Theorem 5 and Lemma 6 have repairable gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17134 v1 pith:VS4DRCOF submitted 2024-12-22 cs.GT

Jugal Garg , Thorben Tröbst , Vijay V. Vazirani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91B2691B6891B32
keywords matchingmarketschoresmixedmannaHZequilibriumearningsenvy-freenessPareto-optimalitybivaluedutilities
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

This paper argues that matching markets, where every agent receives exactly one unit of allocation and every item is fully assigned, are a natural setting for fair division of chores and mixed manna. It shows that because each bundle sums to one, adding a constant to an agent's utilities preserves envy-freeness, Pareto-optimality, and both equilibrium notions, so goods-only results transfer to chores for free. Its central equivalence theorem states that the classic Hylland–Zeckhauser pricing equilibrium (agents spend one unit of fake money) and a newly formulated earnings equilibrium (agents must earn one unit of money by accepting chores) are the same object under an affine transform of prices into wages. The paper also provides polynomial-time EF+PO algorithms for bivalued utilities and for two agent types, and demonstrates with counterexamples that two natural Nash-bargaining extensions fail for chores.

What carries the argument

The central machinery has two parts: the utility-shifting operation (adding an agent-specific constant $c_i$ to every $u_{ij}$), which preserves envy-freeness, Pareto-optimality, and both equilibrium notions because every feasible bundle sums to one; and the affine price-wage transform $p \mapsto q$ with $q_j = (p_{\max} - p_j)/(p_{\max} - 1)$, which maps 'spending at most one unit of fake money' to 'earning at least one unit' while preserving the ordering of bundles by utility and by cost. The transform is the bridge that makes the earnings-based equilibrium coincide with the pricing-based equilibrium.

What would settle it

Consider the two-agent instance with utilities $u_1 = (1,0)$ and $u_2 = (0,1)$. Every HZ equilibrium in this instance has both prices equal to 1, so the transform $q_j = (1 - p_j)/(1 - 1)$ in the proof of Theorem 5 is undefined and the printed proof cannot convert this pricing equilibrium into an earnings equilibrium. Checking whether the equivalence statement still holds for such boundary equilibria, for example via a piecewise affine transform, would isolate the gap between the theorem and its proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the chores setting needs no new equilibrium theory once the matching constraint is exploited. Lemmas 4 and 5 show that shifting an agent's utilities by a constant ($u \mapsto u + c$) leaves HZ equilibria and HZ earnings equilibria unchanged, which transfers existence, envy-freeness, and Pareto-optimality from goods to chores and mixed manna. Theorem 5 makes the sharper structural statement: an allocation is an HZ equilibrium under prices $p$ if and only if it is an HZ earnings equilibrium under wages $q$, where $q_j = (p_{\max} - p_j)/(p_{\max} - 1)$ and $p_{\max}$ is the maximum price. Thus the earnings-based equilibrium, the natural notion when all items are chores, is the same mathematical object as the pricing-based equilibrium of Hylland and Zeckhauser. The paper then derives a polynomial-time EF+PO algorithm for instances with two agent types and for bivalued utilities, and shows that both direct minimization of the product of disutilities and Pareto-constrained Nash bargaining fail to yield bounded envy in chores matching markets.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the equilibrium-equivalence theorem divides by $p_{\max} - 1$, so it assumes an HZ price vector can be normalized so that some price is strictly greater than 1; the paper does not prove such a normalization always exists, and it can fail when all equilibrium prices are 1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Goods-only HZ algorithms, such as the polynomial-time scheme for bivalued utilities, apply unchanged to chores and mixed manna after shifting utilities.
  • HZ earnings equilibria always exist and inherit envy-freeness and Pareto-optimality from the pricing-based HZ equilibrium.
  • Strategyproofness results that hold for dichotomous goods preferences (Bogomolnaia–Moulin) extend to the bivalued chores case by the same shifting argument.
  • No constant-factor envy-freeness bound is achievable via the two natural Nash-bargaining generalizations; both fail with unbounded envy on simple two-agent examples.
  • A polynomial-time algorithm for approximately fair and efficient cardinal-utility matching markets with chores remains open, and the mixed setting first needs a suitable notion of approximate fairness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The equivalence theorem implies that any normalization convention for HZ prices (e.g., a free good with price zero) has a wages counterpart, namely a chore with zero wage; exploiting that symmetry could yield simpler computational characterizations for chores.
  • Since utility shifting transfers hardness results as well as algorithmic ones, the PPAD-hardness of EF+PO allocations for goods applies verbatim to chores and mixed manna, reinforcing the focus on approximation.
  • The two-type EF+PO result rests on the lemma that Pareto improvements preserve envy-freeness when there are only two agent types; testing whether this lemma extends to a constant number of types is a natural next step suggested by the proof structure.
  • A testable extension is to replace the affine price-wage transform with a piecewise affine map that handles equilibria where all prices are at most 1; the equivalence would then hold for all equilibria, closing the normalization gap in the printed proof.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends Hylland-Zeckhauser (HZ) matching-market mechanisms from goods to chores and mixed manna. It defines an HZ earnings equilibrium (Definition 4), proves that such equilibria are envy-free and Pareto-optimal (Theorems 3 and 4), and observes in Section 3 that adding agent-specific constants to all utilities preserves envy-freeness, Pareto-optimality, and both equilibrium notions. The central claim is Theorem 5: HZ pricing equilibria and HZ earnings equilibria are the same object up to a transformation of prices into wages. The paper also gives a polynomial-time algorithm for bivalued utilities (Theorem 7), an LP-based EF+PO algorithm for two agent types (Section 6), and counterexamples showing that two Nash-bargaining generalizations fail to be fair for chores (Section 7).

