Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Delegated Fair Division

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Delegated fair division can be fair at both levels: polynomial-time algorithms achieve EF1 among centers and among all agents for ordered, bivalent, and binary preference classes, while EFX-plus-EF1 combinations are impossible or NP-hard.

desk verdict New two-level fair division model with several solid results; the flagship Bilevel Yankee Swap theorem hinges on a proof gap that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27743 v1 pith:KJQXNS7Q submitted 2026-07-30 cs.GT

Argyrios Deligkas , Michail Fasoulakis , Stavros D. Ioannidis , Alviona Mancho , Evangelos Markakis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT
keywords delegatedfairdivisiontwo-levelallocationEF1envy-freenessindivisiblegoodscentervaluationsBilevelYankeeSwapbinary
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 introduces a two-level fair division model: a set of centers each receive a bundling of indivisible goods, then distribute them to their own agents. The central question is whether one can simultaneously guarantee envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) among the centers and among the individual agents. The paper answers yes for several well-motivated special cases — ordered/identical valuations, center-specific bivalued preferences with item-based potential center valuations, and binary preferences with bundle-based center valuations — and identifies sharp limits: EFX among centers combined with EF1 among agents can fail even with identical agents, and deciding existence is NP-hard. The technical centerpiece is Bilevel Yankee Swap, a polynomial-time algorithm that extends path-augmentation techniques to move items between agents and centers while preserving fairness at both levels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of modeling choices for center valuation — bundle-based vs item-based, potential vs realized — plus the transfer+ path used by Bilevel Yankee Swap. A transfer+ path is a directed path in a graph whose nodes are agents, centers, and unassigned items; it allows an item assigned to one agent to be taken and replaced by another item routed through the center, guaranteeing Pareto improvement at both the agent and center level. The center envy-graph supplies the ordering for each epoch, and the proof that center envy remains EF1 rests on bounds — Lemma 15 and Lemma 16 — on how much one center can gain from an epoch's items relative to another.

What would settle it

Run an exhaustive search over small binary-valuation instances with two centers, three agents each, and five goods, using bundle-based potential center valuations. If any such instance admits no EF1/inter-EF1 allocation, or if Bilevel Yankee Swap ever returns an allocation where a center envies another after removing any single good, the central claim of Theorem 13 would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that delegated fair division — where goods are allocated first to centers and then to their affiliated agents — admits allocations satisfying EF1 at both levels for several natural preference classes, despite the added interdependence between levels. Under the paper's definitions, a center's value for a bundling is the maximum welfare a reallocation of those goods to its agents would produce (potential) or the welfare actually realized (realized), and the comparison can be bundle-based or item-based. For ordered valuations within each center, Horizontal Round-Robin yields EF1/inter-EF1 for bundle-based and item-based potential valuations; for identical valuations

