An Algorithmic Framework for Strategic Fair Division

We study the paradigmatic fair division problem of allocating a divisible good among agents with heterogeneous preferences, commonly known as cake cutting. Classical cake cutting protocols are susceptible to manipulation. Do their strategic outcomes still guarantee fairness? To address this question we adopt a novel algorithmic approach, by designing a concrete computational framework for fair division---the class of Generalized Cut and Choose (GCC) protocols}---and reasoning about the game-theoretic properties of algorithms that operate in this model. The class of GCC protocols includes the most important discrete cake cutting protocols, and turns out to be compatible with the study of fair division among strategic agents. In particular, GCC protocols are guaranteed to have approximate subgame perfect Nash equilibria, or even exact equilibria if the protocol's tie-breaking rule is flexible. We further observe that the (approximate) equilibria of proportional GCC protocols---which guarantee each of the $n$ agents a $1/n$-fraction of the cake---must be (approximately) proportional. Finally, we design a protocol in this framework with the property that its Nash equilibrium allocations coincide with the set of (contiguous) envy-free allocations

A Multi-Game Framework for Harmonized LTE-U and WiFi Coexistence over Unlicensed Bands

The introduction of LTE over unlicensed bands (LTE-U) will enable LTE base stations (BSs) to boost their capacity and offload their traffic by exploiting the underused unlicensed bands. However, to reap the benefits of LTE-U, it is necessary to address various new challenges associated with LTE-U and WiFi coexistence. In particular, new resource management techniques must be developed to optimize the usage of the network resources while handling the interdependence between WiFi and LTE users and ensuring that WiFi users are not jeopardized. To this end, in this paper, a new game theoretic tool, dubbed as \emph{multi-game} framework is proposed as a promising approach for modeling resource allocation problems in LTE-U. In such a framework, multiple, co-existing and coupled games across heterogeneous channels can be formulated to capture the specific characteristics of LTE-U. Such games can be of different properties and types but their outcomes are largely interdependent. After introducing the basics of the multi-game framework, two classes of algorithms are outlined to achieve the new solution concepts of multi-games. Simulation results are then conducted to show how such a multi-game can effectively capture the specific properties of LTE-U and make of it a "friendly" neighbor to WiFi.Comment: Accepted for publication at IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine, Special Issue on LTE in Unlicensed Spectru

Monotonicity and Competitive Equilibrium in Cake-cutting

We study the monotonicity properties of solutions in the classic problem of fair cake-cutting --- dividing a heterogeneous resource among agents with different preferences. Resource- and population-monotonicity relate to scenarios where the cake, or the number of participants who divide the cake, changes. It is required that the utility of all participants change in the same direction: either all of them are better-off (if there is more to share or fewer to share among) or all are worse-off (if there is less to share or more to share among). We formally introduce these concepts to the cake-cutting problem and examine whether they are satisfied by various common division rules. We prove that the Nash-optimal rule, which maximizes the product of utilities, is resource-monotonic and population-monotonic, in addition to being Pareto-optimal, envy-free and satisfying a strong competitive-equilibrium condition. Moreover, we prove that it is the only rule among a natural family of welfare-maximizing rules that is both proportional and resource-monotonic.Comment: Revised versio

How efficiency shapes market impact

We develop a theory for the market impact of large trading orders, which we call metaorders because they are typically split into small pieces and executed incrementally. Market impact is empirically observed to be a concave function of metaorder size, i.e., the impact per share of large metaorders is smaller than that of small metaorders. We formulate a stylized model of an algorithmic execution service and derive a fair pricing condition, which says that the average transaction price of the metaorder is equal to the price after trading is completed. We show that at equilibrium the distribution of trading volume adjusts to reflect information, and dictates the shape of the impact function. The resulting theory makes empirically testable predictions for the functional form of both the temporary and permanent components of market impact. Based on the commonly observed asymptotic distribution for the volume of large trades, it says that market impact should increase asymptotically roughly as the square root of metaorder size, with average permanent impact relaxing to about two thirds of peak impact.Comment: 34 pages, 3 figure

The Sponge Cake Dilemma over the Nile: Achieving Fairness in Resource Allocation through Rawlsian Theory and Algorithms

This article examines water disputes through an integrated framework combining normative and positive perspectives. John Rawls' theory of justice provides moral guidance, upholding rights to reasonable access for all riparian states. However, positive analysis using cake-cutting models reveals real-world strategic constraints. While Rawls defines desired ends, cake-cutting offers algorithmic means grounded in actual behaviors. The Nile River basin dispute illustrates this synthesis. Rawls suggests inherent rights to water, but unrestricted competition could enable monopoly. His principles alone cannot prevent unfavorable outcomes, given limitations like self-interest. This is where cake-cutting provides value despite biased claims. Its models identify arrangements aligning with Rawlsian fairness while incorporating strategic considerations. The article details the cake-cutting theory, reviews water conflicts literature, examines the Nile case, explores cooperative vs. non-cooperative games, and showcases algorithmic solutions. The integrated framework assesses pathways for implementing Rawlsian ideals given real-world dynamics. This novel synthesis of normative and positive lenses enriches the study of water disputes and resource allocation more broadly.Comment: 31 pages, 7 Figure

Fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences

We consider the discrete assignment problem in which agents express ordinal preferences over objects and these objects are allocated to the agents in a fair manner. We use the stochastic dominance relation between fractional or randomized allocations to systematically define varying notions of proportionality and envy-freeness for discrete assignments. The computational complexity of checking whether a fair assignment exists is studied for these fairness notions. We also characterize the conditions under which a fair assignment is guaranteed to exist. For a number of fairness concepts, polynomial-time algorithms are presented to check whether a fair assignment exists. Our algorithmic results also extend to the case of unequal entitlements of agents. Our NP-hardness result, which holds for several variants of envy-freeness, answers an open question posed by Bouveret, Endriss, and Lang (ECAI 2010). We also propose fairness concepts that always suggest a non-empty set of assignments with meaningful fairness properties. Among these concepts, optimal proportionality and optimal weak proportionality appear to be desirable fairness concepts.Comment: extended version of a paper presented at AAMAS 201

Social Welfare in One-Sided Matching Mechanisms

We study the Price of Anarchy of mechanisms for the well-known problem of one-sided matching, or house allocation, with respect to the social welfare objective. We consider both ordinal mechanisms, where agents submit preference lists over the items, and cardinal mechanisms, where agents may submit numerical values for the items being allocated. We present a general lower bound of $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ on the Price of Anarchy, which applies to all mechanisms. We show that two well-known mechanisms, Probabilistic Serial, and Random Priority, achieve a matching upper bound. We extend our lower bound to the Price of Stability of a large class of mechanisms that satisfy a common proportionality property, and show stronger bounds on the Price of Anarchy of all deterministic mechanisms