Achieving Equitability with Subsidy

Tianze Wei; Yuanyuan Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Achieving Equitability with Subsidy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves tight worst-case subsidy bounds for making indivisible-item allocations equitable, characterizes when the same payments also buy envy-freeness, and gives polynomial-time algorithms that preserve welfare guarantees.

desk verdict First systematic treatment of exact equitability with subsidy, with a genuinely useful EQ+EF characterization, but the mixed-items lower bound is false and the normalization is not W.L.O.G. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23251 v2 pith:SN2SPBHA submitted 2025-05-29 cs.GT

Yuanyuan Wang , Tianze Wei This is my paper

classification cs.GT MSC 91B32

keywords equitabilitywithsubsidyfairdivisionindivisibleitemsgoodsandchoresenvy-freenessutilitariansocialwelfareNashmatroidrankvaluations

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 asks how much monetary compensation is needed to turn a division of indivisible items into one that is equitable, meaning every agent values her own bundle equally. For goods and for chores, it proves that a total subsidy of $n-1$ (in units where no single item moves any agent's value by more than 1) always suffices, that this bound cannot be improved, and that it is achieved in polynomial time by the Squeeze Algorithm. For mixed goods-and-chores instances the same algorithm gives at most $n+m-2$ subsidy for additive valuations and $n-1$ for objective valuations, leaving a gap to the lower bound $\max\{n-1,m\}$. The paper also characterizes exactly when one payment vector can deliver both equitability and envy-freeness, and it studies how much utilitarian or Nash welfare can be preserved when the subsidy is held at its optimal bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Squeeze Algorithm (Algorithm 1), which repeatedly gives the current highest-valued agent an item with non-positive marginal value, or the current lowest-valued agent an item with non-negative marginal value, and thereby preserves the invariant that all bundle values lie within 1 of each other. The companion Lemma 1 pins down the optimal payment vector: to achieve EQ with minimum total subsidy, pay each agent exactly $\max_j v_j(A_j) - v_i(A_i)$. Since an EQ1 allocation under the unit-marginal normalization has max-min gap at most 1, the algorithm's invariant converts directly into the subsidy bound. A second mechanism is the characterization of simultaneous EQ and EF via the inequalities $v_j(A_j) \ge v_i(A_j)$, which reduces the search for EQ-and-EF allocations to finding allocations in which every owner values her own bundle at least as much as anyone else does.