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that centers evaluate any bundling by the maximum welfare a reallocation to their own agents would yield (item-based or bundle-based, potential or realized), and the positive existence results only hold under these specific valuation semantics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In charitable food distribution and similar two-tier settings, allocations can be fair both to the distributing organizations and to the individuals receiving items, with polynomial-time algorithms for the studied preference classes.
  • For item-based potential center valuations, any existing single-level fairness guarantee (e.g., 0.618-EFX) carries over to both levels under intra-agent fairness, giving a broad transfer theorem.
  • EFX among centers combined with EF1 among agents is not a viable general goal: it can fail with identical agents and its existence is NP-hard to decide, making EF1/EF1 the more robust target.
  • For identical valuations across all centers, the stronger guarantee of EFX among agents together with EF1 among centers is achievable under monotone, not necessarily additive, valuations.
  • Progress on the one-to-one version of the model would directly yield balanced EF1 allocations for matching valuations, a previously open special case of standard fair division.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Bilevel Yankee Swap technique can be extended from binary to bivalued or additive agent valuations with bundle-based centers, the two-level problem would likely become tractable for most practical preference classes; the paper's own counterexample for a naive version suggests the transfer+ structure is the key obstacle to overcome.
  • The model's fairness guarantees depend on centers having perfect information about their agents' valuations; in settings where centers estimate preferences from surveys or past behavior, the EF1 guarantees would need a robustness analysis that the paper does not provide.
  • A direct testable extension is to run Bilevel Yankee Swap with weighted or unequal-size centers; if the epoch ordering and transfer+ paths still bound envy differences, the algorithm may extend to the unequal-center case the paper lists as future work.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a two-level fair division model in which indivisible goods are first allocated to centers (upper level) and then by each center to its affiliated agents (lower level). It defines four center valuation variants—bundle-based vs. item-based, and potential vs. realized—and studies envy-based fairness at both levels. The main results are: a general reduction for intra-agent fairness (Theorem 1); polynomial-time EF1/inter-EF1 algorithms for ordered/identical agent valuations via Horizontal Round-Robin (Theorems 5–7), for identical monotone agents via EFX-Partition Round-Robin (Theorem 8), and for center-specific bivalued preferences with item-based potential center valuations (Theorem 12); an impossibility result and NP-hardness for EFX/inter-EF1 (Theorems 9–10); and, as the central technical contribution, the Bilevel Yankee Swap algorithm (Theorem 13), claimed to compute EF1/inter-EF1 in polynomial time for binary agent valuations and bundle-based center valuations. The paper also connects the one-to-one case to balanced EF1 allocations (Proposition 1).

