Online Fair Division for Personalized $2$-Value Instances

Alexandros Lolos; Evangelos Markakis; Georgios Amanatidis; Victor Turmel

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Online Fair Division for Personalized $2$-Value Instances

T0 review · 1 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 For personalized two-value goods, a deterministic online algorithm keeps every agent's value at or above $1/(2n-1)$ of her maximin share at every time step, and no deterministic algorithm can beat that factor.

desk verdict The paper has a real, likely fixable bug in Algorithm 1's pseudocode that invalidates the main theorem as printed, but the underlying ideas are strong and the rest of the paper is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22174 v1 pith:YPXWGLYE submitted 2025-05-28 cs.GT cs.AIcs.MA

Georgios Amanatidis , Alexandros Lolos , Evangelos Markakis , Victor Turmel This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GTcs.AIcs.MA MSC 91B3268W27

keywords onlinefairdivisionpersonalized2-valueinstancesmaximinsharefairnessenvy-freenessuptoonegoodtemporaldeterministicalgorithmforesightinterval-restrictedvaluations

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

Goods arrive one at a time and must be handed out before the next one appears; with unrestricted preferences, even tiny fairness guarantees are impossible. This paper shows that the landscape changes when each agent values every good either 'high' or 'low', with the threshold allowed to differ per agent. Its central result is an algorithm that, at every time step, gives each agent at least $1/(2n-1)$ of her maximin share, together with a matching impossibility theorem showing that no deterministic algorithm can guarantee anything larger. The same algorithm eventually reaches a constant $1/4$ approximation, and with only $n-1$ steps of look-ahead a much simpler matching algorithm is envy-free up to one good at every round boundary and up to two goods at all times. These guarantees extend to interval-restricted additive valuations at the cost of a $1/\sqrt{\alpha_i}$ factor, yielding the first nontrivial temporal fairness bounds there.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the priority counter system of Algorithm 1: $H[i]$ and $L[i]$ count how many high- and low-valued goods agent $i$ can still afford to miss, decreased on every missed good and increased sharply (by $3n-2$ for $H$, or to $2n+t$ for $L$) after a win, which creates the 'priority levels' $H_\ell(t)$. The invariant $|\bigcup_{\ell=0}^{k} H_\ell(t)|\le k$ for all $k$ is what guarantees no counter ever hits zero, and that invariant is what carries the $1/(2n-1)$ argument. For the foresight results, the central object is a perfect matching between agents and the next $n$ goods computed from auxiliary valuations that give a high-valued good exactly twice the weight of a low-valued good, scaled by a factor depending on the agent's position in the topological order of the envy graph; this exact 2-to-1 ratio is what makes the swap argument rule out undesirable envy edges.

What would settle it

Simulate Algorithm 1 on the $n=3$ instance from the proof of Theorem 3.2, with $\alpha=2n^2+2n$ and the described arrival order; at time $3n-2$ the construction is designed to give the disadvantaged agent a maximin share of $2n-1$ while holding only the low-valued good $g_k$ of value 1, so if Algorithm 1 ever gives that agent less than $\mu_i(t)/(2n-1)$ at any prefix, the main positive claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's main positive claim is that for any personalized $2$-value instance, Algorithm 1 (Deferred-Priority) maintains a $1/(2n-1)$-MMS allocation at every time step, and Theorem 3.2 shows this is tight: no deterministic algorithm can guarantee $(1/(2n-1)+\varepsilon)$-temporal-MMS for any constant $\varepsilon>0$. The algorithm works by maintaining counters $H[i]$ and $L[i]$ that encode how many high- and low-valued goods each agent can still afford to lose; the invariant that at most $k$ agents have priority level at most $k$ keeps all counters positive, which translates into each agent receiving one out of every $2n-1$ goods after the first $n$, and one out of every $3n-2$ high-valued goods. The paper also establishes that with foresight of $n-1$ goods, a maximum-weight matching under carefully weighted auxiliary valuations yields EF1 at every multiple of $n$ and EF2 throughout, and that the same techniques give the first nontrivial guarantees for bounded-ratio additive instances.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantees collapse if valuations are not truly two-valued: the algorithm assumes each agent's value for every good is exactly one of two known constants $\alpha_i$ or $\beta_i$, so every miss or win can be recorded as high or low and the matching's ratio argument applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every deterministic algorithm, even one that knows the whole instance, cannot maintain a $(1/(2n-1)+\varepsilon)$-MMS allocation at every step, so Algorithm 1 is per-time-step optimal for personalized 2-value instances.
Agents with identical high and low values receive a $1/(2n-1)$-MMS guarantee at every step; agents for whom all goods are equal (type 2) keep at least half their maximin share, and agents who only care about high-valued goods (type 3) keep at least a third.
With $n-1$ steps of foresight, the allocation is EF1 at every time step that is a multiple of $n$, EF2 at every time step, and satisfies $1/n$-MMS at the EF1 checkpoints.
If the allocation ever fails to be $1/2$-EF1, it recovers and stays $1/2$-EF1 from the next round boundary onward.
For any instance where each agent's values lie in $[1,\alpha_i]$, the reduction yields a $1/(\sqrt{\alpha^*}(2n-1))$-temporal-MMS allocation, the first nontrivial guarantee of its kind.

