On Existence of Truthful Fair Cake Cutting Mechanisms

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.