Significance. If the proof gaps are repaired, the paper is a useful and well-scoped contribution: it is the first systematic treatment of chores and mixed manna in one-sided cardinal matching markets, it gives a clean conceptual reduction from chores to goods via utility shifts, and it identifies an earnings-based equilibrium notion that is natural for chores and equivalent to the HZ equilibrium. Theorems 3 and 4, the shifting lemmas in Section 3, and the Section 7 counterexamples are straightforward and appear correct. The bivalued result correctly builds on known algorithms of Vazirani-Yannakakis and Bogomolnaia-Moulin. The main conceptual claim, however, is not proven as printed: the proof of Theorem 5 divides by pmax - 1 without handling pmax <= 1, and the two-type EF+PO algorithm in Section 6 rests on a sign error and a mismatched LP. These are repairable but load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 5] The transform q_j = (pmax - p_j)/(pmax - 1) is undefined when pmax = 1 and produces negative payments when pmax < 1, yet the proof never establishes that an HZ price vector with pmax > 1 exists. It does not exist for every HZ equilibrium: for two agents with u1=(1,0), u2=(0,1) and allocation x1=(1,0), x2=(0,1), both p=(1,1) and p=(1/2,1/2) are valid HZ prices, and every supporting price vector for this allocation has pmax <= 1 because each agent must be able to afford a full unit of their preferred good. The converse direction has the same issue when qmax = 1. The equivalence statement is plausibly true and can be repaired by a piecewise-affine transform (e.g., q_j = 1 for all j when pmax <= 1), but the printed construction does not cover valid instances. Since Theorem 6 and the bivalued earnings-equilibrium claim in Section 5 rely on Theorem 5, this gap is load-bearing.
  2. [Section 6, Lemma 6] The proof contains a sign error. The displayed chain u1·y2 = u1·x2 + u1·(y2 - x2) = u1·x2 + u1·(y1 - x1) >= u1·x2 is wrong: since y2 - x2 = x1 - y1, the second equality should have a minus sign, and the inequality should be reversed. The conclusion the proof needs is u1·y2 <= u1·x2, which follows after the correction, so the lemma statement appears true. As printed, however, the derivation does not prove the lemma. Lemma 6 is the step that turns an optimum of the envy-free polytope into a globally Pareto-optimal allocation, so the issue affects the polynomial-time EF+PO claim for two types.
  3. [Section 6, LP formulation] The displayed LP enforces u_i·x_i >= u_i·x_i' for all agents i, i', but Definition 6 defines envy-freeness with demands as u_i·x_i/d_i >= u_i·x_i'/d_i'. The LP thus optimizes over a different feasible set, and its optimal solution need not be envy-free in the demand model. The fix is straightforward (divide both sides by the corresponding demands), but as printed the polynomial-time EF+PO result for two agent types is not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in the third paragraph: 'Our s is first paper' should be 'Ours is the first paper'.
  2. [References] References [27] and [28] appear to be the same paper (He, Miralles, Pycia, and Yan); one duplicate should be removed or the citations should be merged.
  3. [Section 6] In the LP, 'xij >= 0 for all i in a' uses a lowercase 'a' where the agent set A is meant.
  4. [Section 3] The phrase 'HZ envy-freeness' is imprecise; envy-freeness is a property of allocations, not of the HZ mechanism. Consider rewording to 'envy-freeness of the allocation x'.
  5. [Section 4] In the proof of Theorem 5, the definitions of pmax and qmax are given inline; since the normalization issue is central, the proof would benefit from explicitly stating the domain assumption (or handling the pmax <= 1 case separately) before the formula is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the central equivalence is an algebraic bijection, and the noted p_max > 1 issue is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to the HZ definitions. The utility-shifting Lemmas 2-5 are immediate consequences of every feasible bundle summing to 1, and they are used only to transfer, not to presuppose, existence or fairness. Theorem 5 defines q_j = (p_max - p_j)/(p_max - 1) and verifies the HZ earnings axioms from the HZ axioms: the inequality q · x_i >= 1 follows from p · x_i <= 1 and the sum of x_i being 1, and the 'highest-earning optimal bundle' condition follows from the corresponding 'cheapest optimal bundle' condition by the order-reversing affine map. This is a direct proof from definitions, not a fitted input or renamed conclusion. Theorem 7 invokes the published dichotomous-goods algorithm [41] and strategyproofness [10]; although [41] shares an author, it is an independent prior result and the novel part is only the shift reduction, which does not assume the theorem. The remaining self-citations [38,39] are contextual or used for constant-type algorithms, not for the central equivalence. The legitimate concern is a correctness gap: the printed proof of Theorem 5 divides by p_max - 1 without proving p_max > 1, and valid HZ equilibria can have p_max = 1 (e.g., two agents with u1=(1,0), u2=(0,1) and the identity allocation at prices (0.5,0.5)). That makes the displayed transform undefined in those cases, but an undefined case in a proof is not a reduction of the theorem's conclusion to its assumptions; the equivalence is still argued from the definitions and is repairable by a piecewise-affine transform. Therefore there is no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted or hand-chosen parameters appear; the results are structural. The utility-shifting reduction relies on unit-sum fractional matchings, and the bivalued result inherits correctness from the known dichotomous HZ algorithm. No new empirical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Hylland-Zeckhauser equilibrium always exists for goods (Theorem 1 of the paper, due to [31]).
    Used throughout as the starting point for shifting utilities into the goods regime; Section 2.
  • domain assumption Vazirani-Yannakakis [41] computes HZ equilibria in polynomial time for dichotomous {0,1} utilities, and Bogomolnaia-Moulin [10] establishes strategyproofness there.
    Theorem 7's bivalued result reduces to this external algorithm and its incentive property.
  • domain assumption Fractional perfect matchings are the allocation space; each agent receives exactly one unit in total.
    This unit-sum property is what makes utility shifts preserve EF, PO, and HZ equilibria; Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Matching Markets with Chores." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VS4DRCOF