What would settle it

Compute the true minimum subsidy by enumerating all allocations and using Lemma 1's payment rule for small goods and chores instances with normalized additive valuations; any instance whose minimum exceeds $n-1$ would contradict Theorem 1. For mixed additive instances, the same enumeration would show whether the bound $n+m-2$ is tight or whether the lower bound $\max\{n-1,m\}$ is the true answer, and checking the inequalities $v_j(A_j) \ge v_i(A_j)$ against feasibility of the EQ-plus-EF payment equations would test Lemma 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that equitability is cheap once an allocation is equitable up to one item (EQ1): because each agent's marginal values are normalized to at most 1, an EQ1 allocation has value gap at most 1 between any two bundles, and the optimal payment vector of Lemma 1 — paying each agent $\max_j v_j(A_j) - v_i(A_i)$ — then costs at most $n-1$ in total. Algorithm 1 maintains the EQ1 invariant while allocating all items, which yields the tight $n-1$ bound for goods, chores, and objective mixed valuations, and $n+m-2$ for additive mixed valuations. For the combined fairness requirement, the paper proves that an allocation admits one payment vector making it both EQ and EF if and only if $v_j(A_j) \ge v_i(A_j)$ for every pair of agents $i,j$; this is the exact condition under which the same subsidies buy both fairness notions. On the efficiency side, with normalized valuations the paper shows EQ1 allocations can guarantee $O(1/n)$-max-USW for subadditive valuations, and for two agents $1/3$-max-NSW (subadditive) and $1/\sqrt{2}$-max-NSW (additive), while with plain additive valuations and subsidy capped at $n-1$ no positive welfare approximation is possible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every agent's valuations have been rescaled so that no single item can change that agent's value by more than 1, and for the welfare results that every agent values the entire item set at exactly 1; if those rescalings are not part of the application, the subsidy bounds do not transfer unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For goods or chores, the subsidy needed for exact equitability does not grow with the number of items: $n-1$ is both the worst-case lower bound and the guarantee of a polynomial-time algorithm.
Mixed additive instances are the remaining loose end, since the paper's upper bound $n+m-2$ sits above the lower bound $\max\{n-1,m\}$; closing this gap is the concrete open step.
An allocation can be made both equitable and envy-free with the same payments exactly when $v_j(A_j) \ge v_i(A_j)$ for every pair of agents, so the search for such allocations can target this owner-values-own-bundle condition.
Under normalized valuations, EQ1 is compatible with meaningful efficiency: $O(1/n)$-max-USW for subadditive valuations, and $1/3$-max-NSW or $1/\sqrt{2}$-max-NSW for two agents, all achievable with at most $n-1$ subsidy.
For additive valuations, capping subsidy at $n-1$ rules out any positive welfare approximation, and requiring EQ plus EF rules out any Nash-welfare guarantee, although maximum-USW allocations are always EQ-and-EF convertible.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the $n-1$ bound is meaningful only after rescaling each agent's valuation so that every marginal contribution lies in $[-1,1]$; in applications the subsidy should be read in units of each agent's largest marginal value, and the independent rescalings are not interchangeable.
Editorial inference: the condition $v_j(A_j) \ge v_i(A_j)$ suggests viewing each bundle as owned by its top valuer, turning the EQ-and-EF problem into a search over allocations that respect this ownership condition; maximum-USW allocations satisfy it in the additive case, which is why that efficiency benchmark is compatible with both fairness notions.
Editorial extension: brute-force enumeration for small mixed additive instances could determine whether the true minimum subsidy is $\max\{n-1,m\}$ or rises with $m$, and similar experiments could test whether the two-agent $1/\sqrt{2}$ Nash-welfare bound is tight.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Short version: this is the first paper to take exact equitability with subsidy seriously, and the EQ+EF characterization in Lemma 2 is a genuinely useful structural result. But the claimed mixed-items lower bound is false as stated, and the normalization "W.L.O.G." is not without loss for equitability. The paper needs a major revision before its Table 1 can be trusted.

What is new: the paper moves subsidy from EF to EQ, gives upper bounds via the Squeeze Algorithm, characterizes allocations that are simultaneously equitable-convertible and envy-freeable with one payment vector (Lemma 2: v_j(A_j) >= v_i(A_j) for all i,j), and gives polynomial algorithms with efficiency guarantees for matroid-rank and normalized subadditive valuations. Those are real contributions.

Where it is soft: Proposition 2 claims a mixed-items lower bound of max{n-1,m}. This is false. Take n=3,m=3 with identical additive valuations v(e1)=1, v(e2)=v(e3)=-1. This is an objective instance satisfying |Delta|<=1. Allocate all three items to agent 1. Bundle values are (-1,0,0), and Lemma 1 gives payments (1,0,0), total subsidy 1. No zero-subsidy EQ allocation exists because the three bundle values would have to be equal integers summing to -1. So the minimum subsidy is 1, not 3. The proof of Proposition 2 is also garbled: it says agent 1 values all items positively when the instance has m-1 chores, and the formulas around max_j v_j(A_j) have typos. This is not a cosmetic issue; it breaks the "tight" claim in Table 1 for mixed items. The upper bounds in Theorem 1 may still be fine, but the matching lower bound does not hold.

The second issue is the normalization. The paper says W.L.O.G. each valuation is scaled so every marginal has magnitude at most 1. For subsidy problems, per-agent scaling is not without loss: the equalization equations change if you rescale agents independently, and the subsidy amounts are in common units. So the bounds are only for valuations that are already normalized; they do not automatically extend to arbitrary additive valuations. This should be stated as an assumption, not W.L.O.G.

