Fairness and False-Name Manipulations in Randomized Cake Cutting

Cake cutting has been recognized as a fundamental model in fair division and several envy-free cake cutting algorithms have been proposed Recent works from the computer science field proposed novel mechanisms for cake cutting, whose approaches are based on the theory of mechanism design; these mechanisms are strategy-proof, i.e., no agent has any incentive to misrepresent her utility function, as well as envy-free. We consider a different type of manipulations; each agent might create fake identities to cheat the mechanism. Such manipulation have been called Sybils or false-name manipulations, and designing robust mechanisms against them, i.e., false-name-proof, is a challenging problem in mechanism design literature. We first show that no randomized false-name-proof cake cutting mechanism simultaneously satisfies ex-post envy-freeness and Pareto efficiency We then propose a new randomized mechanism that is optimal in terms of worst-case loss among those that satisfy false-name-proofness, ex-post envy-freeness, and a new weaker efficiency property. However, it reduces the amount of allocations for an agent exponentially with respect to the number of agents. To overcome this negative result, we provide another new cake cutting mechanism that satisfies a weaker notion of false-name-proofness, as well as ex-post envy freeness and Pareto efficiency.

[1]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Worst-case efficiency ratio in false-name-proof combinatorial auction mechanisms , 2010, AAMAS.

[2]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[3]  Ariel D. Procaccia Cake Cutting Algorithms , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[4]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  Truthful Fair Division , 2010, SAGT.

[5]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Fair division and collective welfare , 2003 .

[6]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  False-name-proof matching , 2013, AAMAS.

[7]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  A Limitation of the Generalized Vickrey Auction in Electronic Commerce: Robustness against False-name Bids , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[8]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  Cake division with minimal cuts: envy-free procedures for three persons, four persons, and beyond , 2004, Math. Soc. Sci..

[9]  Adrian Vetta,et al.  False-Name Bidding and Economic Efficiency in Combinatorial Auctions , 2014, AAAI.

[10]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Optimal false-name-proof single-item redistribution mechanisms , 2014, AAMAS.

[11]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Characterizing false-name-proof allocation rules in combinatorial auctions , 2009, AAMAS.

[12]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Incentive Compatible Two Player Cake Cutting , 2012, WINE.

[13]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  False-name-proof voting with costs over two alternatives , 2013, Int. J. Game Theory.

[14]  Simina Brânzei,et al.  Equilibrium analysis in cake cutting , 2013, AAMAS.

[15]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  False-name bidding in first-price combinatorial auctions with incomplete information , 2011, AAMAS.

[16]  William S. Zwicker,et al.  A Moving-Knife Solution to the Four-Person Envy-Free Cake-Division Problem , 1995 .

[17]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Truth, justice, and cake cutting , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[18]  Jack M. Robertson,et al.  Cake-cutting algorithms - be fair if you can , 1998 .

[19]  Haris Aziz,et al.  New Cake Cutting Algorithms: a Random Assignment Approach to Cake Cutting , 2013, ArXiv.

[20]  A. K. Austin,et al.  Sharing a Cake , 1982, The Mathematical Gazette.

[21]  S. Brams,et al.  Better Ways to Cut a Cake , 2006 .

[22]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Robust Combinatorial Auction Protocol against False-Name Bids , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[23]  R. Rosenfeld Truth , 2012, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.