A Simple Polynomial-Time EFX Repair for Cancelable Valuations

Arash Ashuri; Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury; Hannaneh Akrami; Kurt Mehlhorn; Maksim Soldatov

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 22 references

A Simple Polynomial-Time EFX Repair for Cancelable Valuations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single tie-breaking rule turns the standard EFX repair procedure into a polynomial-time algorithm for cancelable valuations.

desk verdict The main EFX-repair theorem is sound and genuinely useful; the headline chores corollary rests on an unproved α-MMS extension of a cited result and needs a fix before that claim is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08864 v1 pith:JF3Z4GLY submitted 2026-08-09 cs.GT

Hannaneh Akrami , Arash Ashuri , Bhaskar Ray Chaudhury , Kurt Mehlhorn , Maksim Soldatov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GT MSC 91B3268W40

keywords EFXenvy-freeuptoanygoodcancelablevaluationsfairdivisionrepairprocedurerestrictedadditivechoresminmaxsharepolynomial-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

This paper addresses a gap in the standard envy-free-up-to-any-good (EFX) repair dynamic: the leximin++ repair procedure from [PR20] repeatedly transfers an eligible item to a minimum-valued bundle and is known to terminate, but no polynomial bound on transfers was known, even for additive valuations. The paper proves that a single deterministic tie-breaking rule—always transfer the highest-ranked eligible item in an order consistent with singleton values—makes the same repair terminate after at most $|S|$ transfers for every monotone cancelable valuation over a set $S$. Along the way it preserves two invariants: the minimum bundle value never drops and the maximum bundle value never rises. The paper then uses this repair as a module to obtain, for restricted additive chores, a polynomial-time allocation that is simultaneously EFX, $(1+\varepsilon)$-MMS, and a 2-approximation to optimal social cost. It closes with a five-item cancelable ordering with no additive representation, showing the extension beyond additivity is real.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the fixed strict item order $\triangleleft$ consistent with singleton values, combined with the tie-breaking rule “transfer the $\triangleleft$-maximum eligible item.” The key lemma shows that the item transferred in iteration $\ell+1$ is strictly below the item transferred in iteration $\ell$ in this order: the proof splits into the case where the new item comes from the bundle that just received the previous item (canceling common items yields $v(g_{\ell+1}) < v(g_\ell)$) and the case where it comes from another bundle (then it was already eligible earlier and was passed over because $g_\ell$ ranked higher). This makes the order a progress measure that caps the number of transfers at $|S|$ without any assumption on value sizes.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 over all monotone cancelable set functions on a small ground set (four or five items) and all starting partitions: any instance that needs more than $|S|$ transfers, or that decreases the minimum bundle value or increases the maximum bundle value, would refute Theorem 1.1. Separately, run the [L WZ26] Phases 2 and 3 starting from a merely $(1+\varepsilon)$-MMS partition of $M^+$; if the final allocation ever fails to be $(1+\varepsilon)$-MMS or EFX, Corollary 1.2 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for a monotone cancelable set function $v$ over $m$ items and any $n$-partition $X$ of a subset $S$, Algorithm 1—always moving the highest-ranked eligible item to a minimum-valued bundle—stops after at most $|S|$ transfers and returns an EFX-feasible partition $Y$ with $\min_v(Y) \geq \min_v(X)$ and $\max_v(Y) \leq \max_v(X)$. The proof is self-contained and rests on a monotone progress measure: consecutive transferred items strictly decrease in the fixed item order, so each item can be transferred at most once. Cancelability is used to cancel common items when comparing bundles, which yields both the strict descent of transferred items and the non-increase of the maximum bundle value. The running bound is independent of value magnitudes and works in the value-oracle model.

