We investigate the problem of fairly dividing a divisible heterogeneous resource, also known as a cake, among a set of agents who may have different entitlements. We characterize the existence of a connected super-proportional (also called strongly-proportional) allocation -- one in which every agent receives a contiguous piece worth strictly more than their proportional share. The characterization is supplemented with an algorithm that determines its existence using O(n · 2n) queries. We devise a simpler characterization for agents with strictly positive valuations and with equal entitlements, and present an algorithm to determine the existence of such an allocation using O(n2) queries. We provide matching lower bounds in the number of queries for both algorithms. When a connected super-proportional allocation exists, we show that it can also be computed using a similar number of queries. We also consider the problem of deciding the existence of a connected allocation of a cake in which each agent receives a piece worth a small fixed value more than their proportional share, and the problem of deciding the existence of a connected super-proportional allocation of a pie (a 1-dimensional circular cake).

We study fair division of indivisible chores among n agents with additive cost functions using the popular fairness notion of maximin share (MMS). Since MMS allocations do not always exist for more than two agents, the goal has been to improve its approximations and identify interesting special cases where MMS allocations exist. We show the existence of · 1-out-of-9n/11 MMS allocations, which improves the state-of-the-art factor of 1-out-of-3n/4. · MMS allocations for factored instances, which resolves an open question posed by Ebadian et al. (2021). · 15/13-MMS allocations for personalized bivalued instances, improving the state-of-the-art factor of 13/11. We achieve these results by leveraging the HFFD algorithm of Huang and Lu (2021). Our approach also provides polynomial-time algorithms for computing an MMS allocation for factored instances and a 15/13-MMS allocation for personalized bivalued instances.

Two prominent objectives in social choice are utilitarian - maximizing the sum of agents' utilities, and leximin - maximizing the smallest agent's utility, then the second-smallest, etc. Utilitarianism is typically computationally easier to attain but is generally viewed as less fair. This paper presents a general reduction scheme that, given a utilitarian solver, produces a distribution over states (deterministic outcomes) that is leximin in expectation. Importantly, the scheme is robust in the sense that, given an approximate utilitarian solver, it produces a lottery that is approximately-leximin (in expectation) - with the same approximation factor. We apply our scheme to several social choice problems: stochastic allocations of indivisible goods, giveaway lotteries, and fair lotteries for participatory budgeting.

The classic notion of truthfulness requires that no agent has a profitable manipulation — an untruthful report that, for some combination of reports of the other agents, increases her utility. This strong notion implicitly assumes that the manipulating agent either knows what all other agents are going to report, or is willing to take the risk and act as-if she knows their reports.

We are given a value-oracle for a d -dimensional function f that satisfies the conditions of Miranda's theorem, and therefore has a root. Our goal is to compute an approximate root using a number of evaluations that is polynomial in the number of accuracy digits. For d = 1 this is always possible using the bisection method , but for d ≥ 2 this is impossible in general. We show that, if d = 2 and f satisfies a single monotonicity condition, then the number of required evaluations is polynomial in the accuracy. The same holds if d ≥ 3 and f satisfies some particular d 2 − d monotonicity conditions. In contrast, if even two of these monotonicity conditions are missing, then the required number of evaluations might be exponential. As an example application, we show that approximate roots of monotone functions can be used for approximate envy-free cake-cutting.

Abstract. We consider the classical cake cutting problem where we wish to fairly divide a heterogeneous resource among interested agents. Work on this subject typically assumes that the cake is represented by an interval. We introduce a generalized setting where the cake is represented by an arbitrary undirected graph, which allows us to model the division of road networks. Unlike in the interval setting, common fairness criteria such as proportionality cannot always be satisfied in graphical cake cutting if each agent must receive a connected subgraph. We determine the optimal approximation of proportionality that can be obtained for any number of agents with additive valuations, and exhibit a tight guarantee for each graph in the case of two agents. We also study several variants and extensions, including when more than one connected piece per agent is allowed as well as when the item to be divided is undesirable.

