Super-proportional division

Last updated

A super-proportional division is a kind of a fair division. It is a division of resources among n partners, in which the value received by each partner is strictly more than his/her due share of 1/n of the total value. Formally, in a super-proportional division of a resource C among n partners, each partner i, with value measure Vi, receives a share Xi such that

Contents

.

Obviously, a super-proportional division does not exist when all partners have the same value measure. The best condition that can always be guaranteed is , which is the condition for a plain proportional division. However, one may hope that, when different agents have different valuations, it may be possible to use this fact for the benefit of all players, and give each of them strictly more than their due share.

Existence

In 1948, Hugo Steinhaus conjectured the existence of a super-proportional division of a cake: [1]

It may be stated incidentally that if there are two (or more) partners with different estimations, there exists a division giving to everybody more than his due part (Knaster); this fact disproves the common opinion that differences estimations make fair division difficult.

In 1961, Dubins and Spanier proved that the necessary condition for existence is also sufficient. That is, whenever the partners' valuations are additive and non-atomic, and there are at least two partners whose value function is even slightly different, then there is a super-proportional division in which all partners receive more than 1/n.

The proof was a corollary to the Dubins–Spanier convexity theorem. This was a purely existential proof based on convexity arguments.

Protocol

In 1986, Douglas R. Woodall published a protocol for finding a super-proportional division. [2]

Single piece of disagreement

Let C be the entire cake. The protocol starts with a specific piece of cake, say X ⊆ C, which is valued differently by two partners. Call these partners Alice and Bob.

Let a=VAlice(X) and b=VBob(X) and assume w.l.o.g. that b>a.

Two pieces of disagreement

Find a rational number between b and a, say p/q such that b > p/q > a. Ask Bob to divide X to p equal parts and divide C \ X to q-p equal parts.

By our assumptions, Bob values each piece of X as more than 1/q and each piece of C \ X as less than 1/q. But for Alice, at least one piece of X (say, Y) must have a value of less than 1/q and at least one piece of C\X (say, Z) must have a value of more than 1/q.

So now we have two pieces, Y and Z, such that:

VBob(Y)>VBob(Z)
VAlice(Y)<VAlice(Z)

Super-proportional division for two partners

Let Alice and Bob divide the remainder C \ Y \ Z between them in a proportional manner (e.g. using divide and choose). Add Z to the piece of Alice and add Y to the piece of Bob.

Now each partner thinks that his/her allocation is strictly better than the other allocation, so its value is strictly more than 1/2.

Super-proportional division for n partners

The extension of this protocol to n partners is based on Fink's "Lone Chooser" protocol.

Suppose we already have a super-proportional division to i-1 partners (for i≥3). Now partner #i enters the party and we should give him a small piece from each of the first i-1 partners, such that the new division is still super-proportional.

Consider e.g. partner #1. Let d be the difference between partner #1's current value and (1/(i-1)). Because the current division is super-proportional, we know that d>0.

Choose a positive integer q such that:

Ask partner #1 to divide his share to pieces which he considers of equal value and let the new partner choose the pieces which he considers to be the most valuable.

Partner #1 remains with a value of of his previous value, which was (by definition of d). The first element becomes and the d becomes ; summing them up gives that the new value is more than: of the entire cake.

As for the new partner, after having taken q pieces from each of the first i-1 partners, his total value is at least: of the entire cake.

This proves that the new division is also super-proportional.

Related Research Articles

In theoretical computer science, communication complexity studies the amount of communication required to solve a problem when the input to the problem is distributed among two or more parties. The study of communication complexity was first introduced by Andrew Yao in 1979, while studying the problem of computation distributed among several machines. The problem is usually stated as follows: two parties each receive a -bit string and . The goal is for Alice to compute the value of a certain function, , that depends on both and , with the least amount of communication between them.

In game theory, fair division is the problem of dividing a set of resources among several people who have an entitlement to them, such that each person receives their due share. This problem arises in various real-world settings, such as: division of inheritance, partnership dissolutions, divorce settlements, electronic frequency allocation, airport traffic management, and exploitation of Earth observation satellites. This is an active research area in mathematics, economics, dispute resolution, and more. The central tenet of fair division is that such a division should be performed by the players themselves, maybe using a mediator but certainly not an arbiter as only the players really know how they value the goods.

An envy-free cake-cutting is a kind of fair cake-cutting. It is a division of a heterogeneous resource ("cake") that satisfies the envy-free criterion, namely, that every partner feels that their allocated share is at least as good as any other share, according to their own subjective valuation.

Chore division is a fair division problem in which the divided resource is undesirable, so that each participant wants to get as little as possible. It is the mirror-image of the fair cake-cutting problem, in which the divided resource is desirable so that each participant wants to get as much as possible. Both problems have heterogeneous resources, meaning that the resources are nonuniform. In cake division, cakes can have edge, corner, and middle pieces along with different amounts of frosting. Whereas in chore division, there are different chore types and different amounts of time needed to finish each chore. Similarly, both problems assume that the resources are divisible. Chores can be infinitely divisible, because the finite set of chores can be partitioned by chore or by time. For example, a load of laundry could be partitioned by the number of articles of clothing and/or by the amount of time spent loading the machine. The problems differ, however, in the desirability of the resources. The chore division problem was introduced by Martin Gardner in 1978.

