Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Weighted Envy Freeness With Bounded Subsidies

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An allocation can be made weighted-envy-free with subsidies exactly when its weighted envy graph has no positive-cost cycles, and three polynomial-time algorithms bound the required subsidy.

desk verdict Solid conceptual contribution with a clean WEF-ability characterization, but the headline general-additive subsidy bound has a real proof gap in Proposition 3.13's Case 3; the identical and binary results look good. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12696 v4 pith:TDON3DBO submitted 2024-11-19 cs.GT cs.DS

Noga Klein Elmalem , Rica Gonen , Erel Segal-Halevi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.DS MSC 91B32
keywords weightedenvy-freenesssubsidiesindivisibleitemsfairdivisionadditivevaluationsbinaryenvygraphpolynomial-timealgorithm
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

The paper asks how much third-party money is needed to make an allocation of indivisible items envy-free when agents have different entitlements, or weights. It establishes that an allocation can be made weighted-envy-free with subsidies if and only if its weighted envy graph has no positive-cost cycles, and that the minimal subsidy vector is obtained from longest paths in that graph. For agents with additive valuations, it gives three polynomial-time algorithms: one for general valuations (integer weights) with per-agent subsidy at most $w_i V$ and total at most $(W-w_1)V$; one for identical valuations with per-agent subsidy at most $V$ and total at most $(n-1)V$; and one for binary valuations with per-agent subsidy at most $w_i/w_1$ and total at most $W/w_1-1$. When all weights are equal, these bounds reduce to the known unweighted bounds, so the weighted setting generalizes the earlier theory while exposing that welfare-maximizing reassignments no longer characterize envy-freeability.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the weighted envy graph $G_{A,w}$, a complete directed graph on agents with edge cost $\operatorname{cost}_A(i,j)=v_i(A_j)/w_j-v_i(A_i)/w_i$. The load-bearing theorem is that an allocation is WEF-able iff every directed cycle has non-positive total cost; the minimal subsidy vector is then $s_i = w_i \cdot \ell_i(A)$, where $\ell_i(A)$ is the maximum cost of a path starting at $i$. Each algorithm is engineered so its output avoids positive-cost cycles: Algorithm 1 via one-to-many maximum-value matching, Algorithm 2 via an item-by-item rule minimizing $v(A_i\cup\{o\})/w_i$, and Algorithm 3 via a weighted General Yankee Swap that preserves non-redundancy and bounds longest-path costs.

What would settle it

Take a small additive instance with integer weights, run Algorithm 1, and compute the true minimal subsidy for its output via Theorem 3.5 (longest paths in the weighted envy graph). If any agent's minimal subsidy exceeds $w_i V$, or the total exceeds $(W-w_1)V$, the main general-additive theorem is false; comparing the original and modified-valuation longest-path costs also directly tests Proposition 3.14.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that weighted envy-freeability is exactly the absence of positive-cost cycles in the weighted envy graph, in which the edge from $i$ to $j$ costs $v_i(A_j)/w_j - v_i(A_i)/w_i$. Unlike the unweighted case, an allocation that maximizes utilitarian (or weighted utilitarian) welfare over reassignments need not be WEF-able, and a WEF-able allocation need not maximize welfare. The paper proves the characterization, shows how to compute a componentwise-minimal subsidy vector in strongly polynomial time, and then designs allocation algorithms whose weighted envy graphs are guaranteed to be cycle-free with controlled path lengths. The resulting bounds are $(W-w_1)V$ for general additive valuations with integer weights (improved by dividing by $\gcd(w)$), $(n-1)V$ for identical additive valuations, and $W/w_1-1$ for binary additive valuations.

