14,492 research outputs found

    Approximation Algorithms for Envy-Free Cake Division with Connected Pieces

    Get PDF
    Cake cutting is a classic model for studying fair division of a heterogeneous, divisible resource among agents with individual preferences. Addressing cake division under a typical requirement that each agent must receive a connected piece of the cake, we develop approximation algorithms for finding envy-free (fair) cake divisions. In particular, this work improves the state-of-the-art additive approximation bound for this fundamental problem. Our results hold for general cake division instances in which the agents\u27 valuations satisfy basic assumptions and are normalized (to have value 1 for the cake). Furthermore, the developed algorithms execute in polynomial time under the standard Robertson-Webb query model. Prior work has shown that one can efficiently compute a cake division (with connected pieces) in which the additive envy of any agent is at most 1/3. An efficient algorithm is also known for finding connected cake divisions that are (almost) 1/2-multiplicatively envy-free. Improving the additive approximation guarantee and maintaining the multiplicative one, we develop a polynomial-time algorithm that computes a connected cake division that is both (1/4 +o(1))-additively envy-free and (1/2 - o(1))-multiplicatively envy-free. Our algorithm is based on the ideas of interval growing and envy-cycle elimination. In addition, we study cake division instances in which the number of distinct valuations across the agents is parametrically bounded. We show that such cake division instances admit a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme for connected envy-free cake division

    Cake Division with Minimal Cuts: Envy-Free Procedures for 3 Person, 4 Persons, and Beyond

    Get PDF
    The minimal number of parallel cuts required to divide a cake into n pieces is n-1. A new 3-person procedure, requiring 2 parallel cuts, is given that produces an envy- free division, whereby each person thinks he or she receives at least a tied- for- largest piece. An extension of this procedure leads to a 4-person division, us ing 3 parallel cuts, that makes at most one player envious. Finally, a 4-person envy-free procedure is given, but it requires up to 5 parallel cuts, and some pieces may be disconnected. All these procedures improve on extant procedures by using fewer moving knives, making fewer people envious, or using fewer cuts. While the 4-person, 5-cut procedure is complex, endowing people with more information about others' preferences, or allowing them to do things beyond stopping moving knives, may yield simpler procedures for making envy- free divisions with minimal cuts, which are known always to existFAIR DIVISION; CAKE CUTTING; ENVY-FREENESS; MAXIMIN

    Cutting a pie is not a piece of cake

    Get PDF
    Is there a division among n players of a cake using n-1 parallel vertical cuts, or of a pie using n radial cuts, that is envy-free (each player thinks he or she receives a largest piece and so does not envy another player) and undominated (there is no other allocation as good for all players and better for at least one)? David Gale first asked this question for pies. We provide complete answers for both cakes and pies. The answers depend on the number of players (two versus three or more players) and whether the players' preferences satisfy certain continuity assumptions. We also give some simple algorithms for cutting a pie when there are two or more players, but these algorithms do not guarantee all the properties one might desire in a division, which makes pie-cutting harder than cake-cutting. We suggest possible applications and conclude with two open questions.Fair division; cake-cutting; pie-cutting; divisible good; envy-freeness; allocative efficiency

    Divide-and-conquer: A proportional, minimal-envy cake-cutting algorithm

    Get PDF
    We analyze a class of proportional cake-cutting algorithms that use a minimal number of cuts (n-1 if there are n players) to divide a cake that the players value along one dimension. While these algorithms may not produce an envy-free or efficient allocation--as these terms are used in the fair-division literature--one, divide-and-conquer (D&C), minimizes the maximum number of players that any single player can envy. It works by asking n ≥ 2 players successively to place marks on a cake--valued along a line--that divide it into equal halves (when n is even) or nearly equal halves (when n is odd), then halves of these halves, and so on. Among other properties, D&C ensures players of at least 1/n shares, as they each value the cake, if and only if they are truthful. However, D&C may not allow players to obtain proportional, connected pieces if they have unequal entitlements. Possible applications of D&C to land division are briefly discussed.mechanism design; fair division; divisible good; cake-cutting; divide-and-choose

    Cake Cutting Algorithms for Piecewise Constant and Piecewise Uniform Valuations

    Full text link
    Cake cutting is one of the most fundamental settings in fair division and mechanism design without money. In this paper, we consider different levels of three fundamental goals in cake cutting: fairness, Pareto optimality, and strategyproofness. In particular, we present robust versions of envy-freeness and proportionality that are not only stronger than their standard counter-parts but also have less information requirements. We then focus on cake cutting with piecewise constant valuations and present three desirable algorithms: CCEA (Controlled Cake Eating Algorithm), MEA (Market Equilibrium Algorithm) and CSD (Constrained Serial Dictatorship). CCEA is polynomial-time, robust envy-free, and non-wasteful. It relies on parametric network flows and recent generalizations of the probabilistic serial algorithm. For the subdomain of piecewise uniform valuations, we show that it is also group-strategyproof. Then, we show that there exists an algorithm (MEA) that is polynomial-time, envy-free, proportional, and Pareto optimal. MEA is based on computing a market-based equilibrium via a convex program and relies on the results of Reijnierse and Potters [24] and Devanur et al. [15]. Moreover, we show that MEA and CCEA are equivalent to mechanism 1 of Chen et. al. [12] for piecewise uniform valuations. We then present an algorithm CSD and a way to implement it via randomization that satisfies strategyproofness in expectation, robust proportionality, and unanimity for piecewise constant valuations. For the case of two agents, it is robust envy-free, robust proportional, strategyproof, and polynomial-time. Many of our results extend to more general settings in cake cutting that allow for variable claims and initial endowments. We also show a few impossibility results to complement our algorithms.Comment: 39 page

    Envy-free division of multi-layered cakes

    Full text link
    We study the problem of dividing a multi-layered cake among heterogeneous agents under non-overlapping constraints. This problem, recently proposed by Hosseini et al. (2020), captures several natural scenarios such as the allocation of multiple facilities over time where each agent can utilize at most one facility simultaneously, and the allocation of tasks over time where each agent can perform at most one task simultaneously. We establish the existence of an envy-free multi-division that is both non-overlapping and contiguous within each layered cake when the number nn of agents is a prime power and the number mm of layers is at most nn, thus providing a positive partial answer to a recent open question. To achieve this, we employ a new approach based on a general fixed point theorem, originally proven by Volovikov (1996), and recently applied by Joji\'{c}, Panina, and {\v{Z}}ivaljevi\'{c} (2020) to the envy-free division problem of a cake. We further show that for a two-layered cake division among three agents with monotone preferences, an ε\varepsilon-approximate envy-free solution that is both non-overlapping and contiguous can be computed in logarithmic time of 1/ε1/{\varepsilon}.Comment: 21 page
    • …
    corecore