Also minor: Corollary 1 and Proposition 4 refer to "Theorem 2" when they mean Lemma 2.

Net: the goods/chores results and the EQ+EF characterization look solid; the mixed-items tightness story is wrong; the normalization needs fixing. I would send this to a serious referee, because the topic is new and the good parts are worth salvaging, but I would not cite the mixed lower bound until it is corrected.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies equitability (EQ) with monetary subsidies for the allocation of indivisible items. It gives algorithms that compute allocations with bounded subsidy while achieving EQ (or EQ1), lower-bound constructions for goods, chores, and mixed items, a characterization of allocations that are simultaneously equitable-convertible and envy-freeable, and efficiency guarantees for utilitarian social welfare and Nash welfare under normalized additive, subadditive, and matroid-rank valuations. The main claims are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Significance. If correct, the paper would contribute clean subsidy bounds for equitability and a useful EQ+EF characterization, together with polynomial-time constructive algorithms. The EQ+EF characterization in Lemma 2 is simple and appears correct, the goods and chores upper/lower bounds are well supported, and the paper makes appropriate use of external results such as Benabbou et al. for matroid-rank USW and Viswanathan-Zick for max-NSW. However, two formal claims are false as stated: the mixed-items lower bound in Proposition 2 and the Nash-welfare upper bound in Proposition 6. These are not mere proof gaps but incorrect theorem statements, so the claimed tightness of the main results is not established.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Proposition 2; Table 1] The mixed-items lower bound of Proposition 2 is false. Consider n=3, m=3 with identical additive valuations v(e1)=1 and v(e2)=v(e3)=-1. This instance is objective and satisfies |Delta_i(S,e)| <= 1. The allocation A=(M, empty, empty) gives bundle values (-1,0,0), so by Lemma 1 the payments p=(1,0,0) achieve EQ with total subsidy 1. No zero-subsidy EQ allocation exists because all bundle values are integers summing to -1, so three equal integer bundle values cannot sum to -1. Thus the minimum subsidy is 1, not max{n-1,m}=3. Consequently the claimed matching lower bound in Table 1 and the 'tight' characterization for mixed items are invalid; the proof's statement that agent 1's bundle should be empty is also garbled, since all agents in the constructed instance are identical.
[Section 2, Preliminaries (normalization assumption)] The claim that scaling each agent's valuation so that |Delta_i(S,e)| <= 1 is W.L.O.G. is not correct for equitability with subsidy. Payments are in common monetary units, and the equations v_i(A_i)+p_i = v_j(A_j)+p_j are not invariant under independent per-agent rescaling. For example, with one good valued 100 by agent 1 and 1 by agent 2, per-agent scaling to unit marginals would turn the true minimum subsidy of 99 into 1. The bounds in Theorems 1 and 5 and the related lower bounds are therefore results about a normalized valuation model, not about general valuations as the 'W.L.O.G.' wording suggests. This should be declared as a model assumption, or justified by a single global rescaling, and the dependence of the bounds on the chosen normalization should be discussed.
[Section 5.1, Proposition 6] The claimed upper bound on EQ1 Nash welfare for two normalized additive agents is not established by the Table 4 construction. For the EQ1 allocation described in the proof (e1 to agent 1, e2 and e3 to agent 2), the ratio to maximum Nash welfare is sqrt((1/3 + epsilon/2)/(1/3 + 2 epsilon)), which is strictly greater than sqrt(3)/2 for every epsilon in (0,1/12) and tends to 1 as epsilon tends to 0. Thus the exhibited allocation itself satisfies the sqrt(3)/2-max-NSW guarantee, so the instance does not show that no EQ1 allocation achieves it. The proposition and its use as an upper complement to Theorem 4 require a different argument or a corrected statement.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4 and Section 5.2] Several references to 'Theorem 2' (e.g., in Proposition 4, Proposition 7, and Proposition 8) should instead refer to Lemma 2, which is the characterization being invoked.
[Section 5.1, proof of Theorem 2] In Case 2 of the Balanced-Packing proof, the inequality '> 1/3' should be '>= 1/3' when |N^-| = 1, since 1 - 2(n-1)/(3n-3) equals 1/3.
[Algorithm 3, line 9] The phrase 'for some e in t' uses a lowercase 't' where the set T is meant; this is a typo.
[Table 1] The table's footnote states two different upper-bound assumptions for the mixed-items row, but the lower-bound column does not state its valuation assumption; in light of the false lower bound, the entire row needs to be revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the subsidy bounds are obtained by direct proofs from Lemma 1 and external results, not by fitting or self-citation.