We investigate the problem of fairly dividing a divisible heterogeneous resource, also known as a cake, among a set of agents who may have different entitlements. We characterize the existence of a connected strongly-proportional allocation—one in which every agent receives a contiguous piece worth strictly more than their proportional share. The characterization is supplemented with an algorithm that determines its existence using O(n·2n) queries. We devise a simpler characterization for agents with strictly positive valuations and with equal entitlements, and present an algorithm to determine the existence of such an allocation using O(n2) queries. We provide matching lower bounds in the number of queries for both algorithms. When a connected strongly-proportional allocation exists, we show that it can also be computed using a similar number of queries. The full version is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15326.

The n-way number partitioning problem is a classic problem in combinatorial optimization, with applications to diverse settings such as fair allocation and machine scheduling. All these problems are NP-hard, but various approximation algorithms are known. We consider three closely related kinds of approximations. The first two variants optimize the partition such that: in the first variant some fixed number s of items can be split between two or more bins and in the second variant we allow at most a fixed number t of splittings. The third variant is a decision problem: the largest bin sum must be within a pre-specified interval, parameterized by a fixed rational number u times the largest item size. When the number of bins n is unbounded, we show that every variant is strongly NP-complete. When the number of bins n is fixed, the running time depends on the fixed parameters s,t,u. For each variant, we give a complete picture of its running time. For n = 2, the running time is easy to identify. Our main results consider any fixed integer n ≥ 3. Using a two-way polynomial-time reduction between the first and the third variant, we show that n-way number-partitioning with s split items can be solved in polynomial time if s ≥ n-2, and it is NP-complete otherwise. Also, n-way number-partitioning with t splittings can be solved in polynomial time if t ≥ n-1, and it is NP-complete otherwise. Finally, we show that the third variant can be solved in polynomial time if u ≥ (n-2)/n, and it is NP-complete otherwise. Our positive results for the optimization problems consider both min-max and max-min versions. Using the same reduction, we provide a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme for the case where the number of split items is lower than n-2.

We study the problem of aggregating distributions, such as budget proposals, into a collective distribution. An ideal aggregation mechanism would be Pareto efficient, strategyproof, and fair. Most previous work assumes that agents evaluate budgets according to the l1 distance to their ideal budget. We investigate and compare different models from the larger class of star-shaped utility functions---a multi-dimensional generalization of single-peaked preferences. For the case of two alternatives, we extend existing results by proving that under very general assumptions, the uniform phantom mechanism is the only strategyproof mechanism that satisfies proportionality---a minimal notion of fairness introduced by Freeman et al. [2021]. Moving to the case of more than two alternatives, we establish sweeping impossibilities for l1 and l∞ disutilities: no mechanism satisfies efficiency, strategyproofness, and proportionality. We then propose a new kind of star-shaped utilities based on evaluating budgets by the ratios of shares between a given budget and an ideal budget. For these utilities, efficiency, strategyproofness, and fairness become compatible. In particular, we prove that the mechanism that maximizes the Nash product of individual utilities is characterized by group-strategyproofness and a core-based fairness condition.

Leximin is a common approach to multi-objective optimization, frequently employed in fair division applications. In leximin optimization, one first aims to maximize the smallest objective value; subject to this, one maximizes the second-smallest objective; and so on. Often, even the single-objective problem of maximizing the smallest value cannot be solved accurately. What can we hope to accomplish for leximin optimization in this situation? Recently, Henzinger et al. (2022) defined a notion of approximate leximin optimality. Their definition, however, considers only an additive approximation. In this work, we first define the notion of approximate leximin optimality, allowing both multiplicative and additive errors. We then show how to compute, in polynomial time, such an approximate leximin solution, using an oracle that finds an approximation to a single-objective problem. The approximation factors of the algorithms are closely related: an (α,ϵ)-approximation for the single-objective problem (where α ∈ (0,1] and ϵ ≥ 0 are the multiplicative and additive factors respectively) translates into an (α2/(1 − α + α2), ϵ/(1 − α + α2))-approximation for the multi-objective leximin problem, regardless of the number of objectives. Finally, we apply our algorithm to obtain an approximate leximin solution for the problem of stochastic allocations of indivisible goods.