@misc{pith2026241217134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Matching Markets with Chores},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VS4DRCOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17134}
}
read the original abstract

The fair division of chores, as well as mixed manna (goods and chores), has received substantial recent attention in the fair division literature; however, ours is the first paper to extend this research to matching markets. Indeed, our contention is that matching markets are a natural setting for this purpose, since the manna that fit into the limited number of hours available in a day can be viewed as one unit of allocation. We extend several well-known results that hold for goods to the settings of chores and mixed manna. In addition, we show that the natural notion of an earnings-based equilibrium, which is more natural in the case of all chores, is equivalent to the pricing-based equilibrium given by Hylland and Zeckhauser for the case of goods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17134 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This example shows that minimizing the product of d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This example shows that maximizing the product of d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C omputing equilibrium in matching markets

    Saeed Alaei, Pooya Jalaly Khalilabadi, and Eva Tardos. C omputing equilibrium in matching markets. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Comp utation, pages 245–261, 2017. 10

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Fair division of indivisib le goods: Recent progress and open questions

    Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Ari s Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Hervé Moulin, Alexan- dros A Voudouris, and Xiaowei Wu. Fair division of indivisib le goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artificial Intelligence , 322:103965, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Strategyproof multi-item exchange under si ngle-minded dichotomous preferences

    Haris Aziz. Strategyproof multi-item exchange under si ngle-minded dichotomous preferences. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. , 34(1):3, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Matching a lgorithms under diversity-based reser- vations