full rationale

The manuscript's derivation chain is self-contained. Lemma 1 gives the exact minimum payment for EQ as p_i* = max_j v_j(A_j) - v_i(A_i); this is a direct characterization, not a fitted input. Theorem 1's Squeeze Algorithm is proven to maintain a bundle-value gap of at most 1, and for additive mixed instances the extra remaining items add at most |M'| payments, giving the stated upper bounds without using those bounds as assumptions. The efficiency results (Theorems 2-4) are proved against external welfare benchmarks using subadditivity/additivity, and the Section 4 characterization (Lemma 2) follows from the definitions of EQ and EF with payments. Theorem 5 leans on independent external lemmas (Benabbou et al. 2021; Viswanathan and Zick 2023), and no claim in the proof chain is justified solely by a self-citation; indeed the reference list contains no self-citations. A caveat belongs to correctness, not circularity: the alleged counterexample to Proposition 2's mixed-items lower bound would make that bound false, but a false lower bound is not a derivation that collapses into its own inputs, so it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard algorithmic game theory assumptions (value oracle, normalization) and cited lemmas for matroid rank valuations. The algorithm thresholds are hand-chosen design parameters. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

threshold_balanced_packing = 1/(3n-3)
Hand-chosen constant in Algorithm 2 to balance the USW guarantee n/(3n-3); appears in Theorem 2 proof.
threshold_subadditive_NSW = 1/3 and 2/3
Hand-chosen thresholds in Algorithm 3 used in the case analysis to guarantee 1/3-max-NSW.
threshold_additive_NSW = 1/2
Hand-chosen threshold in Algorithm 4 to guarantee 1/sqrt(2)-max-NSW.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper Valuations are scaled so |Delta_i(S,e)| <= 1 for all agents, items, and sets.
Section 2. This is a normalization assumption, not a consequence of standard scaling, and it sets the unit of subsidy.
domain assumption Value oracle access to valuations, each query O(1).
Section 2. Standard model in algorithmic game theory; polynomial-time claims rely on this oracle.
domain assumption For efficiency results, normalized valuations v_i(M)=1.
Section 5, before Theorem 2. Used to bound max-USW by n and to claim any allocation needs at most n-1 subsidy.
domain assumption Clean maximum USW allocation under matroid rank valuations can be computed in polynomial time (Benabbou et al. 2021).
Lemma 3 used in Theorem 5; cited, not proved.
domain assumption General Yankee Swap Algorithm computes a clean maximum NSW allocation for matroid rank valuations (Viswanathan and Zick 2023).
Theorem 5 proof; cited, not proved.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Achieving Equitability with Subsidy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SN2SPBHA

@misc{pith2026250523251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Achieving Equitability with Subsidy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SN2SPBHA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23251}
}

read the original abstract

We study the fair allocation problem of indivisible items with subsidy. In this paper, we focus on the notion of fairness - equitability (EQ), which requires that items be allocated such that all agents value the bundle they receive equally. First, we study the upper bounds of the minimum required subsidy to achieve EQ in different item settings and provide the corresponding lower bounds. Second, we consider the bounded subsidy for achieving EQ and another popular notion of fairness - envy-freeness (EF), and give a characterization of allocations that can achieve both EQ and EF. Finally, we analyze the bounds of subsidy of allocations achieving fairness and efficiency (utilitarian social welfare or Nash welfare) and design several polynomial-time algorithms to compute the desired allocation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Fair allocation of indivisible goods and criteria of justice