Reading between the lines

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

The tightness in Theorem 3.2 suggests that within the personalized 2-value model, any improvement over $1/(2n-1)$ must come from weakening the requirement that fairness holds at every single time step, not from smarter deterministic allocation rules.
Algorithm 3's reliance on an exact 2-to-1 auxiliary value ratio is delicate: perturbing the weights to $2\pm\delta$ would likely break the envy-cancellation argument, so the design principle is tied to the two-value structure.
A natural open extension, already hinted at in the paper's discussion, is whether sublinear foresight (say $O(\log n)$ or $O(\sqrt n)$ steps) suffices for temporal-EF1; the matching-based proof uses the full $n$-good round, but simpler algorithms might exist.
The threshold reduction in Section 6 could be stress-tested computationally: on random interval-restricted instances, compare the achieved per-step MMS fraction with the worst-case $1/(\sqrt{\alpha^*}(2n-1))$ to see whether the bound is pessimistic for typical inputs.

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

I read the online fair division paper. The high-level content is good, but there's a concrete bug in the printed Algorithm 1 that kills the main theorem as stated.

After Phase 0, the χ_i flags are never reset. Every agent gets exactly one good in Phase 0, so at t=n all χ_i=1. The candidate sets N^h and N^ℓ are then empty; line 21's argmin over the empty set is undefined, and no further good is allocated. The proofs of Theorem 4.1 and Claim 4.7 are written as though agents become active at the start of each phase—that's an explicit assumption in the proof of part 3 and in Claim 4.7's Case 1—but the pseudocode doesn't implement it. This looks like a missing line in the phase-transition block, something like 'χ_i←0 for all i'. It's a simple fix, but as printed the central positive result isn't proven.

Credit where it's earned. The 1/(2n-1) bound for personalized 2-value instances and the matching impossibility are genuinely new and tight. The foresight-based algorithms (2 and 3) are separate and don't share the bug; their EF1/EF2 analysis, while intricate, checks out as far as I can tell. The reduction to interval-restricted instances is clean and useful.

The main proof of Lemma 4.2 is long and delicate. I didn't find gaps beyond the χ-reset issue, but the invariant on H is the sort that benefits from machine-checking or at least a careful hand re-derivation. The lower-bound constructions are explicit and fine. The citation pattern is normal—they build on prior work fairly.

Who this is for: people working on online fair division, restricted valuations, temporal fairness. It deserves a serious referee: the conceptual contribution is meaningful and the flaw is likely a one-line fix. I'd recommend not desk-rejecting; send it out, but flag the Algorithm 1 pseudocode issue prominently. If the authors fix that and double-check the subsequent proofs, the result should be solid.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies deterministic online fair division with personalized 2-value additive valuations. It proves impossibility results for temporal EF1 and MMS (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2), proposes Algorithm 1 as a tight 1/(2n-1)-temporal-MMS algorithm for type-1 agents (Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.5), and designs two foresight-augmented algorithms: Algorithm 2 for two agents with foresight 1 (Theorem 5.2) and Algorithm 3 with foresight n-1 that achieves EF2 at every step and EF1 at every n-th step (Theorem 5.4). It also provides a reduction from interval-restricted instances to 2-value instances (Theorem 6.1). The paper is technically ambitious, with detailed invariant-based proofs (Lemma 4.2) and matching arguments.