    Haris Aziz, Sean Morota Chu, and Zhaohong Sun. Matching a lgorithms under diversity-based reser- vations. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomo us Agents and Multiagent Systems, (AAMAS) , pages 2469–2471. ACM, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    From matching with diversity constraints to matching with regional quotas

    Haris Aziz, Serge Gaspers, Zhaohong Sun, and Toby Walsh. From matching with diversity constraints to matching with regional quotas. In Proc. 18th Conf. Auton. Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAM AS), pages 377–385, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Fair allocation of two types of chores

    Haris Aziz, Jeremy Lindsay, Angus Ritossa, and Mashbat S uzuki. Fair allocation of two types of chores. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomo us Agents and Multiagent Systems, (AAMAS), pages 143–151. ACM, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Fair and trut hful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations

    Moshe Babaioff, Tomer Ezra, and Uriel Feige. Fair and trut hful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In Proc. 35th Conf. Artif. Intell. (AAAI) , pages 5119–5126, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Swap dynamics in single-peaked housing markets

    Aurélie Beynier, Nicolas Maudet, Simon Rey, and Parham S hams. Swap dynamics in single-peaked housing markets. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. , 35(2):20, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A new solution to the r andom assignment problem

    Anna Bogomolnaia and Hervé Moulin. A new solution to the r andom assignment problem. Journal of Economic theory, 100(2):295–328, 2001

    2001

  2. [10]

    Random matching und er dichotomous preferences

    Anna Bogomolnaia and Herve Moulin. Random matching und er dichotomous preferences. Econometrica, 72(1):257–279, 2004

    2004

  3. [11]

    Competitive division of a mixed manna

    Anna Bogomolnaia, Hervé Moulin, Fedor Sandomirskiy, a nd Elena Yanovskaya. Competitive division of a mixed manna. Econometrica, 85(6):1847–1871, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    The combinatorial assignment problem: Ap proximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes

    Eric Budish. The combinatorial assignment problem: Ap proximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy , 119(6):1061–1103, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Competitive equilibrium with chores: Combinatorial algorithm and hardness

    Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Jugal Garg, Peter McGlaughlin, and Ruta Mehta. Competitive equilibrium with chores: Combinatorial algorithm and hardness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) , pages 1106–1107, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Competitive equilibrium for chores: from dual eisenberg-gale to a fast, greedy, lp-b ased algorithm, 2024

    Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Christian Kroer, Ruta Mehta, an d Tianlong Nan. Competitive equilibrium for chores: from dual eisenberg-gale to a fast, greedy, lp-b ased algorithm, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Computational hardness of the hylland- zeckhauser scheme

    Thomas Chen, Xi Chen, Binghui Peng, and Mihalis Yannaka kis. Computational hardness of the hylland- zeckhauser scheme. In Proceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discret e Algorithms (SODA), pages 2253–2268. SIAM, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Fairness and efficiency trade-off in two-sided m atching

    Sung-Ho Cho, Kei Kimura, Kiki Liu, Kwei-guu Liu, Zhengj ie Liu, Zhaohong Sun, Kentaro Yahiro, and Makoto Yokoo. Fairness and efficiency trade-off in two-sided m atching. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagen t Systems, (AAMAS) , pa...

    2024

  9. [17]

    How t o fairly allocate easy and difficult chores

    Soroush Ebadian, Dominik Peters, and Nisarg Shah. How t o fairly allocate easy and difficult chores. In Proc. 21st Conf. Auton. Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAM AS), 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    F airness and efficiency for probabilistic alloca- tions with endowments

    Federico Echenique, Antonio Miralles, and Jun Zhang. F airness and efficiency for probabilistic alloca- tions with endowments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.04336 , 2019. 11

    1908 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C onstrained pseudo-market equilibrium

    Federico Echenique, Antonio Miralles, and Jun Zhang. C onstrained pseudo-market equilibrium. Amer- ican Economic Review , 111(11):3699–3732, November 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Computing competiti ve equilibria with mixed manna

    Jugal Garg and Peter McGlaughlin. Computing competiti ve equilibria with mixed manna. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS , pages 420–428, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Fair and effici ent allocations of chores under bivalued preferences

    Jugal Garg, Aniket Murhekar, and John Qin. Fair and effici ent allocations of chores under bivalued preferences. In Proc. 36th Conf. Artif. Intell. (AAAI) , 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Weighted EF1 and PO allocations with few types of agents or chores

    Jugal Garg, Aniket Murhekar, and John Qin. Weighted EF1 and PO allocations with few types of agents or chores. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Joint Conference on Arti ficial Intelligence, (IJCAI), 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Jugal Garg, Yixin Tao, and László A. Végh. Approximatin g equilibrium under constrained piecewise linear concave utilities with applications to matching mar kets. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2022, Virtual Confere nce / Alexandria,...