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a valuable conceptual contribution by importing two-level delegation into the envy-based fair division literature, and the Bilevel Yankee Swap result is a non-trivial extension of a known technique. The model is well motivated by food-bank and intra-organizational allocation examples, and the distinction between inter- and intra-agent fairness is natural. The paper is also transparent about model choices and includes several parameter-free algorithmic guarantees. However, the significance is currently limited by serious proof gaps in the main theorems: the proof of the central Lemma 15 is not valid as written, the acyclicity justification in Theorem 13 is logically insufficient, and Theorem 5 and Observation 2 contain errors. These gaps affect load-bearing parts of the claimed contributions, so the paper is not yet acceptable in its present form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3, Lemma 15] The proof of Lemma 15 is not valid as written, and this lemma is load-bearing for Theorem 13. (i) The proof asserts that when a non-eligible agent of C_i is inspected, "the algorithm has already allocated the same number of items to both centers" and that a future unassigned C_j agent exists. Neither claim follows from Algorithm 4: the first inspection of an epoch can occur before C_j has received any item, and C_j's agents may all be assigned while C_i still has unassigned agents. (ii) The constructed path P': a(ℓ,i)→q→C_2→a(ℓ′,j)→...→g uses an edge q→C_2, but Definition 7 has no edge from an item-vertex to a center-vertex; the only center-incident edges are Type 3 and Type 4. (iii) The invocation of Lemma 14 to conclude that the path is valid and that its prefix does not change is not substantiated. Since equations (6)–(12) in the proof of Theorem 13 all rely on Lemma 15, the center-le
  2. [Section 5.3, proof of Theorem 13 (acyclicity)] After Case (2), the proof states that "these statements establish that no two centers can envy each other at the end of any epoch, which shows that the center envy-graph is acyclic." This implication is false: a directed graph with no 2-cycles can still contain a directed 3-cycle. Since Algorithm 4 (Step 5) requires a topological ordering of the center envy-graph H(B), the algorithm may be undefined. The gap is repairable: an envy edge i→j implies |B_i| < u_i(B_j) ≤ |B_j|, so bundle sizes strictly increase along directed edges and no directed cycle can exist. But this argument is absent and must be supplied.
  3. [Section 4.1, Theorem 5] In the proof that C_j is EF1 toward C_i, the permutation σ is chosen to maximize C_j's value for the bundles of B_i, and the same σ is then applied to B_j. This does not follow from inequalities (4) and (5), which compare A(x,j) with A(x+1,i) (a shift) and A(n,j) with A(1,i) minus one item. The displayed lower bound subtracts v_{a(n,j)}(g^{(1,i)}_1) from the total, whereas the EF1 condition requires removing g^{(1,i)}_1 from the particular bundle A(1,i); the value loss depends on the agent who receives that bundle under σ, not on a(n,j). A cyclic-shift argument can likely repair the proof, but as written the claimed inequality v_Cj(B_j) ≥ v_Cj(B_i \ {g}) is not established.
  4. [Section 4.1.1, Observation 2 and Theorem 8] Observation 2 asserts that for identical agent valuations all four center-valuation variants coincide "because any mapping of items and any permutation of the bundles ... yield the same value." This is only true for additive valuations. For non-additive monotone valuations, item-based potential can exceed bundle-based realized value: with n=2 agents and v(S)=|S|^2, the bundling ({g1},{g2}) has bundle-based value 2 but item-based potential 4 (give both items to one agent). Consequently Theorem 8, which claims EF1/inter-EFX "under any variant of center valuations" for identical monotone valuations, is not proved for item-based center valuations. The proof's center-value identities use sums of v(bundle), which hold only for bundle-based variants.
  5. [Section 5.3, agent-level EF1 proof] The paragraph proving inter-EF1 for agents in Theorem 13 is too compressed. It states that an agent who misses epoch ρ cannot envy later recipients because she does not value any item that remains unallocated at the end of epoch ρ. But EF1 compares values for items already held by other agents at that time as well; the proof does not show that the value of any other agent's bundle to the missing agent is at most her own value plus one after a suitable removal. This can likely be derived from a stronger invariant, but that invariant is not stated. Since the paragraph also relies on Lemma 14, the agent-level guarantee is not self-contained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, proof of Theorem 5] Inequality (3) uses the symbol ⪰_i for the common ranking of agents in C_j; this should be ⪰_j (or the center subscript should be fixed).
  2. [Section 5.2, Definition 7 and Example 1] The description of transfer+ paths says "every agent in a transfer+ path gets an item they point to," but in the example a(1,1) points to C_1 and loses its item without receiving a new one. The semantics of Type 3 edges should be clarified, since this affects the interpretation of Lemma 14 and the subsequent proof.
  3. [Section 5.3, Lemma 14] The statement "every item that is reachable from her ... cannot be transferred" is ambiguous: "transferred" is not formally defined for reachable items, and the proof's partition into Φ and Ψ∪W_γ is not sufficiently precise about how later assignment changes affect reachability.
  4. [Algorithm 4, Step 9] The algorithm does not specify how to choose among multiple transfer+ paths from an eligible agent. The proof sometimes appears to assume a particular choice (e.g., in the discussion of Example 1). If arbitrary choices are allowed, the analysis must be choice-independent; otherwise a tie-breaking rule should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the positive results are derived from explicit model definitions and algorithm invariants, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The model definitions (Definitions 1–9) fix the center valuations as max-utilitarian thought experiments over the affiliated agents' additive valuations, and the algorithms (HRR, Center-oriented HRR, Bilevel Yankee Swap) are explicitly specified. The positive theorems do not assume their own conclusions: Theorem 5 proves center-EF1 from the round-robin ordering and common rankings; Theorem 12 proves center-EF1 by showing the algorithm is equivalent to a center-level Round Robin on the sets of goods; Theorem 13 proves EF1 for centers via the transfer+ path lemmas and an induction over epochs, and EF1 for agents via the first-epoch-without-item argument. Known results used as black boxes (Round-Robin EF1, Plaut-Roughgarden EFX for identical valuations) are external and parameter-free, and their assumptions do not include the target results. The few self-citations, e.g., [6], [17], and [31], appear in related-work or standard-result contexts and are not load-bearing. The skeptical concern that Lemma 15 has unsupported steps is a correctness concern, not a circularity one: an incorrect lemma does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no definition is chosen in terms of the target fairness notion. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce physical or mathematical entities beyond the model's centers, agents, and bundlings. It does introduce new algorithmic concepts (transfer+ paths, center envy-graph) but these are procedural tools, not postulated entities with independent evidence. The main free parameters are the modeling choices (valuation variants, equal center size).

