Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 709–740 | Cite as

Fair cake-cutting among families

  • Erel Segal-HaleviEmail author
  • Shmuel Nitzan
Original Paper


We study the fair division of a continuous resource, such as a land-estate or a time-interval, among pre-specified groups of agents, such as families. Each family is given a piece of the resource and this piece is used simultaneously by all family members, while different members may have different value functions. Three ways to assess the fairness of such a division are examined. (a) Average Fairness means that each family’s share is fair according to the “family value function”, defined as the arithmetic mean of the value functions of the family members. (b) Unanimous Fairness means that all members in all families feel that their family’s share is fair according to their personal value function. (c) Democratic Fairness means that in each family, at least a fixed fraction (e.g. a half) of the members feel that their family’s share is fair. We compare these criteria based on the number of connected components in the resulting division and on their compatibility with Pareto-efficiency.



  1. Alon N (1987) Splitting necklaces. Adv Math 63(3):247–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashlagi I, Braverman M, Hassidim A (2014) Stability in large matching markets with complementarities. Oper Res 62(4):713–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bade S, Segal-Halevi E (2018) Fair and efficient division among families. arXiv:1811.06684
  4. Barbanel JB, Brams SJ (2004) Cake division with minimal cuts: envy-free procedures for three persons, four persons, and beyond. Math Soc Sci 48(3):251–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbanel JB, Brams SJ (2014) Two-person cake cutting: the optimal number of cuts. Math Intell 36(3):23–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentham J (1789) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (Dover Philosophical Classics). Dover Publications. Google Scholar
  7. Berliant M, Dunz K (2004) A foundation of location theory: existence of equilibrium, the welfare theorems, and core. J Math Econ 40(5):593–618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berliant M, Thomson W, Dunz K (1992) On the fair division of a heterogeneous commodity. J Math Econ 21(3):201–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogomolnaia A, Moulin H, Sandomirskiy F, Yanovskaya E (2017) Competitive division of a mixed manna. Econometrica 85(6):1847–1871 arXiv:1702.00616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brams SJ (2007) Mathematics and democracy: designing better voting and fair-division procedures, 1st edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Brams SJ, Taylor AD (1996) Fair division: from cake cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brânzei S (2015) Computational fair division. PhD thesis, Faculty of Science and Technology in Aarhus universityGoogle Scholar
  13. Buchanan JM (1965) An economic theory of clubs. Economica pp 1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caragiannis I, Lai JK, Procaccia AD (2011) Towards more expressive cake cutting. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11), AAAI Press, IJCAI’11, pp 127–132.
  15. Cechlárová K, Pillárová E (2012) On the computability of equitable divisions. Discr Optim 9(4):249–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chambers CP (2005) Allocation rules for land division. J Econ Theory 121(2):236–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chevaleyre Y, Dunne PE, Endriss U, Lang J, Lemaître M, Maudet N, Padget J, Phelps S, Rodriguez-Aguilar JA, Sousa P (2006) Issues in multiagent resource allocation. Informatica 30(1):3–31.
  18. Cseh Á, Fleiner T (2018) The complexity of cake cutting with unequal shares. In: Proceedings of SAGT’18, Springer, pp 19–30. arXiv:1709.03152
  19. Dall’Aglio M, Di Luca C (2014) Finding maxmin allocations in cooperative and competitive fair division. Ann Oper Res 223(1):121–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dall’Aglio M, Maccheroni F (2005) Fair division without additivity. American Mathematical Monthly pp 363–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dall’Aglio M, Maccheroni F (2009) Disputed lands. Games Econ Behav 66(1):57–77.’Aglio_no.58_2007.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dall’Aglio M, Branzei R, Tijs S (2009) Cooperation in dividing the cake. TOP Off J Spanish Soc Stat Oper Res 17(2):417–432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamantaras D (1992) On equity with public goods. Soc Choice Welf 9(2):141–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diamantaras D, Wilkie S (1994) A generalization of Kaneko’s ratio equilibrium for economies with private and public goods. J Econ Theory 62(2):499–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamantaras D, Wilkie S (1996) On the set of Pareto efficient allocations in economies with public goods. Econ Theory 7(2):371–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dubins LE, Spanier EH (1961) How to cut a cake fairly. Am Math Monthly 68(1):1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dvoretzky A, Wald A, Wolfowitz J (1951) Relations among certain ranges of vector measures. Pac J Math 1(1):59–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Even S, Paz A (1984) A note on cake cutting. Discr Appl Math 7(3):285–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foley DK (1967) Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale Econ Essays 7(1):45–98Google Scholar
  30. Gamow G, Stern M (1958) Puzzle-math, 1st edn. Viking Adult