Ahmet Alkan, Gabrielle Demange, and David Gale. Fair allocation of indivisible goods and criteria of justice. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 1023--1039, 1991

work page 1991
[2]

Achieving envy-freeness and equitability with monetary transfers

Haris Aziz. Achieving envy-freeness and equitability with monetary transfers. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5102--5109, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Achieving envy-freeness with limited subsidies under dichotomous valuations

S Barman, A Krishna, Y Narahari, and S Sadhukan. Achieving envy-freeness with limited subsidies under dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 60--66, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations

Siddharth Barman and Paritosh Verma. Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pages 169--177, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Optimal bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods

Siddharth Barman, Umang Bhaskar, and Nisarg Shah. Optimal bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 356--369, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Nearly equitable allocations beyond additivity and monotonicity

Siddharth Barman, Umang Bhaskar, Yeshwant Pandit, and Soumyajit Pyne. Nearly equitable allocations beyond additivity and monotonicity. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 9494--9501, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Finding fair and efficient allocations for matroid rank valuations

Nawal Benabbou, Mithun Chakraborty, Ayumi Igarashi, and Yair Zick. Finding fair and efficient allocations for matroid rank valuations. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 9 0 (4): 0 1--41, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Efficiency and envy-freeness in fair division of indivisible goods: Logical representation and complexity

Sylvain Bouveret and J \'e r \^o me Lang. Efficiency and envy-freeness in fair division of indivisible goods: Logical representation and complexity. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 32: 0 525--564, 2008

work page 2008

Show all 29 references

[9]

One dollar each eliminates envy

Johannes Brustle, Jack Dippel, Vishnu V Narayan, Mashbat Suzuki, and Adrian Vetta. One dollar each eliminates envy. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 23--39, 2020

2020
[10]

Approximability landscape of welfare maximization within fair allocations

Xiaolin Bu, Zihao Li, Shengxin Liu, Jiaxin Song, and Biaoshuai Tao. Approximability landscape of welfare maximization within fair allocations. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 412--440, 2025

2025
[11]

Computing envy-freeable allocations with limited subsidies

Ioannis Caragiannis and Stavros D Ioannidis. Computing envy-freeable allocations with limited subsidies. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 522--539, 2021

2021
[12]

The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare

Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Herv \'e Moulin, Ariel D Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 7 0 (3): 0 1--32, 2019

2019
[13]

On interim envy-free allocation lotteries

Ioannis Caragiannis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, and Maria Kyropoulou. On interim envy-free allocation lotteries. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 264--284, 2021

2021
[14]

Equitable allocations of indivisible goods

Rupert Freeman, Sujoy Sikdar, Rohit Vaish, and Lirong Xia. Equitable allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 280--286, 2019

2019
[15]

Equitable allocations of indivisible chores

Rupert Freeman, Sujoy Sikdar, Rohit Vaish, and Lirong Xia. Equitable allocations of indivisible chores. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pages 384--392, 2020

2020
[16]

A fair and truthful mechanism with limited subsidy

Hiromichi Goko, Ayumi Igarashi, Yasushi Kawase, Kazuhisa Makino, Hanna Sumita, Akihisa Tamura, Yu Yokoi, and Makoto Yokoo. A fair and truthful mechanism with limited subsidy. Games and Economic Behavior, 144: 0 49--70, 2024

2024
[17]

Spliddit: Unleashing fair division algorithms

Jonathan Goldman and Ariel D Procaccia. Spliddit: Unleashing fair division algorithms. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 13 0 (2): 0 41--46, 2015

2015
[18]

Near fairness in matroids

Laurent Gourv \`e s, J \'e r \^o me Monnot, and Lydia Tlilane. Near fairness in matroids. In 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 393--398, 2014

