This paper extends the classic cake-cutting problem to a situation in which the "cake" is divided among families. Each piece of cake is owned and used simultaneously by all members of the family. A typical example of such a cake is land. We examine three ways to assess the fairness of such a division, based on the classic no-envy criterion: (a) Average envy-freeness means that for each family, the average value of its share (averaged over all family members) is weakly larger than the average value of any other share; (b) Unanimous envy-freeness means that in each family, each member values the family's share weakly more than any other share; (c) Democratic envy-freeness means that in each family, at least half the members value the family's share weakly more than any other share. We study each of these definitions from both an existential and a computational perspective.
@cite_17 @cite_27 study the concept of cake-cutting. Their model is the standard cake-cutting model in which the cake is divided among (and not among families as in our model). They define a group-envy-free division as a division in which no coalition of individuals can take the pieces allocated to another coalition with the same number of individuals and re-divide the pieces among its members such that all members are weakly better-off. Coalitions are also studied by @cite_31 @cite_7 . In our setting, the families are pre-determined and the agents do not form coalitions on-the-fly. In an alternative model, in which agents allowed to form coalitions based on their preferences, the family-cake-cutting problem becomes easier. For instance, it is easy to achieve a division with connected pieces between two coalitions: ask each agent to mark its median line, find the median of all medians, then divide the agents to two coalitions according to whether their median line is to the left or to the right of the median-of-medians.
@cite_27 @cite_31 @cite_7 @cite_17
2167440686 2167682449 2015939527 2050330935
Properties of discrete cake-cutting procedures that use a minimal number of cuts (n A 1 if there are n players) are analyzed. None is always envy-free or efficient, but divide-and-conquer (D&C) minimizes the maximum number of players that any single player may envy. It works by asking n ? 2 players successively to place marks on a cake that divide it into equal or approximately equal halves, then halves of these halves, and so on. Among other properties, D&C (i) ensures players of more than 1 n shares if their marks are different and (ii) is strategyproof for risk-averse players. 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. One key question in cooperative game theory is that of coalitional stability. A coalition in such games is stable when no subset of the agents in it has a rational incentive to leave the coalition. Finding a division of the gains of the coalition (an imputation) lies at the heart of many cooperative game theory solution concepts, the most prominent of which is the core. However, some coalitional games have empty cores, and any imputation in such a game is unstable. We investigate the possibility of stabilizing the coalitional structure using external payments. In this case, a supplemental payment is offered to the grand coalition by an external party which is interested in having the members of the coalition work together. The sum of this payment plus the gains of the coalition, called the coalition's "adjusted gains", may be divided among the members of the coalition in a stable manner. We call a division of the adjusted gains a super-imputation, and define the cost of stability (CoS) as the minimal sum of payments that stabilizes the coalition. We examine the cost of stability in weighted voting games, where each agent has a weight, and a coalition is successful if the sum of its weights exceeds a given threshold. Such games offer a simple model of decision making in political bodies, and of cooperation in multiagent settings. We show that it is coNP-complete to test whether a super-imputation is stable, but show that if either the weights or payments of agents are bounded then there exists a polynomial algorithm for this problem. We provide a polynomial approximation algorithm for computing the cost of stability. We propose an online form of the cake cutting problem. This models situations where agents arrive and depart during the process of dividing a resource. We show that well known fair division procedures like cut-and-choose and the Dubins-Spanier moving knife procedure can be adapted to apply to such online problems. We propose some fairness properties that online cake cutting procedures can possess like online forms of proportionality and envy-freeness. We also consider the impact of collusion between agents. Finally, we study theoretically and empirically the competitive ratio of these online cake cutting procedures. Based on its resistance to collusion, and its good performance in practice, our results favour the online version of the cut-and-choose procedure over the online version of the moving knife procedure. Cake cutting is a common metaphor for the division of a heterogeneous divisible good. There are numerous papers that study the problem of fairly dividing a cake; a small number of them also take into account self-interested agents and consequent strategic issues, but these papers focus on fairness and consider a strikingly weak notion of truthfulness. In this paper we investigate the problem of cutting a cake in a way that is truthful and fair, where for the first time our notion of dominant strategy truthfulness is the ubiquitous one in social choice and computer science. We design both deterministic and randomized cake cutting algorithms that are truthful and fair under different assumptions with respect to the valuation functions of the agents.