Load-bearing premise

The repair theorem itself assumes the valuation is monotone and cancelable; the chores application adds a second, unproven assumption, namely that the two final phases of the cited [L WZ26] construction still work when the starting partition is only close to optimal, rather than exactly at the best possible maximum bundle value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every monotone cancelable valuation, any prescribed partition of a subset $S$ can be repaired to EFX in polynomial time, with the minimum bundle value never decreased and the maximum bundle value never increased.
The repair is a modular subroutine: any construction that yields a partition with a bound on its most valuable (or most costly) bundle can be post-processed to add EFX without losing that bound.
For restricted additive chores, for every fixed $\varepsilon > 0$, a polynomial-time allocation exists that is EFX, $(1+\varepsilon)$-MMS, and a 2-approximation to the optimal social cost, improving the previous polynomial-time $4/3$-MMS guarantee.
Cancelable valuations are strictly more expressive than additive valuations even at the ordinal level, so the polynomial repair covers a genuinely larger class than the additive special case.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same descent argument works for weakly well-layered or other non-cancelable valuation classes, the order-based progress measure could yield polynomial repair there; the paper does not investigate this.
The unproved extension of [L WZ26]'s Phases 2 and 3 to $\alpha$-MMS is the main risk to Corollary 1.2; verifying or refuting that extension would settle whether the EFX plus $(1+\varepsilon)$-MMS guarantee is actually available.
Because the repair preserves the maximum bundle value, it may combine with other efficiency notions stated in terms of the worst bundle, beyond the social-cost application.
The five-item separation suggests that other algorithmic results known only for additive valuations may deserve re-examination for cancelable valuations, where the same EFX-style guarantees could hold by different proofs.

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

Two things to know. Theorem 1.1 is sound and is the real contribution. The tie-breaking rule — fix an order consistent with singleton values and always transfer the highest-ranked eligible item — makes consecutive transferred items strictly decrease, so at most m transfers. I checked the two lemmas, including the case where the next transfer comes from the bundle that just received the previous item; Lemma 3.2’s argument with repeated cancellation works. Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 together give min-value non-decrease and max-value non-increase, which is exactly what a repair subroutine needs.

The cancelable extension is genuinely new: the concurrent work disclosed in the paper covers additive only, and no prior version of the PR repair had a polynomial bound even for additive. The separation example in Section 5 also checks out — the three comparisons force d+e > a+b+c, contradicting the swapped pair. I don’t see a problem with the AI-generated proof being noted in the text; the proof is short and correct.

The soft spot is the application. Corollary 1.2 leans entirely on Lemma 4.2, and the proof of that lemma is one sentence asserting that Phases 2 and 3 of Lin–Wu–Zhou extend from exact MMS to α-MMS. No extension is shown. This matters because Phases 2 and 3 add the chores from M^0, which can only raise an agent’s final cost. Starting from an α-MMS partition of M^+ and not increasing its max cost does not, by itself, imply each agent ends up at α·MMS over the original M; the cited exact-MMS argument may rely on tightness that an approximate partition does not have. Until that step is written out, the (1+ε)-MMS improvement over 4/3 is conditional. Theorem 1.1 does not depend on this, so the main result stands either way.

The citation pattern looks normal, and the paper is honest about BF26. I’d send it to a serious referee; the report should ask for a real proof of the α-MMS extension in Lemma 4.2, or a weakened statement that the application is conditional on it. Anyone working on EFX repair dynamics or restricted additive chores should read this, and I would cite it for Theorem 1.1.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Plaut-Roughgarden (PR) EFX-repair dynamic for agents with identical valuations. It shows that, for monotone cancelable valuations, a single deterministic tie-breaking rule—always transfer the highest-ranked eligible item, where the ranking is consistent with singleton values—makes the dynamic terminate after at most |S| transfers, where S is the set of items being partitioned. The resulting partition is EFX-feasible, and the repair does not decrease the minimum bundle value nor increase the maximum bundle value (Theorem 1.1). The proof is via two lemmas: Lemma 3.1 preserves the min and max under cancelability, and Lemma 3.2 shows consecutive transferred items strictly decrease in the fixed order. The paper then applies this repair to restricted additive chores, combining a Hochbaum-Shmoys scheduling PTAS with the framework of Lin, Wu, and Zhou to claim an EFX, (1+ε)-MMS, and 2-approximate social-cost allocation (Corollary 1.2). Finally, it constructs a five-item monotone cancelable ordering with no additive representation (Proposition 5.1).