2014
[19]

Fair division with subsidy

Daniel Halpern and Nisarg Shah. Fair division with subsidy. In The 12th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pages 374--389, 2019

2019
[20]

Envy freeness in experimental fair division problems

Dorothea K Herreiner and Clemens D Puppe. Envy freeness in experimental fair division problems. Theory and decision, 67: 0 65--100, 2009

2009
[21]

Equitable allocations of mixtures of goods and chores

Hadi Hosseini and Aditi Sethia. Equitable allocations of mixtures of goods and chores. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06799, 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

Towards optimal subsidy bounds for envy-freeable allocations

Yasushi Kawase, Kazuhisa Makino, Hanna Sumita, Akihisa Tamura, and Makoto Yokoo. Towards optimal subsidy bounds for envy-freeable allocations. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 9824--9831, 2024

2024
[23]

On the fair allocation of indivisible goods

Eric S Maskin. On the fair allocation of indivisible goods. In Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, pages 341--349. 1987

1987
[24]

Two birds with one stone: Fairness and welfare via transfers

Vishnu V Narayan, Mashbat Suzuki, and Adrian Vetta. Two birds with one stone: Fairness and welfare via transfers. In The 14th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pages 376--390, 2021

2021
[25]

Resource-monotonicity and population-monotonicity in connected cake-cutting

Erel Segal-Halevi and Bal \'a zs R Sziklai. Resource-monotonicity and population-monotonicity in connected cake-cutting. Mathematical Social Sciences, 95: 0 19--30, 2018

2018
[26]

Equitability and welfare maximization for allocating indivisible items

Ankang Sun, Bo Chen, and Xuan Vinh Doan. Equitability and welfare maximization for allocating indivisible items. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 37 0 (1): 0 8, 2023

2023
[27]

A general framework for fair allocation under matroid rank valuations

Vignesh Viswanathan and Yair Zick. A general framework for fair allocation under matroid rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, page 1129–1152, 2023

2023
[28]

Tree splitting based rounding scheme for weighted proportional allocations with subsidy

Xiaowei Wu and Shengwei Zhou. Tree splitting based rounding scheme for weighted proportional allocations with subsidy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07707, 2024

2024 arXiv
[29]

One quarter each (on average) ensures proportionality

Xiaowei Wu, Cong Zhang, and Shengwei Zhou. One quarter each (on average) ensures proportionality. In The 19th Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 582--599, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Fair allocation of indivisible goods and criteria of justice

Ahmet Alkan, Gabrielle Demange, and David Gale. Fair allocation of indivisible goods and criteria of justice. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 1023--1039, 1991

work page 1991

[2] [2]

Achieving envy-freeness and equitability with monetary transfers

Haris Aziz. Achieving envy-freeness and equitability with monetary transfers. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5102--5109, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Achieving envy-freeness with limited subsidies under dichotomous valuations

S Barman, A Krishna, Y Narahari, and S Sadhukan. Achieving envy-freeness with limited subsidies under dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 60--66, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations

Siddharth Barman and Paritosh Verma. Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pages 169--177, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Optimal bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods

Siddharth Barman, Umang Bhaskar, and Nisarg Shah. Optimal bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 356--369, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Nearly equitable allocations beyond additivity and monotonicity

Siddharth Barman, Umang Bhaskar, Yeshwant Pandit, and Soumyajit Pyne. Nearly equitable allocations beyond additivity and monotonicity. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 9494--9501, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Finding fair and efficient allocations for matroid rank valuations

Nawal Benabbou, Mithun Chakraborty, Ayumi Igarashi, and Yair Zick. Finding fair and efficient allocations for matroid rank valuations. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 9 0 (4): 0 1--41, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Efficiency and envy-freeness in fair division of indivisible goods: Logical representation and complexity

Sylvain Bouveret and J \'e r \^o me Lang. Efficiency and envy-freeness in fair division of indivisible goods: Logical representation and complexity. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 32: 0 525--564, 2008

work page 2008