In fair division of indivisible goods, l-out-of-d maximin share (MMS) is the value that an agent can guarantee by partitioning the goods into d bundles and choosing the l least preferred bundles. Most existing works aim to guarantee to all agents a constant fraction of their 1-out-of-n MMS. But this guarantee is sensitive to small perturbation in agents' cardinal valuations. We consider a more robust approximation notion, which depends only on the agents' ordinal rankings of bundles. We prove the existence of l-out-of-floor((l+1/2)n) MMS allocations of goods for any integer l greater than or equal to 1, and present a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a 1-out-of-ceiling(3n/2) MMS allocation when l = 1. We further develop an algorithm that provides a weaker ordinal approximation to MMS for any l > 1.

Charity is typically done either by individual donors, who donate money to the charities that they support, or by centralized organizations such as governments or municipalities, which collect the individual contributions and distribute them among a set of charities. On the one hand, individual charity respects the will of the donors but may be inefficient due to a lack of coordination. On the other hand, centralized charity is potentially more efficient but may ignore the will of individual donors.

We consider allocating indivisible chores among agents with different cost functions, such that all agents receive a cost of at most a constant factor times their maximin share.

This paper is part of an ongoing endeavor to bring the theory of fair division closer to practice by handling requirements from real-life applications. We focus on two requirements originating from the division of land estates: (1) each agent should receive a plot of a usable geometric shape, and (2) plots of different agents must be physically separated. With these requirements, the classic fairness notion of proportionality is impractical, since it may be impossible to attain any multiplicative approximation of it. In contrast, the ordinal maximin share approximation, introduced by Budish in 2011, provides meaningful fairness guarantees. We prove upper and lower bounds on achievable maximin share guarantees when the usable shapes are squares, fat rectangles, or arbitrary axis-aligned rectangles, and explore the algorithmic and query complexity of finding fair partitions in this setting. Our work makes use of tools and concepts from computational geometry such as independent sets of rectangles and guillotine partitions.

Maximum bipartite matching is a fundamental algorithmic problem which can be solved in polynomial time. We consider a natural variant in which there is a separation constraint: the vertices on one side lie on a path or a grid, and two vertices that are close to each other are not allowed to be matched simultaneously. We show that the problem is hard to approximate even for paths, and provide constant-factor approximation algorithms for both paths and grids.

We study fair allocation of indivisible goods among additive agents with feasibility constraints. In these settings, every agent is restricted to get a bundle among a specified set of feasible bundles. Such scenarios have been of great interest to the AI community due to their applicability to real-world problems. Following some impossibility results, we restrict attention to matroid feasibility constraints that capture natural scenarios, such as the allocation of shifts to medical doctors and the allocation of conference papers to referees. We focus on the common fairness notion of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1). Previous algorithms for finding EF1 allocations are either restricted to agents with identical feasibility constraints or allow free disposal of items. An open problem is the existence of EF1 complete allocations among agents who differ both in their valuations and in their feasibility constraints. In this work, we make progress on this problem by providing positive and negative results for several matroid and valuation types. Among other results, we devise polynomial-time algorithms for finding EF1 allocations in the following settings: (i) n agents with heterogeneous (non-identical) binary valuations and partition matroids with heterogeneous capacities; (ii) two agents with heterogeneous additive valuations and partition matroids with heterogeneous capacities; and (iii) three agents with heterogeneous binary valuations and identical base-orderable matroid constraints.

We revisit the setting of fairly allocating indivisible items when agents have different weights representing their entitlements. First, we propose a parameterized family of relaxations for weighted envy-freeness and the same for weighted proportionality; the parameters indicate whether smaller-weight or larger-weight agents should be given a higher priority. We show that each notion in these families can always be satisfied, but any two cannot necessarily be fulfilled simultaneously. We then introduce an intuitive weighted generalization of maximin share fairness and establish the optimal approximation of it that can be guaranteed. Furthermore, we characterize the implication relations between the various weighted fairness notions introduced in this and prior work, and relate them to the lower and upper quota axioms from apportionment.

