On Existence of Truthful Fair Cake Cutting Mechanisms

TL;DR

This paper investigates the existence of mechanisms for fair cake cutting that are truthful and envy-free, proving certain impossibility results, and proposing weaker truthful mechanisms that achieve fairness under specific conditions.

Contribution

It proves the non-existence of deterministic, truthful, proportional cake cutting mechanisms even with two agents and simple valuations, and introduces a weaker truthfulness concept with new mechanisms.

Findings

No deterministic, truthful, proportional mechanism exists for two agents with piecewise-constant valuations.

A truthful and envy-free mechanism is possible under monotonic valuations.

Proposed mechanisms achieve proportional risk-averse truthfulness and envy-freeness.

Abstract

We study the fair division problem on divisible heterogeneous resources (the cake cutting problem) with strategic agents, where each agent can manipulate his/her private valuation in order to receive a better allocation. A (direct-revelation) mechanism takes agents' reported valuations as input and outputs an allocation that satisfies a given fairness requirement. A natural and fundamental open problem, first raised by [Chen et al., 2010] and subsequently raised by [Procaccia, 2013] [Aziz and Ye, 2014] [Branzei and Miltersen, 2015] [Menon and Larson, 2017] [Bei et al., 2017] [Bei et al., 2020], etc., is whether there exists a deterministic, truthful and envy-free (or even proportional) cake cutting mechanism. In this paper, we resolve this open problem by proving that there does not exist a deterministic, truthful and proportional cake cutting mechanism, even in the special case where all of the following hold: 1) there are only two agents; 2) agents' valuations are piecewise-constant; 3) agents are hungry. The impossibility result extends to the case where the mechanism is allowed to leave some part of the cake unallocated. We also present a truthful and envy-free mechanism when each agent's valuation is piecewise-constant and monotone. However, if we require Pareto-optimality, we show that truthful is incompatible with approximate proportionality for any positive approximation ratio under this setting. To circumvent this impossibility result, motivated by the kind of truthfulness possessed by the I-cut-you-choose protocol, we propose a weaker notion of truthfulness: the proportional risk-averse truthfulness. We show that several well-known algorithms do not have this truthful property. We propose a mechanism that is proportionally risk-averse truthful and envy-free, and a mechanism that is proportionally risk-averse truthful that always outputs allocations with connected pieces.