  31. Ghodsi M, Latifian M, Mohammadi A, Moradian S, Seddighin M (2018) Rent division among groups. In: International conference on combinatorial optimization and applications, Springer, New York, pp 577–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guth W, Kliemt H (2002) Non-discriminatory, envy free provision of a collective good: a note. Public Choice 111(1-2):179–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hüsseinov F (2011) A theory of a heterogeneous divisible commodity exchange economy. J Math Econ 47(1):54–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hüsseinov F, Sagara N (2013) Existence of efficient envy-free allocations of a heterogeneous divisible commodity with nonadditive utilities. Soc Choice Welf pp 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klaus B, Klijn F (2005) Stable matchings and preferences of couples. J Econ Theory 121(1):75–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klaus B, Klijn F (2007) Paths to stability for matching markets with couples. Games Econ Behav 58(1):154–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kojima F, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2013) Matching with couples: stability and incentives in large markets*. Q J Econ 128(4):1585–1632. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kyropoulou M, Suksompong W, Voudouris AA (2019) Almost envy-freeness in group resource allocation. arXiv:1901:08463
  39. Lindner C, Rothe J (2016) Cake-cutting: fair division of divisible goods. In: Rothe J (ed) Economics and computation: an introduction to algorithmic game theory, computational social choice, and fair division. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 395–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maccheroni F, Marinacci M (2003) How to cut a pizza fairly: fair division with decreasing marginal evaluations. Soc Choice Welf 20(3):457–465. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manurangsi P, Suksompong W (2017) Asymptotic existence of fair divisions for groups. Math Soc Sci 89:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mirchandani RS (2013) Superadditivity and subadditivity in fair division. J Math Res 5(3):78–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moulin H (2004) Fair division and collective welfare. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortega J (2018) Social integration in two-sided matching markets. J Math Econ 78:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Procaccia AD (2015) Cake cutting algorithms. In: Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, Procaccia AD (eds) Handbook of computational social choice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, chap 13, pp 261–283.
  46. Procaccia AD, Wang J (2017) A lower bound for equitable cake cutting. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on economics and computation - EC’17, ACM Press.
  47. Robertson JM, Webb WA (1995) Approximating fair division with a limited number of cuts. J Combin Theory Ser A 72(2):340–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robertson JM, Webb WA (1998) Cake-cutting algorithms: be fair if you can, 1st edn. A K Peters/CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sagara N, Vlach M (2009) Representation of preference relations on sigma-algebras of nonatomic measure spaces: convexity and continuity. Fuzzy Sets Syst 160(5):624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Segal-Halevi E (2019) Cake-cutting with different entitlements: how many cuts are needed? J Math Anal Appl. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Segal-Halevi E, Suksompong W (2018) Democratic fair allocation of indivisible goods. In: Proceedings of the 27th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI ’18), arXiv:1709.0256
  52. Segal-Halevi E, Sziklai BR (2018a) Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting. Econ Theory 68(2):363–401. arXiv:1510.05229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Segal-Halevi E, Sziklai BR (2018b) Resource-monotonicity and population-monotonicity in connected cake-cutting. Math Soc Sci 95:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Segal-Halevi E, Nitzan S, Hassidim A, Aumann Y (2017) Fair and square: cake-cutting in two dimensions. J Math Econ 70:1–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shishido H, Zeng DZ (1999) Mark-choose-cut algorithms for fair and strongly fair division. Group Decis Negot 8(2):125–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinhaus H (1948) The problem of fair division. Econometrica 16(1):101–104.
  57. Stromquist W (1980) How to cut a cake fairly. Am Math Monthly 87(8):640–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stromquist W, Woodall DR (1985) Sets on which several measures agree. J Math Anal Appl 108(1):241–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Su FE (1999) Rental harmony: Sperner’s lemma in fair division. Am Math Monthly 106(10):930–942. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suksompong W (2018a) Approximate maximin shares for groups of agents. Math Soc Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Suksompong W (2018b) Resource allocation and decision making for groups. PhD thesis, Stanford University, guided by Tim RoughgardenGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomson W (2011) Fair allocation rules, vol 2, Elsevier, pp 393–506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Todo T, Li R, Hu X, Mouri T, Iwasaki A, Yokoo M (2011) Generalizing envy-freeness toward group of agents. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’11, vol 22, p 386.
  64. Webb WA (1997) How to cut a cake fairly using a minimal number of cuts. Discr Appl Math 74(2):183–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAriel UniversityArielIsrael
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsBar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  3. 3.Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced StudyHitotsubashi UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations