Cake cutting really is not a piece of cake
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the well-known cake cutting problem in which a protocol wants to divide a cake among n ≥ 2 players in such a way that each player believes that they got a fair share. The standard Robertson-Webb model allows the protocol to make two types of queries, Evaluation and Cut, to the players. A deterministic divide-and-conquer protocol with complexity O(n log n) is known. We provide the first an Ω(n log n) lower bound on the complexity of any deterministic protocol in the standard model. This improves previous lower bounds, in that the protocol is allowed to assign to a player a piece that is a union of intervals and only guarantee approximate fairness. We accomplish this by lower bounding the complexity to find, for a single player, a piece of cake that is both rich in value, and thin in width. We then introduce a version of cake cutting in which the players are able to cut with only finite precision. In this case, we can extend the Ω(n log n) lower bound to include randomized protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it