On the Incompatibility of Weighted PROPX and Pareto Optimality for Indivisible Chores

Abstract

Proportionality (PROP) is one of the simplest fairness criteria for allocating items among agents with additive preferences. With indivisible chores, however, PROP is not always satisfiable. We study proportionality up to any item (PROPX), which requires every agent to satisfy proportionality after any chore is removed from her bundle. Under strictly positive costs, we settle the weighted compatibility question negatively: weighted PROPX and Pareto optimality are incompatible already for two agents and four chores. Moreover, for every $n\geq3$, we give an $n$-agent, $(n+1)$-chore counterexample whose shares can be arbitrarily close to equal. These counterexamples are item-minimal: under strictly positive costs, weighted PROPX and Pareto optimality are always compatible when the number of chores is at most the number of agents, and they are compatible for two agents with at most three chores. Our impossibility result contrasts with the compatibility theorem of Mahara (2026) for weighted envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) and Pareto optimality .