Load-bearing premise

The general-additive total-subsidy bound $(W-w_1)V$ depends on a 'modified valuations' bridge that assumes the matching output is EF-able under unit weights with the original required subsidy no larger than the modified one, yet Proposition 3.14's printed inequality omits the weight factor and the Case 3 construction transfers items without preserving bundle cardinalities, so the bridge is the load-bearing point whose failure would leave that bound unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With equal weights, all three bounds collapse to the known unweighted bound $(n-1)V$, so the weighted results are strict extensions of the earlier theory.
  • For any given WEF-able allocation, the componentwise-minimal subsidy vector can be computed in $O(nm+n^3)$ time by shortest-path methods on the negated weighted envy graph.
  • For general additive valuations with integer weights, the subsidy bound is independent of the number of items $m$, and dividing all weights by their gcd improves the bound to $(W-w_1)V/\gcd(w)$.
  • For identical additive valuations, the total subsidy is at most $(n-1)V$ regardless of the weights, and this is tight even with equal weights.
  • For binary additive valuations, the weighted Yankee Swap yields a WEF-able allocation with total subsidy at most $W/w_1-1$, and the allocation is non-redundant, hence welfare-maximizing for the binary case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The no-positive-cycle characterization is stated for additive valuations, but the graph argument itself only uses the fact that subsidies shift edge costs linearly; the same criterion likely extends to any quasilinear domain where each agent's value for a bundle is well defined, such as submodular or single-minded valuations, though the subsidy bounds would need separate arguments.
  • The gap between the general-additive upper bound $(W-w_1)V$ and the appendix's examples suggests the true worst-case subsidy may scale with the ratio $W/w_1$ in a more refined way, and the modified-valuation proof gap is a natural place to look for a corrected or tightened bound.
  • Weighted subsidy bounds may transfer to other weighted fairness notions: the same longest-path subsidy formula could be specialized to weighted proportionality or weighted maximin share, where analogous positive-cycle obstructions would characterize when money can close the gap.
  • A direct numerical experiment on random additive instances could test whether Algorithm 1's output ever approaches or exceeds its printed bound; the appendix indicates the bound is not tight, so a tighter analysis may be possible.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a weighted extension of envy-freeness with subsidies: agents have entitlements (weights), and an allocation is WEF-able if subsidies can make it weighted envy-free. The authors prove a weighted analogue of the Halpern-Shah no-positive-cycle characterization (Theorem 3.2), give a worst-case subsidy bound for a fixed WEF-able allocation (Theorem 3.6), and present polynomial-time algorithms with subsidy bounds for three additive valuation settings: general additive valuations (Algorithm 1, Theorem 3.16), identical additive valuations (Algorithm 2, Theorem 4.7), and binary additive valuations via an adapted General Yankee Swap (Algorithm 3, Theorem 5.13). The claimed general-additive bound is (W-w1)V/gcd(w) after normalization, reducing to (n-1)V for equal weights.