Significance. If the results were fully correct, the tight characterization for personalized 2-value instances would be a meaningful contribution to online fair division, and the foresight results would extend the reach of temporal fairness notions. The lower bounds are explicit adversarial streams, and the proof strategy for Algorithm 1 (the H/L priority system and Lemma 4.2) is intricate and interesting. However, the central positive result is currently invalid as printed because of a missing reset in Algorithm 1, so the claimed tight guarantee is not established; the paper is promising but requires a substantive fix.

major comments (1)

[Section 4, Algorithm 1, lines 24-30; Theorem 4.1] The pseudocode never resets the active-agent flags chi_i after Phase 0. Lines 11-12 define the candidate sets as subsets of agents with chi_i=0; line 18 sets chi_j to 1 for every high-valued recipient, and lines 24-25 (intended to read chi_j<-1) do the same for every agent who receives a good during Phase 0. Since each agent receives exactly one good in Phase 0, at the end of Phase 0 every agent has chi_i=1. The phase-termination block (lines 26-30) resets phase, low, high, and L[i] but not chi_i, so for every t>n the sets N^h(g,t) and N^ell(g,t) are empty, line 21 takes the argmin over an empty set, and no further good is ever allocated. This contradicts Parts 2 and 3 of Theorem 4.1 for all t>n and invalidates Corollary 4.5. The proof of Part 3 ('an agent is active if chi_i=0') and Claim 4.7's Case 2 silently assume that agents become active at the start of each phase; this requires a phase-boundary reset such as 'for i in N do chi_i<-0', which is absent from the printed algorithm. This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic issue, and it must be fixed (and the induction in Claim 4.7 re-examined under the corrected reset) before the main result can be accepted.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, Algorithm 1, line 25] The assignment 'chi_i<-1' should presumably read 'chi_j<-1', since the loop index i is out of scope at that point; this typo contributes to the confusion around the active-flag handling.
[Corollaries 6.4 and 6.5] Corollaries 6.4 and 6.5 use 'a*' (and 'ai') where the notation 'alpha*' and 'alpha_i' is introduced in Theorem 6.1 and Definition 2.2; please harmonize the symbols.
[Section 5.2 and Table 1] The header of Section 5.2 reads 'Foresight of Length n-1Suffices' with a missing space; also Table 1 would benefit from a legend explaining the four value patterns.
[Proposition 5.1 proof] In the proof of Proposition 5.1, 'vi(A1)=v1(g1)=1' should be 'v1(A1)=1' to avoid an undefined index.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the upper bounds are proven via invariant and matching arguments, the lower bounds are adaptive adversarial constructions, and no load-bearing step reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 4.1's guarantee is not an input to Algorithm 1: the vectors H and L and the phase counters are updated by explicit rules, and positivity/level-set invariant (Lemma 4.2, Claims 4.6-4.7) is proved by induction, after which the 1/(2n-1) and 1/(3n-2) frequency claims are arithmetic consequences of those invariants rather than assumptions. Similarly, the lower bound (Theorem 3.2) builds an adversarial 2-value stream and uses an internal Claim 3.3 to force any deterministic algorithm to either violate the MMS bound or follow the stream's prescribed allocation; it does not import a uniqueness theorem or rely on the paper's own algorithms. The foresight results (Theorems 5.2 and 5.4) are proved by matching-based induction with auxiliary valuations of a fixed ratio; the optimality of the matching is used inside the proof and is not an external self-citation. Prior-work citations (He et al., Zhou et al., Amanatidis et al.) are contextual or concern separate impossibility/approximation facts, and none of the central positive claims is justified only by a citation to the same authors. The reported discrepancy between the pseudocode's handling of chi flags and the proof's active/inactive convention is a correctness issue about whether Algorithm 1 as printed matches the analyzed algorithm, not a circularity, so it does not raise the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results depend on standard online fair-division modeling assumptions: additive two-value valuations, irrevocable immediate allocation, and prefix-based fairness definitions. No parameters are fitted to the claims, and no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Each agent's valuation is additive and takes one of two agent-specific values alpha_i and beta_i (Definition 2.1).
This restriction defines the instance class and is necessary to bypass impossibility results for general additive valuations.
domain assumption Goods must be assigned immediately and irrevocably when they arrive, without knowledge of future goods except where foresight is explicitly assumed.
This is the online model described in Section 2.
domain assumption Fairness of partial allocations is evaluated with respect to the goods that have arrived so far.
Definitions 2.4 and 2.5 define temporal MMS and temporal EFk using the current prefix; changing to a lookahead MMS over all future goods would alter the bounds.
domain assumption In Section 5, the algorithm receives exact valuations of the next n-1 goods as foresight.
The stronger EF1/EF2 results explicitly augment the model with this information.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Online Fair Division for Personalized $2$-Value Instances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPXWGLYE

@misc{pith2026250522174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Online Fair Division for Personalized $2$-Value Instances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPXWGLYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22174}
}

abstract

We study an online fair division setting, where goods arrive one at a time and there is a fixed set of $n$ agents, each of whom has an additive valuation function over the goods. Once a good appears, the value each agent has for it is revealed and it must be allocated immediately and irrevocably to one of the agents. It is known that without any assumptions about the values being severely restricted or coming from a distribution, very strong impossibility results hold in this setting. To bypass the latter, we turn our attention to instances where the valuation functions are restricted. In particular, we study personalized $2$-value instances, where there are only two possible values each agent may have for each good, possibly different across agents, and we show how to obtain worst case guarantees with respect to well-known fairness notions, such as maximin share fairness and envy-freeness up to one (or two) good(s). We suggest a deterministic algorithm that maintains a $1/(2n-1)$-MMS allocation at every time step and show that this is the best possible any deterministic algorithm can achieve if one cares about every single time step; nevertheless, eventually the allocation constructed by our algorithm becomes a $1/4$-MMS allocation. To achieve this, the algorithm implicitly maintains a fragile system of priority levels for all agents. Further, we show that, by allowing some limited access to future information, it is possible to have stronger results with less involved approaches. By knowing the values of goods for $n-1$ time steps into the future, we design a matching-based algorithm that achieves an EF$1$ allocation every $n$ time steps, while always maintaining an EF$2$ allocation. Finally, we show that our results allow us to get the first nontrivial guarantees for additive instances in which the ratio of the maximum over the minimum value an agent has for a good is bounded.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Probing EFX via PMMS: (Non-)Existence Results in Discrete Fair Division
cs.GT 2025-07 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper proves a three-agent EFX/PMMS separation and claims PMMS existence for binary-valued and pair-demand valuations, plus EFX for personalized bivalued valuations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Maximizing nash social welfare in 2-value instances

Hannaneh Akrami, Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Martin Hoefer, Kurt Mehlhorn, Marco Schmalhofer, Golnoosh Shahkarami, Giovanna Varricchio, Quentin Vermande, and Ernest van Wijland. Maximizing nash social welfare in 2-value instances. InThirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, pages 4760–4767. AAAI Press,

work page 2022
[7]

Online mechanism design with predictions

28 Eric Balkanski, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Xizhi Tan, and Cherlin Zhu. Online mechanism design with predictions. InProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2024, page

work page 2024
[8]

Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions

Siddhartha Banerjee, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Artur Gorokh, and Billy Jin. Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2022, pages 1–19. SIAM,

work page 2022
[9]

Proportionally fair online allocation of public goods with predictions

Siddhartha Banerjee, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Safwan Hossain, Billy Jin, Evi Micha, and Nisarg Shah. Proportionally fair online allocation of public goods with predictions. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, pages 20–28. ijcai.org,

work page 2023
[10]

Sinclair

Siddhartha Banerjee, Chamsi Hssaine, and Sean R. Sinclair. Online fair allocation of perishable resources. CoRR, abs/2406.02402,

arXiv
[11]

Online Fair Allocation of Perishable Resources

doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.02402. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2406.02402. Siddharth Barman, Arindam Khan, and Arnab Maiti. Universal and tight online algorithms for generalized- mean welfare. InThirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, pages 4793–4800. AAAI Press,

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02402
[12]

Kazachkov, Ariel D

Gerdus Benade, Aleksandr M. Kazachkov, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. How to make envy vanish over time. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 593–610,

work page 2018
[13]

Temporal fair division of indivisible items.CoRR, abs/2410.14593,

Edith Elkind, Alexander Lam, Mohamad Latifian, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, and Nicholas Teh. Temporal fair division of indivisible items.CoRR, abs/2410.14593,

arXiv

Show all 24 references

[14]

URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.14593

doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2410.14593. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.14593. Zack Fitzsimmons, Vignesh Viswanathan, and Yair Zick. On the hardness of fair allocation under ternary valuations.CoRR, abs/2403.00943,

doi arXiv
[15]

URL https://doi.org/10

doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2403.00943. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2403.00943. Jugal Garg, Aniket Murhekar, and John Qin. Fair and efficient allocations of chores under bivalued preferences. InThirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, pages 5043–5050...

doi arXiv
[16]

Fair and efficient online allocations with normalized valuations

Vasilis Gkatzelis, Alexandros Psomas, and Xizhi Tan. Fair and efficient online allocations with normalized valuations. InThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, pages 5440–5447. AAAI Press,

2021
[17]

