Fair Division with Social Impact

Gianluigi Greco; Giovanna Varricchio; Michele Flammini

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 27 references

Fair Division with Social Impact

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that standard fairness notions force an n-fold loss in social impact, while the socially aware notion sEF1 makes fairness compatible with social optimality.

desk verdict Interesting model and mostly solid bounds, but the headline sEF1 optimality theorem is unsupported as written because Algorithm 4 omits cycle elimination, and the PROP1 lower bound has a real gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14818 v1 pith:WCEJKOUD submitted 2024-12-19 cs.GT

Michele Flammini , Gianluigi Greco , Giovanna Varricchio This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GT MSC 91B32

keywords fairdivisionsocialimpactpriceoffairnessenvy-freenessutilitarianwelfareindivisiblegoodssociallyawareapproximationalgorithms

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 studies fair division of indivisible goods when each allocation also produces a social impact. The authors define a second additive valuation for each agent – the social impact of giving a good to that agent – and ask how much social impact must be sacrificed to guarantee fairness. They prove that under the standard fairness notions (EFk, EFX, PROP1, and epistemic EF1), no fair allocation can achieve social impact better than a factor of n worse than the optimum; the price of fairness is at least linear in the number of agents. The paper then introduces a socially aware version of envy-freeness (sEF1), in which an agent may envy another only if the envied agent's social impact is at least as high. For this notion, the paper proves that an allocation satisfying sEF1 and maximizing total social impact can always be found in polynomial time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Price of Fairness, the worst-case ratio between the maximum utilitarian social impact and the best social impact achievable by a fair allocation. The paper's algorithms for the positive results rely on two tools: the envy-cycle elimination procedure (Lipton et al.) and recursively balanced picking sequences, which are known to yield EF1 allocations under additive valuations. For the sEF1 result, the decisive mechanism is the socially aware envy graph: an agent i sa-envies j only if vi(Ai)<vi(Aj) and si(Aj)≥sj(Aj). Observation 1 shows that in an optimal allocation, every sa-envy edge connects agents with equal social impact on all goods in the envied bundle; therefore resolving sa-envy cycles through bundle swaps preserves social optimality. This property, combined with the 'up to one good' relaxation, makes it possible to maintain EF1-style fairness while never sacrificing social welfare.

What would settle it

Search for an additive instance (additive valuations and additive social impacts) in which no sEF1 allocation achieves the maximum possible utilitarian social impact; the existence of even one such instance would refute Theorem 7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tension between fairness and social welfare in indivisible-goods allocation disappears once agents take social impact into account. For agents who ignore social impact, the paper constructs instances where every EF1, EFX, PROP1, or epistemic EF1 allocation has social welfare at most opt/n, and this linear loss is unavoidable. Conversely, for socially aware envy-freeness up to one good (sEF1), Theorem 7 states that there exists a polynomial-time algorithm returning an allocation that is both sEF1 and optimal for the utilitarian social impact (maxUt). The proof hinges on Observation 1: in an optimal allocation, if agent i socially-aware envies agent j, then si(g)=sj(g) for every good g in j's bundle; hence any cycle of envy can be resolved without changing the total social impact. The algorithm greedily assigns each good to an agent with maximum social impact, breaking ties by a topological ordering of the envy graph, and eliminates envy cycles as they appear.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's results depend on social impact being additive over goods, so that giving a good to an agent adds a fixed amount of social impact regardless of the rest of the allocation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the lower-bound results are correct, any allocation that meets EF1, EFX, PROP1, or epistemic EF1 can lose a factor of n in social impact compared with the unconstrained optimum, meaning fairness is expensive when agents ignore social consequences.
Theorems 2 and 3 give polynomial-time algorithms reaching this n-approximation for ordered and identical valuations, so the linear loss is in general unavoidable rather than an artifact of hard computation.
Theorem 4 improves the previously known m-approximation for EF1 under additive valuations to O(n^2), which is significantly better when goods greatly outnumber agents.
Theorems 5 and 6 show that slightly weaker fairness criteria allowing EF2, or epistemic EF1 with PROP1, admit polynomial-time algorithms that reach an n-approximation to the social optimum.
Theorem 7 implies that if the fairness notion itself incorporates social awareness, as in sEF1, then the conflict between fairness and social welfare disappears: there is always an allocation that is both fair in this sense and socially optimal.