Significance. The characterization in Theorem 3.2 and the fixed-allocation bound in Theorem 3.6 are clean and genuinely extend the unweighted theory. The identical-valuations section (Section 4) and the binary-valuations section (Section 5) are detailed and, if correct, give tight or near-tight bounds that reduce properly to known unweighted results. The general-additive result of Section 3.2 is the main advertised contribution, but its proof currently has a load-bearing gap: Proposition 3.13's Case 3 constructs an infeasible allocation, and the modified-valuation bridge in Propositions 3.14-3.15 does not support the stated per-agent bound as written. Because that bridge is what supplies Theorem 3.16, the paper is not yet publishable in its present form, although the other sections are substantial enough that a careful revision is warranted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.13, Case 3] The random allocation B^t constructed to contradict the optimality of A^t is not a feasible complete allocation of O_t with exactly w_i items per agent. Step (1) says to transfer an item from i_{j+1} to i_j for every 1 <= j <= k-1, which includes the transfer i_k -> i_{k-1}; step (2) removes an item from i_1; step (3) adds an item from A^{t+1}_{i_{k-1}} to i_{k-1}. Under this reading i_k ends with w_{i_k}-1 items and i_{k-1} ends with w_{i_{k-1}}+1 items, one of which is not in O_t. If step (1) is instead read as ranging only over j <= k-2, then the item removed from i_1 has no recipient, and again B^t is not an allocation of O_t. The displayed expectation also omits the transfer i_k -> i_{k-1}, so the claimed equality with the cost of the path P does not match the stated construction. Since Algorithm 1 is only optimal over complete allocations of O_t in which each agent receives exactly w_i items, the contradiction with optimality does not follow. This invalidates the proof of Proposition 3.13 and hence the WEF-ability under modified valuations used in Theorem 3.16.
  2. [Section 3.2, Propositions 3.14 and 3.15] The comparison between the original and modified subsidy requirements is not justified as stated. Observation 3.12 gives, for each edge, \bar v_i(A_j)-\bar v_i(A_i) >= v_i(A_j)/w_j - v_i(A_i)/w_i, so the modified-cost of a path is at least the original weighted path cost. Therefore the original subsidy w_i * ell_i^v is at most w_i times the modified subsidy, not at most the modified subsidy as Proposition 3.14 claims when the modified graph is taken with unit weights. Separately, Proposition 3.15 evaluates \bar v_i(A_j) as \sum_{t in [T]} \bar v_i(A^t_j), but \bar v_i is defined only on round bundles and is not item-additive as defined; this summation requires an explicit definition of \bar v_i on final bundles. Both points affect the per-agent bound w_i V claimed in Theorem 3.16.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, after Algorithm 1] The sentence 'After at most ⌈m/W⌉ valuations, all items are allocated' should say 'iterations' rather than 'valuations'.
  2. [Section 4, Lemma 4.3, Equation (2)] The telescoping display in the proof of Lemma 4.3 has a typographical error: the final sum is written as a difference of two identical terms, which obscures the intended cancellation.
  3. [Example 4.4] In step 4 of Example 4.4, the value of the envy is computed as 3/(7/2) = 6/7, but the displayed expression omits the subtraction of the zero term for the empty bundle; this is harmless but should be cleaned up.
  4. [Theorem 3.16 and Table 1] The main theorem and Table 1 state the total bound as (W-w1)V, while Lemma 3.17 proves the stronger (W-w1)V/gcd(w) after dividing all weights by their gcd; the statements should be reconciled, for example by stating the normalization explicitly in the theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the WEF-ability characterization and subsidy bounds are derived from the definitions, and the self-citations supply only a standard definition and a pointer to the short version.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.2 proves the equivalence between WEF-ability and absence of positive-cost cycles directly from the definitions of WEF and the weighted envy graph; the proof constructs the subsidy vector s_i = w_i * cost_A(ell_i(A)) and verifies the WEF inequalities, so the characterization does not assume itself. Algorithm 1's per-round WEF-ability (Proposition 3.10) is justified by an exchange argument comparing the optimal matching with a random cyclic transfer; the expected-value calculation equals the cycle cost, and optimality supplies the inequality, which is a standard first-order argument, not an input-output identity. The modified-valuation bridge in Propositions 3.13-3.15 is a proof technique that dominates the original edge costs; it does not define the desired subsidy bound into the modified valuations. The only self-citations are Definition 2.2 (WEF(x,y) from Chakraborty et al. [11], co-authored by the third author) and the pointer to the short version [20]; both are definitions/announcements, and neither is invoked as a theorem that forces the paper's conclusions. A correctness reviewer may question Proposition 3.13 Case 3 (the constructed B^t need not be a feasible complete allocation of O_t) and Proposition 3.14 (the factor w_i is dropped when comparing subsidies), but these are proof gaps, not instances in which a claimed prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation. Accordingly, the circularity score remains low.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data. Its results rest on the quasilinear-additive model, integer-weight assumption for the general algorithm, and borrowed algorithmic machinery (flow, GYS). The WEF(x,y) notion comes from the authors' own prior paper but is used as a definition.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quasilinear utilities and additive valuations
    Section 2 assumes vi(empty set)=0 and additivity; all bounds depend on additivity.
  • domain assumption Integer entitlements for Algorithm 1
    Theorem 3.16 requires integer weights; the algorithm allocates exactly wi items per round. Scaling handles rational ratios, but arbitrary real weights are not covered.
  • domain assumption General Yankee Swap properties from Viswanathan-Zick [30]
    Algorithm 3 inherits transfer-path existence, polynomial-time path finding, and non-redundancy from [30] without re-proving them.
  • standard math Min-cost max-flow polynomial time (Goldberg-Tarjan [16])
    Algorithm 1's runtime and integrality rely on standard flow results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weighted Envy Freeness With Bounded Subsidies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDON3DBO

@misc{pith2026241112696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weighted Envy Freeness With Bounded Subsidies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDON3DBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12696}
}
read the original abstract

We explore solutions for fairly allocating indivisible items among agents assigned weights representing their entitlements. Our fairness goal is weighted-envy-freeness (WEF), where each agent deems their allocated portion relative to their entitlement at least as favorable as any other's relative to their own. In many cases, achieving WEF necessitates monetary transfers, which can be modeled as third-party subsidies. The goal is to attain WEF with bounded subsidies. Previous work in the unweighted setting of subsidies relied on basic characterizations of EF that fail in the weighted settings. This makes our new setting challenging and theoretically intriguing. We present polynomial-time algorithms that compute WEF-able allocations with an upper bound on the subsidy per agent in three distinct additive valuation scenarios: (1) general, (2) identical, and (3) binary. When all weights are equal, our bounds reduce to the bounds derived in the literature for the unweighted setting.