free parameters (2)
  • Center valuation variants
    The paper defines four arbitrary ways for centers to value bundlings (bundle-based vs item-based, potential vs realized). These are model assumptions, not fitted parameters, but they are free choices that determine the validity of the results. No fitting occurs, but the model has multiple knobs.
  • Equal center size n
    The model assumes all centers have the same number n of agents. This is a simplifying assumption that the paper acknowledges (Section 6, item 4) and is not derived from any data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Additive valuations for agents (default assumption)
    Section 2: 'we will focus on additive valuations of the agents, unless specified otherwise.' Most positive results rely on additivity.
  • domain assumption Center valuations are based on maximum utilitarian social welfare (either via permutation or item redistribution)
    Section 2: 'we focus on the utilitarian social welfare as the metric of economic efficiency that the centers are interested in.'
  • domain assumption All agents within a center share a common ranking of goods (Theorem 5,6)
    The theorems for bundle-based and item-based potential valuations require a common ranking within each center.
  • domain assumption All agents across all centers have identical valuations (Theorem 8,9,10)
    Used for the EF1/inter-EFX result and the impossibility/hardness.
  • domain assumption Binary valuations for agents (Theorem 13)
    Bilevel Yankee Swap only works for agents that value an item either 1 or 0.
  • domain assumption Every item is valued 1 by at least one agent (implicit in Section 5)
    Section 5.2: 'w.l.o.g. we will assume that for every item there is at least one agent that values it 1; otherwise we can simply give items that no one values to any agent.'
  • domain assumption The center envy-graph is always acyclic (used in Bilevel Yankee Swap)
    The proof of Theorem 13 assumes the ordering from the center envy-graph is a topological order; the proof sketch says this is proven later but the paper does not provide a formal invariant proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delegated Fair Division." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJQXNS7Q

@misc{pith2026260727743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delegated Fair Division},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJQXNS7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27743}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by recently introduced problems on delegated resource allocation, we study a model of fair division, where a set of indivisible goods is to be allocated to some agents, each of which belonging to some bigger central entity. Our model captures the general framework of allocating resources to organizational units, which subsequently distribute them to their affiliated members. A particularly relevant application of this framework, with immense social impact, arises in the allocation of food donations through charitable organizations. In essence, every center acts as the representative of the agents belonging to it, aligning their generally different preferences. Our goal is to distribute the goods in a way that is simultaneously fair both with respect to the centers and the agents. We distinguish two different information structures depending on whether the agents compare their bundles against every agent or only those belonging to the same center. For each one of them we provide efficient algorithms that produce allocations that satisfy envy-based fairness guarantees at both levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An instance in which HRR fails to produce an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The application of the Yankee Swap algorithm using the HRR ordering in Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The application of the Bilevel Yankee Swap algorithm in Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    EFX: A simpler approach and an (almost) optimal guarantee via rainbow cycle number.Oper

    Hannaneh Akrami, Noga Alon, Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Jugal Garg, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Ruta Mehta. EFX: A simpler approach and an (almost) optimal guarantee via rainbow cycle number.Oper. Res., 73(2):738–751, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    A counterexample to EFXn≥3 agents,m≥n+ 5 items, submodular valuations via SAT-solving

    Hannaneh Akrami, Alexander Mayorov, Kurt Mehlhorn, Shreyas Srinivas, and Christoph Wei- denbach. A counterexample to EFXn≥3 agents,m≥n+ 5 items, submodular valuations via SAT-solving. 2026

    2026

  3. [3]

    Voudouris, and Xiaowei Wu

    Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Herv´ e Moulin, Alexandros A. Voudouris, and Xiaowei Wu. Fair division of indivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions.Artif. Intell., 322:103965, 2023. 29