Significance. If the main theorem holds, it is a genuinely useful contribution: it gives the first polynomial-time implementation of the canonical PR repair dynamic for a class strictly containing additive valuations, with strong monotonicity guarantees that make it a modular subroutine. The proof is simple, self-contained, and appears correct; the at-most-|S| transfer bound is sharp and does not depend on value magnitudes. The separation result in Proposition 5.1 is also valuable, as it shows cancelable orderings are strictly more expressive than additive ones, settling a question that is natural given the parallel between the two classes in EFX results. The chore application, however, depends on an unproven and nontrivial extension of the Lin-Wu-Zhou framework to approximate MMS, and this gap currently prevents the advertised improvement over the 4/3-MMS guarantee from being fully established.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, Lemma 4.2] The proof of Lemma 4.2 is not sufficient for the claimed use in Corollary 1.2. The sentence 'One can easily extend the proof to work with α-MMS instead of exact' is not a proof, and the issue is load-bearing. Phases 2 and 3 add chores from M^0 to the bundles of the α-MMS partition of M^+, so an agent's final cost c_i(A_i) can exceed the cost of her M^+ bundle. To conclude α-MMS with respect to the original item set M, one needs an inequality of the form c_i(A_i) ≤ α·MMS_i(M). This does not follow automatically from starting with an α-MMS partition of M^+ and preserving a bound on the cost of that partition, because MMS_i(M) can be larger than MMS_i(M^+) and the added chores may consume that slack unevenly. Since the privacy of Corollary 1.2 rests on this extension, the authors must either supply a complete proof, give a precise citation with theorem numbers showing that [LWZ26] already proves the α-MMS version, or restate Corollary 1.2 as conditional.
[Section 4, Corollary 1.2] The social-cost bound of 2·OPT(I) is also imported from Lemma 4.2, whose proof is not provided. If the exact-MMS argument in [LWZ26] uses the tightness of the MMS partition in an essential way, the same gap that threatens the α-MMS preservation could also affect the 2-approximation guarantee. The paper should make explicit which parts of the 2·OPT proof survive when Phase 1 is replaced by the PR repair of an approximately optimal MMS partition rather than an exact one.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4, Lemma 4.1] The phrase 'an an α-MMS partition' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
[Section 1] The sentence listing PR as a useful subroutine appears twice consecutively with slightly different citation lists; one of the two should be deleted.
[Abstract and Section 5] The separation result is called Proposition 1.3 in the abstract and Proposition 5.1 in Section 5; the numbering should be made consistent.
[Proof of Lemma 3.1] The notation 'X'_j = X_j \ g ⪯_j X_j' introduces the symbol ⪯_j without definition; the argument is clear from monotonicity and should be stated without new notation.
[Algorithm 1] In line 4, the phrase 'where X_j is the current bundle containing g' is slightly ambiguous because X_j was already used for the bundle from which g is transferred; rewording to 'and let X_j denote the current bundle that contains g' would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 1.1 is proved from the cancelability definition via a direct invariant, and the application's unproven alpha-MMS extension of Lin-Wu-Zhou is an external-support gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The main derivation chain starts from Definition 2.1 (cancelable valuations), Observation 2.2, and Algorithm 1. Lemma 3.1 derives the minimum/maximum bundle-value monotonicity from monotonicity and Observation 2.2, while Lemma 3.2 derives the strictly decreasing transfer sequence from the eligibility inequality, the fixed item ordering, and cancelability. Both lemmas prove their conclusions from the definitions and the algorithm's tie-breaking rule, with no target property assumed. Theorem 1.1 then follows directly, and no parameter is fitted and no quantity appearing in the theorem's conclusion is used as an input to its proof. Proposition 5.1 is an explicit construction whose proof verifies monotonicity, cancelability, and non-representability directly; the note that the proof was AI-generated and subsequently verified by the authors does not make the argument circular. For the application, Corollary 1.2 imports the Hochbaum-Shmoys PTAS and the Lin-Wu-Zhou phases as external black boxes. The only weakness is that Lemma 4.2 asserts that Phases 2 and 3 can be extended from exact MMS to alpha-MMS, saying 'One can easily extend the proof to work with alpha-MMS instead of exact' without supplying that extension. This is an unproven premise and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the premise is not obtained by fitting, by renaming the conclusion, or by a self-citation chain, and the cited source is independent of the present authors. Thus no load-bearing circular step is present.