A social welfare optimal sequential allocation procedure

Thomas Kalinowski, Nina Narodytska, and Toby Walsh. A social welfare optimal sequential allocation procedure. InIJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 227–233. IJCAI/AAAI,

2013
[21]

Procaccia, Ben Schiffer, and Shirley Zhang

Ariel D. Procaccia, Ben Schiffer, and Shirley Zhang. Honor among bandits: No-regret learning for online fair division. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024,

2024
[23]

Hugo Steinhaus

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2105.05308. Hugo Steinhaus. Sur la division pragmatique.Econometrica, 17 (Supplement):315–319,

arXiv
[24]

Learning fair division from bandit feedback

Hakuei Yamada, Junpei Komiyama, Kenshi Abe, and Atsushi Iwasaki. Learning fair division from bandit feedback. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2024, volume 238 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3106–3114. PMLR,

2024
[2014]

Online fair division: Towards ex-post constant MMS guarantees.CoRR, abs/2503.02088,

Pooja Kulkarni, Ruta Mehta, and Parnian Shahkar. Online fair division: Towards ex-post constant MMS guarantees.CoRR, abs/2503.02088,

arXiv
[2017]

Monotone and online fair division

Martin Aleksandrov and Toby Walsh. Monotone and online fair division. InKI 2019: Advances in Artificial Intelligence - 42nd German Conference on AI, volume 11793 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 60–75. Springer,

2019
[2019]

Online fair division: A survey

Martin Aleksandrov and Toby Walsh. Online fair division: A survey. InThe Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, pages 13557–13562. AAAI Press,

2020
[2020]

Multi-agent online scheduling: MMS allocations for indivisible items

Shengwei Zhou, Rufan Bai, and Xiaowei Wu. Multi-agent online scheduling: MMS allocations for indivisible items. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, volume 202 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 42506–42516. PMLR,

2023
[2021]

On fair and efficient allocations of indivisible goods

Aniket Murhekar and Jugal Garg. On fair and efficient allocations of indivisible goods. InThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, pages 5595–5602. AAAI Press,

2021
[2022]

Pure nash equilibria in online fair division

Martin Aleksandrov and Toby Walsh. Pure nash equilibria in online fair division. InProceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, pages 42–48. ijcai.org,

2017
[2023]

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 2024, pages 1268–1286. ACM,

2024
[2024]

Fair allocation of two types of chores

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

2023
[2025]

URL https://doi.org/10

doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2503.02088. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2503.02088. Richard J. Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. InProceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC),...

doi arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Maximizing nash social welfare in 2-value instances

Hannaneh Akrami, Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Martin Hoefer, Kurt Mehlhorn, Marco Schmalhofer, Golnoosh Shahkarami, Giovanna Varricchio, Quentin Vermande, and Ernest van Wijland. Maximizing nash social welfare in 2-value instances. InThirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, pages 4760–4767. AAAI Press,

work page 2022

[2] [7]

Online mechanism design with predictions

28 Eric Balkanski, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Xizhi Tan, and Cherlin Zhu. Online mechanism design with predictions. InProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2024, page

work page 2024

[3] [8]

Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions

Siddhartha Banerjee, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Artur Gorokh, and Billy Jin. Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2022, pages 1–19. SIAM,

work page 2022

[4] [9]

Proportionally fair online allocation of public goods with predictions

Siddhartha Banerjee, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Safwan Hossain, Billy Jin, Evi Micha, and Nisarg Shah. Proportionally fair online allocation of public goods with predictions. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, pages 20–28. ijcai.org,

work page 2023

[5] [10]

Sinclair

Siddhartha Banerjee, Chamsi Hssaine, and Sean R. Sinclair. Online fair allocation of perishable resources. CoRR, abs/2406.02402,

arXiv

[6] [11]

Online Fair Allocation of Perishable Resources

doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.02402. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2406.02402. Siddharth Barman, Arindam Khan, and Arnab Maiti. Universal and tight online algorithms for generalized- mean welfare. InThirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, pages 4793–4800. AAAI Press,

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02402

[7] [12]

Kazachkov, Ariel D

Gerdus Benade, Aleksandr M. Kazachkov, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. How to make envy vanish over time. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 593–610,

work page 2018

[8] [13]

Temporal fair division of indivisible items.CoRR, abs/2410.14593,

Edith Elkind, Alexander Lam, Mohamad Latifian, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, and Nicholas Teh. Temporal fair division of indivisible items.CoRR, abs/2410.14593,

arXiv