Final Validation Report: LMMS04 Fair Division

Updated: 2026-09-05 (current-protocol terminal-document refresh)

1. Human Verdict

The checked results give bounded-envy allocations, the positive-atom continuous allocation result, two mechanism impossibilities, and truthfulness in expectation of independent random allocation.

Formalization gap: Theorems 2.1, 2.3, and 4.2 have selected existence or mechanism components proved, while their runtime, zero-atom, partition-size, and high-probability rate clauses and Theorems 3.1–3.3 remain unproved. Details.

2. Closeout Status

3. Source and Scope

The source is On Approximately Fair Allocations of Indivisible Goods (EC 2004), recorded in the source map. The selected source-facing scope comprises Lemma 2.2; Theorems 2.1, 2.3 (the positive-atom branch), and 4.1; and the Theorem 4.2 proof component. The unproved source claims outside that scope are stated in Section 5.

The Section-2 finite allocation and mechanism targets make finite, nonempty-agent and finite-good carriers explicit. Theorem 2.3’s selected route takes finite measures, a positive atom bound, and common bounded-interval support, and constructs finite high points and a finite residual partition. It is a constructive positive-alpha branch; the source’s zero-alpha invocation is separately disclosed above.

4. Researcher Summary of Checked Results

Result Comparison with the paper
Lemma 2.2; Theorem 2.1 existence; Theorem 4.1 Exact.
Theorem 2.1 runtime Deferred: the value-oracle O(m n^3) clause remains outside the selected scope.
Theorem 2.3; Lemma 2.4 Restricted scope: positive alpha; a finite progressing partition replaces the nonprogressing endpoint choice. The alpha=0 branch and partition-count bound remain open.
Theorem 4.2 Restricted scope: only truthfulness in expectation of independent uniform allocation; the high-probability envy rate remains open.
Theorems 3.1–3.3; Claim 3.4; Lemma 3.5 Deferred: the Section 3 results remain outside the current formalization.

5. Remaining Boundaries and Gaps

The following source claims remain outside the proved scope:

No algorithm-correctness wrapper, certificate, finite concentration inequality, or historical hard-family construction is counted as proof of these source claims.

6. Additional Assumptions Beyond Paper

None.

7. Proof-Strategy Deviations

Theorem 4.1 uses two players, two named goods, and eight eggs (ten goods total). The printed proof illustrates the same impossibility argument with one hundred eggs. This smaller checked witness is a proof-route reduction, not a new paper assumption or a claim of archival proof identity.

8. Proof Tricks Worth Reusing

None.

9. Generalizations, Conjectures, and Extensions

The shortest substantive extension is reusable complexity infrastructure for the fixed-dimension integer-program solver/runtime theorem, followed by a source-faithful Section-3 assembly. Separately, an analytic cake-cutting route would be needed to cover Theorem 2.3 at alpha = 0, and an asymptotic bridge would be needed to credit Theorem 4.2’s printed rate.

10. Source Clarifications and Exact Readings

The source clarification memo explains the nonprogressing printed endpoint choice and the checked positive-alpha existence result, distinct from the unproved partition-size bound.

11. Paper Issues or Caveats

No additional paper issue is asserted beyond the partial-formalization boundaries in Section 5 and the exact source-proof reading in Section 10.

12. Detailed Formalization Evidence

The direct ledger compares six byte-pinned source bundles with fully expanded Lean propositions and records six matches. PaperInterface.lean also exposes definitions and partial-support targets without promoting them to selected source results. The source-fidelity record documents the corrected progressing-endpoint construction.

13. Paper Assumption Provenance

No added paper-facing assumption is used on the selected six-result surface. Finite carriers and the positive-atom/common-interval hypotheses are explicit source or selected-scope conditions. The current graph selects no separate paper-assumption declaration or material library prerequisite.

14. Displayed Formula Provenance

The source map binds envy, bounded envy, maximum marginal value, allocation feasibility, the positive-atom partition, mechanism truthfulness, and the Theorem 4.2 probability component. The clarification memo separates the proved finite construction from the unproved O(n/alpha) partition count.

15. Library Lift Pass

The selected endpoints use finite allocation, measure, and mechanism infrastructure, but the accepted graph records no material reusable-library review row. No new library extraction is claimed here.

16. DAG Audit

The dependency DAG keeps the six selected Section-2/Section-4 routes separate from nine visible proof boundaries. Its retained visual inspection found the rendering legible and unclipped; no open boundary is depicted as proved.

17. Validation Checks

Retained focused interface elaboration and the selected-surface closeout check passed. The accepted graph and closure receipt credential only the explicitly partial scope in Sections 3–5. No new Lean or semantic review was run for this document edit.

18. Paper Definitions Checked

Checked definitions include envy, envy-freeness, bounded envy, maximum marginal value, finite allocations, direct and randomized mechanisms, truthfulness, and truthfulness in expectation.

19. Named Theorem Statements Checked

The runtime, zero-atom, partition-count, Section 3, and high-probability envy claims remain outside the credited surface as detailed in Section 5.

20. Paper-Facing Statement Validator Ledger

The six direct matches are recorded in the source-to-Spec ledger. The source-fidelity ledger records the progressing-endpoint repair; the accepted graph binds the exact selected proof routes without expanding their scope.

21. Source-Coverage Audit Ledger

The coverage ledger records thirty-seven covered items and twelve conditional boundaries. The row-local ledger records the corresponding matched and boundary judgments. The source map and Section 5 identify the unproved claims, so the accepted partial graph is not presented as full-paper coverage.