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

The main theorem is parameter-free and introduces no new entities; it is a deterministic algorithm whose only rule is a fixed item ordering derived from singleton values. The application relies on two external building blocks: the Hochbaum-Shmoys PTAS and the Lin-Wu-Zhou chore-allocation framework. The latter is not fully verified in this paper, specifically the extension to alpha-MMS.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Valuations are accessed through a value oracle, and the repair procedure uses monotone cancelable set functions as defined in Definition 2.1.
This is the hypothesis of Theorem 1.1 and the standard computational model in this paper.
standard math The Hochbaum-Shmoys scheduling PTAS yields a (1+epsilon)-approximate MMS partition of M+ in polynomial time for fixed epsilon (cited as [HS87]).
Imported from the scheduling literature and used to start the chores algorithm with an alpha-MMS partition.
ad hoc to paper Phases 2 and 3 of Lin-Wu-Zhou, cited as [LWZ26], transform an alpha-MMS and EFX partition of M+ into an alpha-MMS and EFX allocation of M with social cost at most 2 OPT, and this extends from exact MMS to alpha-MMS.
The first part is Lemma 4.2; the extension to alpha-MMS is asserted without proof and is the load-bearing gap in the chores application.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Simple Polynomial-Time EFX Repair for Cancelable Valuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JF3Z4GLY

@misc{pith2026260808864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Simple Polynomial-Time EFX Repair for Cancelable Valuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JF3Z4GLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08864}
}

abstract

The leximin++ proof of Plaut and Roughgarden for agents with identical monotone valuations gives a natural EFX-repair procedure: starting from an arbitrary partition, repeatedly transfer an eligible item to a minimum-valued bundle. The procedure terminates, but the standard argument gives no polynomial bound on the number of transfers, even for additive valuations. We show that a single deterministic tie-breaking rule makes this repair procedure polynomial for the broader class of cancelable valuations. Fix an ordering of the items consistent with their singleton values and always transfer the highest-ranked eligible item. Consecutive transferred items strictly decrease in this ordering, and hence the algorithm performs at most $m$ transfers, where $m$ is the number of items. Moreover, the repair procedure does not decrease the minimum bundle value or increase the maximum bundle value. As an application, for every fixed $\varepsilon>0$, we compute in polynomial time an allocation of restricted additive chores that is simultaneously EFX, $(1+\varepsilon)$-MMS, and a $2$-approximation to the optimal social cost. This improves upon the previous polynomial-time $4/3$-MMS guarantee. Finally, we exhibit a monotone cancelable ordering on five items with no additive representation, showing that the extension beyond additivity is genuine.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[2]

Breaking the 3/4 barrier for approximate maximin share

[AG24] Hannaneh Akrami and Jugal Garg. Breaking the 3/4 barrier for approximate maximin share. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2024, pages 74–91. SIAM,

work page 2024
[3]

Simultaneously satisfying MXS and EFL

16 [AG25] Arash Ashuri and Vasilis Gkatzelis. Simultaneously satisfying MXS and EFL. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2025, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, July 7-10, 2025, pages 689–718. ACM,

work page 2025
[5]

Simplification and improvement of MMS approximation

[AGST23] Hannaneh Akrami, Jugal Garg, Eklavya Sharma, and Setareh Taki. Simplification and improvement of MMS approximation. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, pages 2485–2493. ijcai.org,

work page 2023
[8]

