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

Redividing the Cake

A heterogeneous resource, such as a land-estate, is already divided among several agents in an unfair way. It should be re-divided among the agents in a way that balances fairness with ownership rights. We present re-division protocols that attain various trade-off points between fairness and ownership rights, in various settings differing in the geometric constraints on the allotments: (a) no geometric constraints; (b) connectivity --- the cake is a one-dimensional interval and each piece must be a contiguous interval; (c) rectangularity --- the cake is a two-dimensional rectangle or rectilinear polygon and the pieces should be rectangles; (d) convexity --- the cake is a two-dimensional convex polygon and the pieces should be convex. Our re-division protocols have implications on another problem: the price-of-fairness --- the loss of social welfare caused by fairness requirements. Each protocol implies an upper bound on the price-of-fairness with the respective geometric constraints.Comment: Extended IJCAI 2018 version. Previous name: "How to Re-Divide a Cake Fairly

Dividing bads under additive utilities

We compare the Egalitarian rule (aka Egalitarian Equivalent) and the Competitive rule (aka Comeptitive Equilibrium with Equal Incomes) to divide bads (chores). They are both welfarist: the competitive disutility profile(s) are the critical points of their Nash product on the set of efficient feasible profiles. The C rule is Envy Free, Maskin Monotonic, and has better incentives properties than the E rule. But, unlike the E rule, it can be wildly multivalued, admits no selection continuous in the utility and endowment parameters, and is harder to compute. Thus in the division of bads, unlike that of goods, no rule normatively dominates the other

Competitive division of a mixed manna

A mixed manna contains goods (that everyone likes) and bads (that everyone dislikes), as well as items that are goods to some agents, but bads or satiated to others. If all items are goods and utility functions are homogeneous of degree 1 and concave (and monotone), the competitive division maximizes the Nash product of utilities (Gale–Eisenberg): hence it is welfarist (determined by the set of feasible utility profiles), unique, continuous, and easy to compute. We show that the competitive division of a mixed manna is still welfarist. If the zero utility profile is Pareto dominated, the competitive profile is strictly positive and still uniquely maximizes the product of utilities. If the zero profile is unfeasible (for instance, if all items are bads), the competitive profiles are strictly negative and are the critical points of the product of disutilities on the efficiency frontier. The latter allows for multiple competitive utility profiles, from which no single-valued selection can be continuous or resource monotonic. Thus the implementation of competitive fairness under linear preferences in interactive platforms like SPLIDDIT will be more difficult when the manna contains bads that overwhelm the goods

The Incentive Guarantees Behind Nash Welfare in Divisible Resources Allocation

We study the problem of allocating divisible resources among $n$ agents, hopefully in a fair and efficient manner. With the presence of strategic agents, additional incentive guarantees are also necessary, and the problem of designing fair and efficient mechanisms becomes much less tractable. While the maximum Nash welfare (MNW) mechanism has been proven to be prominent by providing desirable fairness and efficiency guarantees as well as other intuitive properties, no incentive property is known for it. We show a surprising result that, when agents have piecewise constant value density functions, the incentive ratio of the MNW mechanism is $2$ for cake cutting, where the incentive ratio of a mechanism is defined as the ratio between the largest possible utility that an agent can gain by manipulation and his utility in honest behavior. Remarkably, this result holds even without the free disposal assumption, which is hard to get rid of in the design of truthful cake cutting mechanisms. We also show that the MNW mechanism is group strategyproof when agents have piecewise uniform value density functions. Moreover, we show that, for cake cutting, the Partial Allocation (PA) mechanism proposed by Cole et al., which is truthful and $1/e$-MNW for homogeneous divisible items, has an incentive ratio between $[e^{1 / e}, e]$ and when randomization is allowed, can be turned to be truthful in expectation. Given two alternatives for a trade-off between incentive ratio and Nash welfare provided by the MNW and PA mechanisms, we establish an interpolation between them for both cake cutting and homogeneous divisible items. Finally, we study the existence of fair mechanisms with a low incentive ratio in the connected pieces setting. We show that any envy-free cake cutting mechanism with the connected pieces constraint has an incentive ratio of at least $\Omega(n)$

Decentralized Pricing in Minimum Cost Spanning Trees

In the minimum cost spanning tree model we consider decentralized pricing rules, i.e. rules that cover at least the efficient cost while the price charged to each user only depends upon his own connection costs. We define a canonical pricing rule and provide two axiomatic characterizations. First, the canonical pricing rule is the smallest among those that improve upon the Stand Alone bound, and are either superadditive or piece-wise linear in connection costs. Our second, direct characterization relies on two simple properties highlighting the special role of the source cost.pricing rules; minimum cost spanning trees; canonical pricing rule; stand-alone cost; decentralization