Reading between the lines

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

The linear price of fairness suggests that in applications like assigning green strategies to companies, imposing standard envy-freeness will force governments to forgo most of the available emissions reduction; using sEF1-like notions could avoid this loss.
The sEF1 algorithm is simple enough to deploy in practice (greedy by social impact with tie-breaking by a topological order of the envy graph), so one could test whether real agents accept sEF1 as a fair notion in behavioral experiments.
The same separation may hold for other social welfare functions such as Nash or egalitarian welfare: standard fairness notions may impose linear losses, while socially aware analogues may align, but the paper only proves this for the utilitarian social welfare.
The lower-bound constructions are extreme, with all social impact concentrated in a single good for one agent; in more balanced real-world impact profiles, the price of fairness for standard notions could be much smaller than the worst-case n.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The social-impact model is new and worth engaging with, but the paper as posted has two real gaps: Corollary 2's PROP1 lower bound does not follow from its instance, and Theorem 7's Algorithm 4 is not well-defined because it omits the cycle-elimination step its own proof relies on. Both look repairable, but the main positive result is not established as written.

The two-valuation setup is a genuine contribution. Prior work in [15] used two valuations for the allocator's preference; here the second valuation is society's impact, and the price-of-fairness question is natural. The lower bounds for EFk, EFX, PROP1, and epistemic EF1 (linear in n) are coherent, and the impossibility results should hold with a corrected Corollary 2. The algorithmic upper bounds for ordered valuations (Theorem 2), identical valuations (Theorem 3), and the O(n^2)-approximation for additive EF1 (Theorem 4) all seem solid. The n-approximation for epistemic EF1 via regular bipartite matching (Theorem 6) is a nice argument. I also like the sEF1 definition: it is a different, socially aware relaxation of envy, and the observation that sa-envy in an optimal allocation can only occur between agents tied on social impact is clever.

Now the soft spots. Corollary 2: in the proof's instance with m = n(n-1) and unit values, a non-favored agent only needs n-2 goods to satisfy PROP1, so the favored agent can hold 2n-2 goods. That gives a lower bound of roughly n/2, not n. The claim "PROP1 is equivalent to PROP" for that instance is false. So the n lower bound for PROP1/epistemic EF1 is not derived. This is a concrete gap in the table.

Theorem 7 is the bigger issue. Algorithm 4 in the supplement builds the sa-envy graph, calls topOrd(G), and never eliminates cycles, even though the surrounding prose promises "all the sa-envy cycles are iteratively deleted." Sa-envy cycles are not hypothetical: with n=2, three goods, all s_i(g)=1, and the valuations from the stress-test note, a 2-cycle appears and topOrd is undefined. The proof of Theorem 9 assumes acyclicity and then says the tie-break should have given the good to the envious agent, but without cycle elimination there is no guarantee a source exists. The gap is repairable—swapping bundles along the cycle preserves social impact and restores sEF1—but the manuscript as written does not provide a well-defined algorithm. So the existence result is unsupported as stated.

Who benefits? Fair-division theorists and anyone working on efficiency-fairness tradeoffs with externalities. The model and the corrected lower/upper bounds would be citable even without Theorem 7. I would send it to peer review if the authors fix Corollary 2 and fully specify Algorithm 4 with a termination/cycle-elimination argument. The paper deserves a serious referee, but it needs a major revision first.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a fair-division model in which each agent has both a private additive valuation and an additive social-impact function, and in which society maximizes the utilitarian sum of social impacts. It defines and analyzes the Price of Fairness for EFk, EFX, PROP1, epistemic EF1, and a new socially aware notion sEF1. The main claims are: (i) for standard fairness notions, no approximation to the maximum utilitarian social impact better than linear in the number of agents is possible; (ii) matching upper bounds hold for ordered/identical valuations, with a general O(n^2) bound for EF1; and (iii) for the new sEF1 notion, an allocation that is simultaneously sEF1 and optimal for maxUt exists and is computable in polynomial time. The proofs rely on explicit constructions, greedy algorithms, envy-cycle elimination, and matching arguments.

