Cake Cutting is Not a Piece of Cake - Computer Science at RPI.pptVIP

Cake Cutting is Not a Piece of Cake 110 100 011 010 000 Sorting Labels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 011 010 110 100 011 010 000 Sorting Labels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 011 010 110 110 100 011 010 000 Sorting Labels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 011 010 110 000 110 100 011 010 000 Sorting Labels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 011 010 110 000 100 Labels and pieces are ordered! 110 100 011 010 000 Sorting Labels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 011 010 110 000 100 Time needed: Algorithm users Phase 1: Find middle cut users Algorithm users Phase 2: Each user cuts at Algorithm users Phase 2: Each user cuts at Algorithm Phase 2: Find middle cut users Algorithm users Phase 3: Each user cuts at And so on… Algorithm Phase log N: user The user is assigned the piece Algorithm Total number of phases: Total number of cuts: Cake Cutting Algorithms Lower Bound for Phased Algorithms Lower Bound for Labeled Algorithms Lower Bound for Envy-Free Algorithms Conclusions Talk Outline Phased algorithm: consists of a sequence of phases At each phase: Each user cuts a piece which is defined in previous phases A user may be assigned a piece in any phase Observation: Algorithms and are phased We show: cuts are required to assign positive valued pieces Phase 1: Each user cuts according to some ratio 1 1 1 1 There exist utility functions such that the cuts overlap 1 Phase 2: Each user cuts according to some ratio 2 2 2 2 1 There exist utility functions such that the cuts in each piece overlap 1 2 2 1 2 2 Phase 3: 3 3 3 3 number of pieces at most are doubled And so on… Phase k: Number of pieces at most For users: we need at least pieces we need at least phases Phase Users Pieces Cuts (min) (max) (min) …… …… …… …… Total Cuts: Cake Cutting Algorithms Lower Bound for Phased Algorithms Lower Bound for Labeled Algorithms Lower Bound for Envy-Free Algorithms Conclusions Talk Outline 11 10 011 010 00 Labels: each piece has a label Labeled algorithms: 11 10 011 010 00 Labels: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 00 010 0