IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v77y2013i1p284-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Truth, justice, and cake cutting

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Yiling
  • Lai, John K.
  • Parkes, David C.
  • Procaccia, Ariel D.

Abstract

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, Pareto-efficient, 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 mechanisms that are truthful and fair under different assumptions with respect to the valuation functions of the agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Yiling & Lai, John K. & Parkes, David C. & Procaccia, Ariel D., 2013. "Truth, justice, and cake cutting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 284-297.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:77:y:2013:i:1:p:284-297
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2012.10.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825612001571
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2012.10.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dutta, Bhaskar & Ray, Debraj, 1989. "A Concept of Egalitarianism under Participation Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 615-635, May.
    2. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2001. "A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 295-328, October.
    3. Katta, Akshay-Kumar & Sethuraman, Jay, 2006. "A solution to the random assignment problem on the full preference domain," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 231-250, November.
    4. Anna Bogomolnaia & Herve Moulin, 2004. "Random Matching Under Dichotomous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(1), pages 257-279, January.
    5. Steven Brams & Michael Jones & Christian Klamler, 2008. "Proportional pie-cutting," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 353-367, March.
    6. William Thomson, 2007. "Children Crying at Birthday Parties. Why?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(3), pages 501-521, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josué Ortega & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2022. "Obvious manipulations in cake-cutting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(4), pages 969-988, November.
    2. Samuel Bismuth & Ivan Bliznets & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Fair Division with Bounded Sharing: Binary and Non-Degenerate Valuations," Papers 1912.00459, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    3. Erel Segal-Halevi & Shmuel Nitzan, 2014. "Cake Cutting – Fair and Square," Working Papers 2014-01, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    4. Ji-Won Park & Jaeup U. Kim & Cheol-Min Ghim & Chae Un Kim, 2021. "The Boltzmann fair division for distributive justice," Papers 2109.11917, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    5. Xiaohui Bei & Guangda Huzhang & Warut Suksompong, 2020. "Truthful fair division without free disposal," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 523-545, October.
    6. Kyropoulou, Maria & Ortega, Josué & Segal-Halevi, Erel, 2022. "Fair cake-cutting in practice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 28-49.
    7. Van Essen, Matt & Wooders, John, 2016. "Dissolving a partnership dynamically," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 212-241.
    8. Yuan Gao & Christian Kroer, 2020. "Infinite-Dimensional Fisher Markets and Tractable Fair Division," Papers 2010.03025, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    9. Segal-Halevi, Erel & Nitzan, Shmuel & Hassidim, Avinatan & Aumann, Yonatan, 2017. "Fair and square: Cake-cutting in two dimensions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-28.
    10. Erel Segal-Halevi & Shmuel Nitzan & Avinatan Hassidim & Yonatan Aumann, 2020. "Envy-Free Division of Land," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 896-922, August.
    11. Simina Br^anzei & MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi & Reed Phillips & Suho Shin & Kun Wang, 2024. "Dueling Over Dessert, Mastering the Art of Repeated Cake Cutting," Papers 2402.08547, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    12. Chèze, Guillaume, 2019. "Cake cutting: Explicit examples for impossibility results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 68-72.
    13. Mackenzie, Andrew & Komornik, Vilmos, 2023. "Fairly taking turns," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 743-764.
    14. Cubukcu, K. Mert, 2020. "The problem of fair division of surplus development rights in redevelopment of urban areas: Can the Shapley value help?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Matt Essen & John Wooders, 2020. "Dissolving a partnership securely," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 415-434, March.
    16. Tarbush, Bassel, 2018. "Hotelling competition and the gamma distribution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 222-240.
    17. Xiaohui Bei & Xinhang Lu & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Truthful Cake Sharing," Papers 2112.05632, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    18. Hoang, Lê Nguyên & Soumis, François & Zaccour, Georges, 2016. "Measuring unfairness feeling in allocation problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 138-147.
    19. Maria Kyropoulou & Josu'e Ortega & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2018. "Fair Cake-Cutting in Practice," Papers 1810.08243, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    20. Fedor Sandomirskiy & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing," Papers 1908.01669, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Multi-unit assignment under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-24.
    2. Yoshio Sano & Ping Zhan, 2021. "Extended Random Assignment Mechanisms on a Family of Good Sets," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 1-30, December.
    3. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    4. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    5. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2014. "Assigning agents to a line," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 539-553.
    6. Youngsub Chun & Boram Park, 2017. "A graph theoretic approach to the slot allocation problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 133-152, January.
    7. Chang, Hee-In & Chun, Youngsub, 2017. "Probabilistic assignment of indivisible objects when agents have the same preferences except the ordinal ranking of one object," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 80-92.
    8. Andrew McLennan & Shino Takayama & Yuki Tamura, 2024. "An Efficient, Computationally Tractable School Choice Mechanism," Discussion Papers Series 668, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    9. Bogomolnaia, Anna, 2015. "Random assignment: Redefining the serial rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 308-318.
    10. Anna Bogomolnaia, 2015. "The Most Ordinally-Efficient of Random Voting Rules," HSE Working papers WP BRP 106/EC/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Haris Aziz & Florian Brandl, 2020. "The Vigilant Eating Rule: A General Approach for Probabilistic Economic Design with Constraints," Papers 2008.08991, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    12. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Brill, Markus, 2018. "On the tradeoff between efficiency and strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.
    13. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian, 2022. "The vigilant eating rule: A general approach for probabilistic economic design with constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 168-187.
    14. YIlmaz, Özgür, 2009. "Random assignment under weak preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 546-558, May.
    15. Doğan, Battal & Yıldız, Kemal, 2016. "Efficiency and stability of probabilistic assignments in marriage problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 47-58.
    16. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2015. "Size versus fairness in the assignment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 119-127.
    17. Kesten, Onur, 2009. "Why do popular mechanisms lack efficiency in random environments?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2209-2226, September.
    18. Hervé Moulin & Jay Sethuraman, 2013. "The Bipartite Rationing Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1087-1100, October.
    19. Kesten, Onur & Unver, Utku, 2015. "A theory of school choice lotteries," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), May.
    20. Ivan Balbuzanov, 2016. "Convex strategyproofness with an application to the probabilistic serial mechanism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 511-520, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fair division; Envy-freeness; Cake cutting; Maximum flows; Strategy-proofness; Mechanism design;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:77:y:2013:i:1:p:284-297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.