Significance. The model is well motivated and the contrast it draws is conceptually interesting: standard fairness notions force a linear social-cost loss, while a suitably defined socially aware notion removes that loss entirely. The paper contains several elegant and potentially useful techniques, especially the matching-based n-approximation for epistemic EF1/PROP1 and the reduction of maxUt to per-good greedy maximization. The impossibility lower bounds are crisp and mostly easy to verify. If the two issues below are repaired, the paper would be a solid contribution to fair division and algorithmic game theory. I also credit the paper for being explicit about the additive-separability assumption that underlies all of these results.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Corollary 2] The PROP1 part of Corollary 2 is not supported by the proof. In the instance from Theorem 1 with k=1, that is, m=n(n-1), all valuations equal to 1, agent 1 having social impact 1 per good and all other agents having social impact 0, PROP1 does not force equal bundle sizes. A non-favored agent i with |A_i|=n-2 can add some missing good and reach the proportional share n-1, so agent 1 can hold 2n-2 goods while every other agent holds n-2 goods. This allocation is PROP1 and has utilitarian social impact 2n-2, giving opt/SW = n/2 rather than n. The statement in the proof that 'PROP1 is equivalent to PROP' is therefore false. The epistemic EF1 part of the corollary is fine, but the PROP1 lower bound requires a different construction or a separate argument, for example a family of instances with m=qn and q growing, if the intended asymptotic lower bound is to be recovered.
[Supplement A.4, Algorithm 4 and Theorem 9] The main positive result, Theorem 7, is not established as written because Algorithm 4 is not well-defined. The pseudocode contains no sa-envy cycle elimination, although the surrounding prose says that all sa-envy cycles are 'iteratively deleted'; the loop simply calls topOrd(G) on the current graph and then allocates the next good. Cyclic sa-envy graphs occur naturally: with n=2, goods a,b,c, all s_i(g)=1, v1(a)=1, v1(b)=v1(c)=2, v2(a)=v2(c)=2, v2(b)=1, an execution that first gives a to agent 1 and then b to agent 2 reaches a partial allocation whose sa-envy graph is the 2-cycle 1→2 and 2→1, so topOrd is undefined and the loop cannot proceed. Theorem 9's induction assumes a topological order exists at every step and does not prove that the promised cycle-elimination step preserves optimality for maxUt, preserves sEF1, or terminates. The gap appears repairable, for instance by swapping bundles along the cycle, but the formal text does not supply either the algorithm or the invariant needed to make Theorem 7 rigorous.

minor comments (3)

[Section 4.3] The case distinction is misstated: 'Case 2) δ2 < δ1' should read 'Case 2) δ2 > δ1', since Case 1 already covers δ1 ≥ δ2 and Lemma 2 uses the inequality δ2 ≥ δ1.
[Supplement A.4, Algorithm 4] Line 5, 'g← a good in G', is underspecified. The optimality argument only needs each good to be assigned to an argmax of the social-impact functions, but the proof should state explicitly that the choice of g is arbitrary, since the example in Theorem 9's proof depends on the order in which goods are considered.
[Theorem 5 proof] The sentence 'the algorithm will assign each agent a bundle containing exactly one good in each C^k_i' is only true of the Phase 2 partial allocation; after Phase 3 additional goods are added. The intended property is 'at least one good in each C^k_i', which is all that Lemma 2 requires.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lower/upper bounds are derived from explicit instances and standard external theorems, and the sEF1 existence proof does not reduce to its own definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The impossibility results (Theorem 1, Corollaries 1-2) construct explicit identical-valuation instances and compute the welfare loss directly from the EFk/PROP1/epistemic-EF1 constraints; no parameter is fitted to match a target output. The approximation algorithms (Theorems 2-6) are analyzed with inequalities comparing the computed allocation to the true optimum, and the load-bearing facts (RB picking sequences, Hall's theorem, envy-cycle elimination) are external and standard. The new sEF1 notion in Definition 2 is not defined in terms of optimality: it merely permits envy when the envied bundle has strictly larger social impact, and Theorem 7 then gives a nontrivial argument (Observation 1 plus cycle elimination) that an optimal maxUt allocation meeting sEF1 exists. Self-citations in the paper are background only and are not used to forbid alternatives. One in-scope caution, noted as a correctness issue rather than circularity: the prose around Theorem 7 promises iterative deletion of sa-envy cycles, but the printed Algorithm 4 in Supplement A.4 omits that step and calls topOrd(G) without guaranteeing acyclicity; the reviewer's example shows the gap. This affects whether Theorem 7 is proven as written, but it is not a case of a prediction reducing to its inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The social-impact functions are definitions, not fitted or postulated unknowns. The main load-bearing premise is the additive separable structure of valuations and social impacts; the remaining axioms are standard fair-division and matching facts.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Valuations vi and social-impact functions si are additive over goods.
Stated in Section 2 and used by every theorem; non-additive or externality-dependent social impact would break Observation 1 and the matching and block arguments.
domain assumption All valuations and social impacts are non-negative and normalized so that vi(empty set) = si(empty set) = 0.
Section 2; needed for standard EF1 and PROP1 facts and for welfare comparisons.
standard math A recursively balanced picking sequence yields an EF1 allocation for additive valuations (Fact 1 from [5]).
Used in Lemma 1 and in the construction of EF1 allocations; treated as a cited theorem rather than proved.
standard math A d-regular bipartite graph has a perfect matching and its edges can be partitioned into d perfect matchings (Hall's theorem).
Used in Theorem 6's proof of the n-approximation.
standard math For identical valuations, an EFX allocation can be computed in polynomial time (from [9]).
Used at the start of Theorem 3's proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fair Division with Social Impact." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCEJKOUD

@misc{pith2026241214818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fair Division with Social Impact},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCEJKOUD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14818}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we consider the problem of fair division of indivisible goods when the allocation of goods impacts society. Specifically, we introduce a second valuation function for each agent, determining the social impact of allocating a good to the agent. Such impact is considered desirable for the society -- the higher, the better. Our goal is to understand how to allocate goods fairly from the agents' perspective while maintaining society as happy as possible. To this end, we measure the impact on society using the utilitarian social welfare and provide both possibility and impossibility results. Our findings reveal that achieving good approximations, better than linear in the number of agents, is not possible while ensuring fairness to the agents. These impossibility results can be attributed to the fact that agents are completely unconscious of their social impact. Consequently, we explore scenarios where agents are socially aware, by introducing related fairness notions, and demonstrate that an appropriate definition of fairness aligns with the goal of maximizing the social objective.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[15]

Fair division with allocator’s preference

Xiaolin Bu, Zihao Li, Shengxin Liu, Jiaxin Song, and Bia oshuai Tao. Fair division with allocator’s preference. In Web and Internet Economics - 19th International Conference, WIN E 2023, volume 14413 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 77–94. Springer, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Fair division of ind ivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions

Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Ari s Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Herv´ e Moulin, Alexandros A Voudouris, and Xiaowei Wu. Fair division of ind ivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 322:103965, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Knowl- edge, fairness, and social constraints

Haris Aziz, Sylvain Bouveret, Ioannis Caragiannis, Ira Giagkousi, and J´ erˆ ome Lang. Knowl- edge, fairness, and social constraints. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AAAI) , pages 4638–4645, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Best of both worlds: Ex ante and ex post fairness in resource allocation

Haris Aziz, Rupert Freeman, Nisarg Shah, and Rohit Vaish . Best of both worlds: Ex ante and ex post fairness in resource allocation. Operations Research, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Best of both wo rlds fairness under entitlements

Haris Aziz, Aditya Ganguly, and Evi Micha. Best of both wo rlds fairness under entitlements. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomo us Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 941–948, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

The Constrained Round Robin Algorithm for Fair and Efficient Allocation

Haris Aziz, Xin Huang, Nicholas Mattei, and Erel Segal-H alevi. The constrained round robin algorithm for fair and eﬃcient allocation. CoRR, abs/1908.00161, 2019. 13

work page Pith review arXiv 1908
[6]

A pol ynomial-time algorithm for com- puting a Pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation

Haris Aziz, Herv´ e Moulin, and Fedor Sandomirskiy. A pol ynomial-time algorithm for com- puting a Pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation . Operations Research Letters , 48(5):573–578, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Optim al bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods

Siddharth Barman, Umang Bhaskar, and Nisarg Shah. Optim al bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics , pages 356–

work page

Show all 27 references

[8]

Siddharth Barman, Arindam Khan, Sudarshan Shyam, and K. V. N. Sreenivas. Guarantee- ing envy-freeness under generalized assignment constrain ts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2023 , pages 242–269. ACM, 2023

2023
[9]

Greedy algorithms for maximizing nash social welfare

Siddharth Barman, Sanath Kumar Krishnamurthy, and Rohi t Vaish. Greedy algorithms for maximizing nash social welfare. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Au- tonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2018, Stockh olm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, pages 7–13...

2018
[10]

The price of fairness for indivisible goods

Xiaohui Bei, Xinhang Lu, Pasin Manurangsi, and Warut Su ksompong. The price of fairness for indivisible goods. Theory of Computing Systems , 65:1069–1093, 2021

2021
[11]

Umang Bhaskar, A. R. Sricharan, and Rohit Vaish. On appr oximate envy-freeness for in- divisible chores and mixed resources. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2 021, August 16-18, 2021, University of Washi...

2021
[12]

Vittorio Bil` o, Ioannis Caragiannis, Michele Flammin i, Ayumi Igarashi, Gianpiero Monaco, Dominik Peters, Cosimo Vinci, and William S. Zwicker. Almos t envy-free allocations with connected bundles. Games Econ. Behav. , 131:197–221, 2022

2022
[13]

Envy-free allocations respect- ing social networks

Robert Bredereck, Andrzej Kaczmarczyk, and Rolf Niede rmeier. Envy-free allocations respect- ing social networks. Artif. Intell. , 305:103664, 2022

2022
[14]

On the complex- ity of maximizing social welfare within fair allocations of indivisible goods

Xiaolin Bu, Zihao Li, Shengxin Liu, Jiaxin Song, and Bia oshuai Tao. On the complex- ity of maximizing social welfare within fair allocations of indivisible goods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14296, 2022

2022 arXiv
[16]

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

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

2011
[17]

New fairness concepts for allocating indivisible items

Ioannis Caragiannis, Jugal Garg, Nidhi Rathi, Eklavya Sharma, and Giovanna Varricchio. New fairness concepts for allocating indivisible items. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Inter- national Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence, IJCAI 202 3, pages 2554–2562. ijcai.or...

2023
[18]

Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang

Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Herv´ e Moulin, A riel D. Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash wel fare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation , 7(3):1–32, 2019

2019
[19]

Weighted envy- freeness in indivisible item allocation

Mithun Chakraborty, Ayumi Igarashi, Warut Suksompong , and Yair Zick. Weighted envy- freeness in indivisible item allocation. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 9(3):1–39, 2021

2021
[20]

Resource allocation and the public sector

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

1966
[21]

Best of both worlds: Agents with entitlements

Martin Hoefer, Marco Schmalhofer, and Giovanna Varric chio. Best of both worlds: Agents with entitlements. Journal of Artiﬁcial Intelligence Research , 80:559–591, 2024

2024
[22]

A complete landscape for the price of envy-freeness

Zihao Li, Shengxin Liu, Xinhang Lu, Biaoshuai Tao, and Y ichen Tao. A complete landscape for the price of envy-freeness. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomo us Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2024 , pages 1183–1191, 2024

2024
[23]

Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mosse l, and Amin Saberi

Richard J. Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mosse l, and Amin Saberi. On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC), pages 125–131. ACM, 2004

2004
[24]

Pri ce of fairness for allocating a bounded resource

Gaia Nicosia, Andrea Paciﬁci, and Ulrich Pferschy. Pri ce of fairness for allocating a bounded resource. European Journal of Operational Research , 257(3):933–943, 2017

2017
[25]

The problem of fair division

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

1948
[26]

Constraints in fair division

Warut Suksompong. Constraints in fair division. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 19(2):46–61, 2021

2021
[27]

Weighted fair division of indivisib le items: A review

Warut Suksompong. Weighted fair division of indivisib le items: A review. Information Pro- cessing Letters, 187:106519, 2025. 15 A Fair Division with Social Impact – Supplemental Material In this supplemental material, we present the pseudo-code o f the algorithms, further det...

2025

Pith tools

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

[1] [15]

Fair division with allocator’s preference

Xiaolin Bu, Zihao Li, Shengxin Liu, Jiaxin Song, and Bia oshuai Tao. Fair division with allocator’s preference. In Web and Internet Economics - 19th International Conference, WIN E 2023, volume 14413 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 77–94. Springer, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Fair division of ind ivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions

Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Ari s Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Herv´ e Moulin, Alexandros A Voudouris, and Xiaowei Wu. Fair division of ind ivisible goods: Recent progress and open questions. Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 322:103965, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [2]

Knowl- edge, fairness, and social constraints

Haris Aziz, Sylvain Bouveret, Ioannis Caragiannis, Ira Giagkousi, and J´ erˆ ome Lang. Knowl- edge, fairness, and social constraints. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AAAI) , pages 4638–4645, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [3]

Best of both worlds: Ex ante and ex post fairness in resource allocation

Haris Aziz, Rupert Freeman, Nisarg Shah, and Rohit Vaish . Best of both worlds: Ex ante and ex post fairness in resource allocation. Operations Research, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [4]

Best of both wo rlds fairness under entitlements

Haris Aziz, Aditya Ganguly, and Evi Micha. Best of both wo rlds fairness under entitlements. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomo us Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 941–948, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [5]

The Constrained Round Robin Algorithm for Fair and Efficient Allocation

Haris Aziz, Xin Huang, Nicholas Mattei, and Erel Segal-H alevi. The constrained round robin algorithm for fair and eﬃcient allocation. CoRR, abs/1908.00161, 2019. 13

work page Pith review arXiv 1908

[7] [6]

A pol ynomial-time algorithm for com- puting a Pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation

Haris Aziz, Herv´ e Moulin, and Fedor Sandomirskiy. A pol ynomial-time algorithm for com- puting a Pareto optimal and almost proportional allocation . Operations Research Letters , 48(5):573–578, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [7]

Optim al bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods

Siddharth Barman, Umang Bhaskar, and Nisarg Shah. Optim al bounds on the price of fairness for indivisible goods. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics , pages 356–

work page