    2022

  16. [24]

    One-si ded matching markets with endowments: Equilibria and algorithms

    Jugal Garg, Thorben Tröbst, and Vijay Vazirani. One-si ded matching markets with endowments: Equilibria and algorithms. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems , 38(2):40, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    A survey on fair alloca tion of chores

    Hao Guo, Weidong Li, and Bin Deng. A survey on fair alloca tion of chores. Mathematics, 11(16), 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Stability in barter exchange markets

    Sushmita Gupta, Fahad Panolan, Saket Saurabh, and Meir av Zehavi. Stability in barter exchange markets. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. , 33(5):518–539, 2019

    2019

  19. [28]

    A pseudo-market approach to allocation with priorities

    Yinghua He, Antonio Miralles, Marek Pycia, and Jianye Y an. A pseudo-market approach to allocation with priorities. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics , 10(3):272–314, 2018

    2018

  20. [29]

    Investiga ting the characteristics of one-sided matching mechanisms under various preferences and risk attitudes

    Hadi Hosseini, Kate Larson, and Robin Cohen. Investiga ting the characteristics of one-sided matching mechanisms under various preferences and risk attitudes. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. , 32(4):534– 567, 2018

    2018

  21. [30]

    Nash-bargainin g-based models for matching markets: One- sided and two-sided; fisher and arrow-debreu

    Mojtaba Hosseini and Vijay V Vazirani. Nash-bargainin g-based models for matching markets: One- sided and two-sided; fisher and arrow-debreu. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022) . Schloss-Dagstuhl-Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2022

    2022

  22. [31]

    The efficient all ocation of individuals to positions

    Aanund Hylland and Richard Zeckhauser. The efficient all ocation of individuals to positions. Journal of Political economy , 87(2):293–314, 1979

    1979

  23. [32]

    Approximate efficiency in matching markets

    Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier, Glen Weyl, and Joshu a Mollner. Approximate efficiency in matching markets. In Nikhil R. Devanur and Pinyan Lu, editors, Web and Internet Economics , pages 252–265, Cham, 2017. Springer International Publishing

    2017

  24. [33]

    Competitive equilibrium in the random assig nment problem

    Phuong Le. Competitive equilibrium in the random assig nment problem. International Journal of Economic Theory, 13(4):369–385, 2017

    2017

  25. [34]

    Mixed fair division: A survey

    Shengxin Liu, Xinhang Lu, Mashbat Suzuki, and Toby Wals h. Mixed fair division: A survey. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 22641–22649, 2024

    2024

  26. [35]

    Fractional matching markets

    Vikram Manjunath. Fractional matching markets. Games and Economic Behavior , 100:321–336, 2016

    2016

  27. [36]

    Efficient disposal equilibria of pseudom arkets

    Andy McLennan. Efficient disposal equilibria of pseudom arkets. In Workshop on Game Theory , vol- ume 4, page 8, 2018. 12

    2018

  28. [37]

    Fair division in the age of internet

    Hervé Moulin. Fair division in the age of internet. Annual Review of Economics , 2018

    2018

  29. [38]

    Combinatorial algorithms for matching markets via nash bargaining: One-sided, two-sided and non- bipartite

    Ioannis Panageas, Thorben Tröbst, and Vijay V Vazirani . Combinatorial algorithms for matching markets via nash bargaining: One-sided, two-sided and non- bipartite. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02024, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Cardinal-utility matching markets: The quest for envy-freeness, pareto-optimality, and efficient computability

    Thorben Tröbst and Vijay V Vazirani. Cardinal-utility matching markets: The quest for envy-freeness, pareto-optimality, and efficient computability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08851 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Equity, envy, and efficiency

    Hal R Varian. Equity, envy, and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory , 9(1):63 – 91, 1974

    1974

  32. [41]

    Computationa l complexity of the hylland-zeckhauser scheme for one-sided matching markets

    Vijay V Vazirani and Mihalis Yannakakis. Computationa l complexity of the hylland-zeckhauser scheme for one-sided matching markets. In 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conferenc e, 2021. 13

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.