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

  1. Whoever Said Money Won't Solve All Your Problems? Weighted Envy-free Allocation with Subsidy

    cs.GT 2025-02 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper extends envy-free allocation with subsidies to weighted entitlements, proving worst-case subsidy bounds and polynomial-time algorithms for monotone, superadditive, additive, binary, matroidal, and identical-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A derivation of the money rawlsian s olution

    Enriqueta Aragones. A derivation of the money rawlsian s olution. Social Choice and Welfare , 12(3):267–276, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Achieving envy-freeness and equitability w ith monetary transfers

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

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Weighted Maxmin Fair Share Allocation of Indivisible Chores

    Haris Aziz, Hau Chan, and Bo Li. Weighted maxmin fair shar e allocation of indivisible chores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07602 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1906

  4. [4]

    Fair and truth ful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations

    Moshe Babaioff, Tomer Ezra, and Uriel Feige. Fair and truth ful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 5119–5126, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Fair-share al locations for agents with arbitrary entitlements

    Moshe Babaioff, Tomer Ezra, and Uriel Feige. Fair-share al locations for agents with arbitrary entitlements. Mathematics of Operations Research , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Achieving Envy-Freeness with Limited Subsidies under Dichotomous Valuations

    Siddharth Barman, Anand Krishna, Yadati Narahari, and S oumyarup Sad- hukhan. Achieving envy-freeness with limited subsidies un der dichotomous val- uations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07419 , 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    One dollar each eliminates envy

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

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Computing envy-freeable alloca- tions with limited subsidies

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

    work page 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Chakraborty, A

    M. Chakraborty, A. Igarashi, W. Suksompong, and Y. Zick. Weighted envy- freeness in indivisible item allocation. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 9:1–39, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Pick- ing sequences and monotonicity in weighted fair division

    Mithun Chakraborty, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin, and Wa rut Suksompong. Pick- ing sequences and monotonicity in weighted fair division. Artificial Intelligence , 301:103578, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Weighted fairness notions for indivisible items revisited

    Mithun Chakraborty, Erel Segal-Halevi, and Warut Suks ompong. Weighted fairness notions for indivisible items revisited. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pages 4949–4956, 2022. 40

    2022

  4. [12]

    The fairness of leximin in all ocation of indivisible chores

    Xingyu Chen and Zijie Liu. The fairness of leximin in all ocation of indivisible chores. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04864 , 2020

    2005 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Multi-item auctions

    Gabrielle Demange, David Gale, and Marilda Sotomayor. Multi-item auctions. Journal of political economy , 94(4):863–872, 1986

    1986

  6. [14]

    Resource allocation and the public sector

    Duncan Karl Foley. Resource allocation and the public sector . Yale University, 1966

    1966

  7. [15]

    A fair an d truthful mechanism with limited subsidy

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

    2024

  8. [16]

    Finding minimum- cost circulations by canceling negative cycles

    Andrew V Goldberg and Robert E Tarjan. Finding minimum- cost circulations by canceling negative cycles. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , 36(4):873–886, 1989

    1989

  9. [17]

    Network flow algorithm

    Andrew V Goldberg, ´Eva Tardos, and Robert Tarjan. Network flow algorithm. Technical report, Cornell University Operations Research and Industrial Engi- neering, 1989

    1989

  10. [18]

    Fair division with subs idy

    Daniel Halpern and Nisarg Shah. Fair division with subs idy. In Algorithmic Game Theory: 12th International Symposium, SAGT 2019, Athens , Greece, September 30–October 3, 2019, Proceedings 12 , pages 374–389. Springer, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Towards optimal subsidy bounds for envy-free able allocations

    Yasushi Kawase, Kazuhisa Makino, Hanna Sumita, Akihis a Tamura, and Makoto Yokoo. Towards optimal subsidy bounds for envy-free able allocations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 9824–9831, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Weighted Envy Free- ness With Bounded Subsidies