An exact division, also called even division or consensus division, is a division of a heterogeneous resource ("cake") to several subsets such that each of n people with different tastes agree about the valuations of the pieces.

The Brams–Taylor procedure (BTP) is a procedure for envy-free cake-cutting. It explicated the first finite procedure to produce an envy-free division of a cake among any positive integer number of players.

Fair cake-cutting Fair division problem

Fair cake-cutting is a kind of fair division problem. The problem involves a heterogeneous resource, such as a cake with different toppings, that is assumed to be divisible – it is possible to cut arbitrarily small pieces of it without destroying their value. The resource has to be divided among several partners who have different preferences over different parts of the cake, i.e., some people prefer the chocolate toppings, some prefer the cherries, some just want as large a piece as possible. The division should be unanimously fair - each person should receive a piece that he or she believes to be a fair share.

The last diminisher procedure is a procedure for fair cake-cutting. It involves a certain heterogenous and divisible resource, such as a birthday cake, and n partners with different preferences over different parts of the cake. It allows the n people to achieve a proportional division, i.e., divide the cake among them such that each person receives a piece with a value of at least 1/n of the total value according to his own subjective valuation. For example, if Alice values the entire cake as $100 and there are 5 partners then Alice can receive a piece that she values as at least $20, regardless of what the other partners think or do.

Edmonds–Pruhs protocol is a protocol for fair cake-cutting. Its goal is to create a partially proportional division of a heterogeneous resource among n people, such that each person receives a subset of the cake which that person values as at least 1/an of the total, where is some sufficiently large constant. It is a randomized algorithm whose running time is O(n) with probability close to 1. The protocol was developed by Jeff Edmonds and Kirk Pruhs, who later improved it in joint work with Jaisingh Solanki.

Efficient cake-cutting is a problem in economics and computer science. It involves a heterogeneous resource, such as a cake with different toppings or a land with different coverings, that is assumed to be divisible - it is possible to cut arbitrarily small pieces of it without destroying their value. The resource has to be divided among several partners who have different preferences over different parts of the cake, i.e., some people prefer the chocolate toppings, some prefer the cherries, some just want as large a piece as possible, etc. The allocation should be economically efficient. Several notions of efficiency have been studied:

In the theory of fair division, the price of fairness (POF) is the ratio of the largest economic welfare attainable by a division to the economic welfare attained by a fair division. The POF is a quantitative measure of the loss of welfare that society has to take in order to guarantee fairness.

The Fink protocol is a protocol for proportional division of a cake.

The fair pie-cutting problem is a variation of the fair cake-cutting problem, in which the resource to be divided is circular.

Equitable (EQ) cake-cutting is a kind of a fair cake-cutting problem, in which the fairness criterion is equitability. It is a cake-allocation in which the subjective value of all partners is the same, i.e., each partner is equally happy with his/her share. Mathematically, that means that for all partners i and j:

The Dubins–Spanier theorems are several theorems in the theory of fair cake-cutting. They were published by Lester Dubins and Edwin Spanier in 1961. Although the original motivation for these theorems is fair division, they are in fact general theorems in measure theory.

A proportional cake-cutting is a kind of fair cake-cutting. It is a division of a heterogeneous resource ("cake") that satisfies the proportionality criterion, namely, that every partner feels that his allocated share is worth at least 1/n of the total.

Weller's theorem is a theorem in economics. It says that a heterogeneous resource ("cake") can be divided among n partners with different valuations in a way that is both Pareto-efficient (PE) and envy-free (EF). Thus, it is possible to divide a cake fairly without compromising on economic efficiency.

Utilitarian cake-cutting is a rule for dividing a heterogeneous resource, such as a cake or a land-estate, among several partners with different cardinal utility functions, such that the sum of the utilities of the partners is as large as possible. It is a special case of the utilitarian social choice rule. Utilitarian cake-cutting is often not "fair"; hence, utilitarianism is often in conflict with fair cake-cutting.

In the fair cake-cutting problem, the partners often have different entitlements. For example, the resource may belong to two shareholders such that Alice holds 8/13 and George holds 5/13. This leads to the criterion of weighted proportionality (WPR): there are several weights that sum up to 1, and every partner should receive at least a fraction of the resource by their own valuation.

Truthful cake-cutting is the study of algorithms for fair cake-cutting that are also truthful mechanisms, i.e., they incentivize the participants to reveal their true valuations to the various parts of the cake.

References

  1. Steinhaus, Hugo (1948). "The problem of fair division". Econometrica. 16 (1): 101–4. JSTOR   1914289.
  2. Woodall, D. R. (1986). "A note on the cake-division problem". Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A. 42 (2): 300. doi: 10.1016/0097-3165(86)90101-9 .