    2023

  4. [4]

    Maximum Nash welfare and other stories about EFX.Theoret

    Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alexandros Hollender, and Alexandros A Voudouris. Maximum Nash welfare and other stories about EFX.Theoret. Comput. Sci., 863:69–85, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Pushing the frontier on approximate EFX allocations

    Georgios Amanatidis, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, and Alkmini Sgouritsa. Pushing the frontier on approximate EFX allocations. InProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC ’24, pages 1268–1286, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Multiple birds with one stone: Beating 1/2 for EFX and GMMS via envy cycle elimination.Theoret

    Georgios Amanatidis, Evangelos Markakis, and Apostolos Ntokos. Multiple birds with one stone: Beating 1/2 for EFX and GMMS via envy cycle elimination.Theoret. Comput. Sci., 841:94–109, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Computing welfare-maximizing fair allocations of indivisible goods.European Journal of Operational Research, 307(2):773–784, 2023

    Haris Aziz, Xin Huang, Nicholas Mattei, and Erel Segal-Halevi. Computing welfare-maximizing fair allocations of indivisible goods.European Journal of Operational Research, 307(2):773–784, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Fairness concepts for indivis- ible items with externalities

    Haris Aziz, Warut Suksompong, Zhaohong Sun, and Toby Walsh. Fairness concepts for indivis- ible items with externalities. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 5472–5480, 2023

    2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Groupwise maximin fair allocation of indivisible goods

    Siddharth Barman, Arpita Biswas, Sanath Kumar Krishna Murthy, and Yadati Narahari. Groupwise maximin fair allocation of indivisible goods. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI ’18, pages 917–924, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Fairness towards groups of agents in the allocation of indivisible items

    Nawal Benabbou, Mithun Chakraborty, Edith Elkind, and Yair Zick. Fairness towards groups of agents in the allocation of indivisible items. InIJCAI, pages 95–101. ijcai.org, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes.J

    Eric Budish. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes.J. of Polit. Econ., 119(6):1061–1103, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang

    Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Herv´ e Moulin, Ariel D. Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare.ACM Trans. Econ. Comput., 7(3), 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang

    Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Herv´ e Moulin, Ariel D. Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare.ACM Trans. Economics and Comput., 7(3):12:1–12:32, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    A new lower bound for multicolor discrepancy with applications to fair division

    Ioannis Caragiannis, Kasper Green Larsen, and Sudarshan Shyam. A new lower bound for multicolor discrepancy with applications to fair division. InAlgorithmic Game Theory: 18th International Symposium, SAGT 2025, Bath, UK, September 2–5, 2025, Proceedings, page 228–246, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    EFX exists for three agents.J

    Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Jugal Garg, and Kurt Mehlhorn. EFX exists for three agents.J. ACM, 71(1):4:1–4:27, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Tight asymp- totic bounds for fair division with externalities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.13287, 2026

    Frank Connor, Max Dupr´ e la Tour, Vishnu V Narayan, andˇSimon Schierreich. Tight asymp- totic bounds for fair division with externalities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.13287, 2026

    2026

  9. [17]

    The complex- ity of fair division of indivisible items with externalities

    Argyrios Deligkas, Eduard Eiben, Viktoriia Korchemna, and Simon Schierreich. The complex- ity of fair division of indivisible items with externalities. InAAAI, pages 9653–9661. AAAI Press, 2024. 30

    2024

  10. [18]

    Almost envy-freeness, envy-rank, and Nash social welfare matchings

    Alireza Farhadi, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Mohamad Latifian, Masoud Seddighin, and Hadi Yami. Almost envy-freeness, envy-rank, and Nash social welfare matchings. InProceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI ’21, volume 35, pages 5355–5362, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    wh freeman New York, 2002

    Michael R Garey and David S Johnson.Computers and intractability, volume 29. wh freeman New York, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Fair division among couples and small groups.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13432, 2025