    Noga Klein Elmalem, Rica Gonen, and Erel Segal-Halevi. Weighted Envy Free- ness With Bounded Subsidies . To appear at AAMAS 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Elicitation of honest preferences fo r the assignment of individuals to positions

    Herman B Leonard. Elicitation of honest preferences fo r the assignment of individuals to positions. Journal of political Economy , 91(3):461–479, 1983

    1983

  14. [22]

    Weighted envy-freeness in indivisible item allocation

    Chakraborty Mithun, Igarashi Ayumi, Suksompong Warut , and Zick Yair. Weighted envy-freeness in indivisible item allocation. ACM Trans. Econ. Com- put, 9(3):1–18, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Weighted envy-freeness for submodular valuations

    Luisa Montanari, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin, Warut Suk sompong, and Nicholas Teh. Weighted envy-freeness for submodular valuations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 9865–9873, 2024. 41

    2024

  16. [24]

    Cake-cutting algorithms: Be fair if you can

    Jack Robertson and William Webb. Cake-cutting algorithms: Be fair if you can. AK Peters/CRC Press, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    Fair allocations

    David Schmeidler and Menahem Yaari. Fair allocations. Unpublished Manuscript, 1971

    1971

  18. [26]

    The problem of fair division

    Hugo Steinhaus. The problem of fair division. Econometrica, 16:101–104, 1948

    1948

  19. [27]

    On maximum weighted nash welfare for binary valuations

    Warut Suksompong and Nicholas Teh. On maximum weighted nash welfare for binary valuations. Mathematical Social Sciences , 117:101–108, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Weighted fair divis ion with matroid-rank valuations: Monotonicity and strategyproofness

    Warut Suksompong and Nicholas Teh. Weighted fair divis ion with matroid-rank valuations: Monotonicity and strategyproofness. Mathematical Social Sciences, 126:48–59, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Yankee swap: a fast a nd simple fair alloca- tion mechanism for matroid rank valuations

    Vignesh Viswanathan and Yair Zick. Yankee swap: a fast a nd simple fair alloca- tion mechanism for matroid rank valuations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08495 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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 , pages 1129–1152, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Weighted notions of fairness with binary supermodular chores

    Vignesh Viswanathan and Yair Zick. Weighted notions of fairness with binary supermodular chores. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06212 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Floyd-warshall algorithm

    Eric W Weisstein. Floyd-warshall algorithm. https://mathworld. wolfram. com/, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    The floyd-warshall algo rithm for shortest paths

    Simon Wimmer and Peter Lammich. The floyd-warshall algo rithm for shortest paths. Arch. Formal Proofs, 2017, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Tree splitting based roun ding scheme for weighted proportional allocations with subsidy

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

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    One quarter e ach (on aver- age) ensures proportionality

    Xiaowei Wu, Cong Zhang, and Shengwei Zhou. One quarter e ach (on aver- age) ensures proportionality. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 582–599. Springer, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Approximate envy-free procedures

    Dao-Zhi Zeng. Approximate envy-free procedures. Game Practice: Contribu- tions from Applied Game Theory , pages 259–271, 2000. 42 APPENDIX A Tightness of the Subsidy Bounds A.1 Subsidy Bound of Algorithm 1 As Theorem 3.16 implies, Algorithm 1 computes a WEF-able all ocation wi...

    2000

  29. [37]

    Together, Proposition 5.8 and Proposition 5.12 imply that si≤ wi w1 for each agent i∈ N

    Agent 1 with the minimum entitlement receives a positive subsidy . Together, Proposition 5.8 and Proposition 5.12 imply that si≤ wi w1 for each agent i∈ N . Since agent 1 does receive a positive subsidy, and by Theore m 3.5, there exists at least one agent who requires no subs...

  30. [38]

    We can modify Proposition 5.12 in the following way: for each agent i /∈ R(t), where 43 t∈ [T ], ℓi(At)≤ 1 w2

    Agent 1 with the minimum entitlement receives no subsidy . We can modify Proposition 5.12 in the following way: for each agent i /∈ R(t), where 43 t∈ [T ], ℓi(At)≤ 1 w2 . By the proof of Proposition 5.12, ℓi(At)≤ ℓij+1(At). If ij+1 = i1, then ℓi(At)≤ ℓij+1(At)≤ 0 (because agen...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.