Epistemic EFX allocations exist for monotone valuations

[AR25b] Hannaneh Akrami and Nidhi Rathi. Epistemic EFX allocations exist for monotone valuations. InAAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, Philadelphia, PA, USA. AAAI Press,

work page 2025
[9]

An EF2X allocation protocol for restricted additive valuations

[ARS22] Hannaneh Akrami, Rojin Rezvan, and Masoud Seddighin. An EF2X allocation protocol for restricted additive valuations. InProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 17–23. ijcai.org,

work page 2022
[13]

New fairness concepts for allocating indivisible items

[CGR+23] Ioannis Caragiannis, Jugal Garg, Nidhi Rathi, Eklavya Sharma, and Giovanna Var- ricchio. New fairness concepts for allocating indivisible items. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, 19th-25th August 2023, Macao, SAR, China, pages 2554–2562. ijcai.org,

work page 2023
[14]

The residual maximin share.CoRR, abs/2505.19961,

[Fei25] Uriel Feige. The residual maximin share.CoRR, abs/2505.19961,

arXiv
[15]

Approximate envy-free allocations up to anykgoods.CoRR, abs/2605.10371,

[FKW26] Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Georgios Kalantzis, and Fangxiao Wang. Approximate envy-free allocations up to anykgoods.CoRR, abs/2605.10371,

arXiv

Show all 22 references

[16]

Fair allocation of indivisible goods: Improvements and general- izations

18 [GHS+18] Mohammad Ghodsi, Mohammadtaghi Hajiaghayi, Masoud Seddighin, Saeed Sed- dighin, and Hadi Yami. Fair allocation of indivisible goods: Improvements and general- izations. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, page 539–556. Association...

2018
[18]

Approximating Maximin Share Allocations

[GMT19] Jugal Garg, Peter McGlaughlin, and Setareh Taki. Approximating Maximin Share Allocations. In2nd Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA 2019), volume 69 ofOpen Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), pages 20:1–20:11. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik,

2019
[19]

Improved maximin share guarantee for additive valuations

[HKSS26] Ehsan Heidari, Alireza Kaviani, Masoud Seddighin, and AmirMohammad Shahrezaei. Improved maximin share guarantee for additive valuations. InProceedings of the 2026 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2026, Vancouver, BC, Canada, January 11-14, 2026, ...

2026
[21]

Almost envy- free allocation of indivisible goods: A tale of two valuations

[KSS24] Alireza Kaviani, Masoud Seddighin, and AmirMohammad Shahrezaei. Almost envy- free allocation of indivisible goods: A tale of two valuations. InWeb and Internet Economics - 20th International Conference, WINE 2024, Edinburgh, UK, December 2-5, 2024, Proceedings, volume ...

2024
[22]

Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi

19 [LMMS04] Richard J. Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, Elchanan Mossel, and Amin Saberi. On ap- proximately fair allocations of indivisible goods. InProceedings 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-2004), pages 125–131. ACM,

2004
[2010]

Fair allocation in graphs

[CFKS23] George Christodoulou, Amos Fiat, Elias Koutsoupias, and Alkmini Sgouritsa. Fair allocation in graphs. InProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2023, London, United Kingdom, July 9-12, 2023, pages 473–488. ACM,

2023
[2017]

Achieving maximin share and EFX/EF1 guaran- tees simultaneously

[AR25a] Hannaneh Akrami and Nidhi Rathi. Achieving maximin share and EFX/EF1 guaran- tees simultaneously. InAAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 13529–13537. AAAI Press,

2025
[2018]

Existence of 2-efx allocations of chores

[GM26] Jugal Garg and Aniket Murhekar. Existence of 2-efx allocations of chores. InFortieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Thirty-Eighth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Sixteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Int...

2026
[2020]

EFX allocations exist for binary valuations

[BSY23] Xiaolin Bu, Jiaxin Song, and Ziqi Yu. EFX allocations exist for binary valuations. InFrontiers of Algorithmics - 17th International Joint Conference, IJTCS-F A W 2023 Macau, China, August 14-18, 2023, Proceedings, volume 13933 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages...