    Paul G¨ olz and Hannane Yaghoubizade. Fair division among couples and small groups.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13432, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Near fairness in matroids

    Laurent Gourv` es, J´ erˆ ome Monnot, and Lydia Tlilane. Near fairness in matroids. InProceedings of the Twenty-First European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI ’14, pages 393–398, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Strategic nonparticipation.The RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1):84–98, 1996

    Philippe Jehiel and Benny Moldovanu. Strategic nonparticipation.The RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1):84–98, 1996

    1996

  15. [23]

    Fair and efficient balanced allocation for indivisible goods

    Yasushi Kawase and Ryoga Mahara. Fair and efficient balanced allocation for indivisible goods. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 17067–17075, 2026

    2026

  16. [24]

    Almost envy-freeness in group resource allocation.Theoretical Computer Science, 841:110–123, 2020

    Maria Kyropoulou, Warut Suksompong, and Alexandros A Voudouris. Almost envy-freeness in group resource allocation.Theoretical Computer Science, 841:110–123, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi

    Richard J. Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Jack S. Breese, Joan Feigenbaum, and Margo I. Seltzer, editors,Proceedings 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-2004), New York, NY, USA...

    2004

  18. [26]

    Multi-level fair allo- cation.CoRR, abs/2512.24105, 2025

    Maxime Lucet, Naval Benabbou, Aurelie Beynier, and Nicolas Maudet. Multi-level fair allo- cation.CoRR, abs/2512.24105, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Counterexamples to EFX for submodular and subad- ditive valuations, 2026

    Simon Mackenzie and Mashbat Suzuki. Counterexamples to EFX for submodular and subad- ditive valuations, 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Tight lower bound for multicolor discrepancy

    Pasin Manurangsi and Raghu Meka. Tight lower bound for multicolor discrepancy. In2026 SIAM Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA), pages 266–274. SIAM, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Almost envy-freeness for groups: Improved bounds via discrepancy theory.Theoretical Computer Science, 930:179–195, 2022

    Pasin Manurangsi and Warut Suksompong. Almost envy-freeness for groups: Improved bounds via discrepancy theory.Theoretical Computer Science, 930:179–195, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ordinal maximin guarantees for group fair division

    Pasin Manurangsi and Warut Suksompong. Ordinal maximin guarantees for group fair division. Theoretical Computer Science, 1036:115151, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Improved EFX approximation guarantees under ordinal-based assumptions

    Evangelos Markakis and Christodoulos Santorinaios. Improved EFX approximation guarantees under ordinal-based assumptions. InProceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 23, pages 591–599, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Automating food drop: The power of two choices for dynamic and fair food allocation

    Marios Mertzanidis, Alexandros Psomas, and Paritosh Verma. Automating food drop: The power of two choices for dynamic and fair food allocation. InProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC ’24, page 243, 2024. 31

    2024

  25. [33]

    Fair allocation with special externalities

    Shaily Mishra, Manisha Padala, and Sujit Gujar. Fair allocation with special externalities. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3–16. Springer, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Almost envy-freeness with general valuations.SIAM J

    Benjamin Plaut and Tim Roughgarden. Almost envy-freeness with general valuations.SIAM J. on Discrete Math., 34(2):1039–1068, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Springer, 2003

    Alexander Schrijver et al.Combinatorial optimization: Polyhedra and efficiency, volume 24. Springer, 2003

    2003

  28. [36]

    Externalities and fairness

    Masoud Seddighin, Hamed Saleh, and Mohammad Ghodsi. Externalities and fairness. InThe World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’19, page 538–548. Association for Computing Machin- ery, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    A general framework for fair allocation under matroid rank valuations.ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 13(3):1–32, 2025

    Vignesh Viswanathan and Yair Zick. A general framework for fair allocation under matroid rank valuations.ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 13(3):1–32, 2025. 32 A Missing Proofs from Section 3 A.1 Proof of Lemma 2 Consider a centerC j. LetB j = (A(1,j), A(2,j), . ....

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.