Balanced EF1 and fPO Allocations
Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.
Statement
Does every instance of indivisible goods with additive valuations admit a balanced allocation (any two bundles differing in size by at most one) that is simultaneously envy-free up to one good (EF1) and fractionally Pareto optimal (fPO)? Kawase et al. established existence only for personalized bivalued valuations or at most two valuation types. Proved in general, via the Knaster-Kuratowski-Mazurkiewicz lemma applied to a weighted-welfare duality framework plus a new price interlacing lemma.
Context
The paper records how the collaboration actually went: the authors first aimed at a counterexample showing EF1 and PO incompatible under matroid constraints, and when the model surfaced fundamental difficulties with that plan they redirected toward proving the positive result instead. The paper also extends the technique to category constraints and leaves a pseudopolynomial-time algorithm open.
A specific open case from a 2026 paper, inside the heavily worked EF1-and-fPO literature of fair division; recent and specialist, but precisely stated and actively pursued.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
The acknowledgement is unusually specific: "All the mathematical proofs and counterexamples were derived by OpenAI Codex (GPT-5.6-Sol at Max effort) based on research directions, literature connections, proof and search strategies, and inspirations supplied by the authors." The authors verified every detail and simplified the exposition with both models, and retain responsibility.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 0 machine checksNo person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.