2023
[2022]

Groupwise maximin fair allocation of indivisible goods

[BBMN18] Siddharth Barman, Arpita Biswas, Sanath Kumar Krishna Murthy, and Yadati Nara- hari. Groupwise maximin fair allocation of indivisible goods. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th inno- vative Applications of...

2018
[2023]

A counterexample to EFX;n≥3 agents,m≥n+ 5 items, monotone valuations; via SAT-solving.CoRR, abs/2604.18216,

[AMM+26] Hannaneh Akrami, Alexander Mayorov, Kurt Mehlhorn, Shreyas Srinivas, and Christoph Weidenbach. A counterexample to EFX;n≥3 agents,m≥n+ 5 items, monotone valuations; via SAT-solving.CoRR, abs/2604.18216,

arXiv
[2024]

EFX allocations exist on multi-graphs.CoRR, abs/2606.18665,

[AAM+26] Mahyar Afshinmehr, Arash Ashuri, Pouria Mahmoudkhan, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Amir- Mohammad Shahrezaei. EFX allocations exist on multi-graphs.CoRR, abs/2606.18665,

arXiv
[2025]

EF2X exists for four agents

[AGS25] Arash Ashuri, Vasilis Gkatzelis, and Alkmini Sgouritsa. EF2X exists for four agents. InThirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Thirty-Seventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Fifteenth Symposium on Educa- tional Advance...

2025
[2026]

Almost and approximate EFX for few types of agents.CoRR, abs/2508.15380,

[HMN25] Vishwa Prakash HV, Ruta Mehta, and Prajakta Nimbhorkar. Almost and approximate EFX for few types of agents.CoRR, abs/2508.15380,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

Breaking the 3/4 barrier for approximate maximin share

[AG24] Hannaneh Akrami and Jugal Garg. Breaking the 3/4 barrier for approximate maximin share. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2024, pages 74–91. SIAM,

work page 2024

[2] [3]

Simultaneously satisfying MXS and EFL

16 [AG25] Arash Ashuri and Vasilis Gkatzelis. Simultaneously satisfying MXS and EFL. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2025, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, July 7-10, 2025, pages 689–718. ACM,

work page 2025

[3] [5]

Simplification and improvement of MMS approximation

[AGST23] Hannaneh Akrami, Jugal Garg, Eklavya Sharma, and Setareh Taki. Simplification and improvement of MMS approximation. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, pages 2485–2493. ijcai.org,

work page 2023

[4] [8]

Epistemic EFX allocations exist for monotone valuations

[AR25b] Hannaneh Akrami and Nidhi Rathi. Epistemic EFX allocations exist for monotone valuations. InAAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, Philadelphia, PA, USA. AAAI Press,

work page 2025

[5] [9]

An EF2X allocation protocol for restricted additive valuations

[ARS22] Hannaneh Akrami, Rojin Rezvan, and Masoud Seddighin. An EF2X allocation protocol for restricted additive valuations. InProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 17–23. ijcai.org,

work page 2022

[6] [13]

New fairness concepts for allocating indivisible items

[CGR+23] Ioannis Caragiannis, Jugal Garg, Nidhi Rathi, Eklavya Sharma, and Giovanna Var- ricchio. New fairness concepts for allocating indivisible items. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, 19th-25th August 2023, Macao, SAR, China, pages 2554–2562. ijcai.org,

work page 2023

[7] [14]

The residual maximin share.CoRR, abs/2505.19961,

[Fei25] Uriel Feige. The residual maximin share.CoRR, abs/2505.19961,

arXiv

[8] [15]

Approximate envy-free allocations up to anykgoods.CoRR, abs/2605.10371,

[FKW26] Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Georgios Kalantzis, and Fangxiao Wang. Approximate envy-free allocations up to anykgoods.CoRR, abs/2605.10371,

arXiv