  Several different fairness notions have been introduced in the context of
fair allocation of goods. In this manuscript, we compare between some fairness
notions that are used in settings in which agents have arbitrary (perhaps
unequal) entitlements to the goods. This includes the proportional share, the
anyprice share, the weighted maximin share, weighted envy freeness, maximum
weight Nash social welfare and competitive equilibrium. We perform this
comparison in two settings, that of a divisible homogeneous good and arbitrary
valuations, and that of indivisible goods and additive valuations.
  Different fairness notions are not always compatible with each other, and
might dictate selecting different allocations. The purpose of our work is to
clarify various properties of fairness notions, so as to allow, when needed, to
make an educated choice among them. Also, such a study may motivate introducing
new fairness notions, or modifications to existing fairness notions.
  Among other properties, we introduce definitions for monotonicity that
postulate that having higher entitlement should be better to the agent than
having lower entitlement. Some monotonicity notions, such as population
monotonicity and weight monotonicity, appeared in previous work, but we prefer
to consider other monotonicity properties that we refer to as global
monotonicity and individual monotonicity. We find that some of the fairness
notions (but not all) violate our monotonicity properties in a strong sense,
that we refer to as the inversion paradox. Under this paradox, a fairness
notion enforces that the value received by an agent decreases when the
entitlement of the agent increases.