A heterogeneous resource, such as a land-estate, is already divided among several agents in an unfair way.The challenge is to re-divide it among the agents in a way that balances fairness with ownership rights.We present re-division protocols that attain various combinations of fairness and ownership rights, in various settings differing in the geometric constraints on the allotments: (a) no geometric constraints; (b) connectivity --- the cake is a one-dimensional interval and each piece must be a contiguous interval; (c) rectangularity --- the cake is a two-dimensional rectangle and the pieces should be rectangles; (d) convexity --- the cake is a two-dimensional convex polygon and the pieces should be convex.

We study the problem of fairly allocating a divisible resource, also known as cake cutting, with an additional requirement that the shares that different agents receive should be sufficiently separated from one another. This captures, for example, constraints arising from social distancing guidelines. While it is sometimes impossible to allocate a proportional share to every agent under the separation requirement, we show that the well-known criterion of maximin share fairness can always be attained. We then provide algorithmic analysis of maximin share fairness in this setting—for instance, the maximin share of an agent cannot be computed exactly by any finite algorithm, but can be approximated with an arbitrarily small error. In addition, we consider the division of a pie (i.e., a circular cake) and show that an ordinal relaxation of maximin share fairness can be achieved. We also prove that an envy-free or equitable allocation that allocates the maximum amount of resource exists under separation.

A matching in a bipartite graph with parts X and Y is called envy-free if no unmatched vertex in X is a adjacent to a matched vertex in Y. Every perfect matching is envy-free, but envy-free matchings exist even when perfect matchings do not. We prove that every bipartite graph has a unique partition such that all envy-free matchings are contained in one of the partition sets. Using this structural theorem, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for finding an envy-free matching of maximum cardinality. For edge-weighted bipartite graphs, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a maximum-cardinality envy-free matching of minimum total weight. We show how envy-free matchings can be used in various fair division problems with either continuous resources ("cakes") or discrete ones. In particular, we propose a symmetric algorithm for proportional cake-cutting, an algorithm for 1-out-of-(2n-2) maximin-share allocation of discrete goods, and an algorithm for 1-out-of-floor(2n/3) maximin-share allocation of discrete bads among n agents.

In fair division of indivisible goods, ℓ-out-of-d maximin share (MMS) is the value that an agent can guarantee by partitioning the goods into d bundles and choosing the ℓ least preferred bundles. Most existing works aim to guarantee to all agents a constant fraction of their 1-out-of-n MMS. But this guarantee is sensitive to small perturbation in agents' cardinal valuations. We consider a more robust approximation notion, which depends only on the agents' ordinal rankings of bundles. We prove the existence of ℓ-out-of-⌊(ℓ + 1/2)n⌋ MMS allocations of goods for any integer ℓ ≥ 1, and present a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a 1-out-of-⌈3n/2⌉ MMS allocation when ℓ=1. We further develop an algorithm that provides a weaker ordinal approximation to MMS for any ℓ > 1.

We study fair allocation of indivisible goods among additive agents with feasibility constraints. In these settings, every agent is restricted to get a bundle among a specified set of feasible bundles. Such scenarios have been of great interest to the AI community due to their applicability to real-world problems. Following some impossibility results, we restrict attention to matroid feasibility constraints that capture natural scenarios, such as the allocation of shifts to medical doctors, and the allocation of conference papers to referees. We focus on the common fairness notion of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1). Previous algorithms for finding EF1 allocations are either restricted to agents with identical feasibility constraints, or allow free disposal of items. An open problem is the existence of EF1 complete allocations among heterogeneous agents, where the heterogeneity is both in the agents' feasibility constraints and in their valuations. In this work, we make progress on this problem by providing positive and negative results for different matroid and valuation types. Among other results, we devise poly-time algorithms for finding EF1 allocations in the following settings: (i) n agents with heterogeneous partition matroids and heterogeneous binary valuations, (ii) 2 agents with heterogeneous partition matroids and heterogeneous valuations, and (iii) at most 3 agents with heterogeneous binary valuations and identical base-orderable matroids.

We study the problem of fairly allocating a divisible resource, also known as cake cutting, with an additional requirement that the shares that different agents receive should be sufficiently separated from one another. This captures, for example, constraints arising from social distancing guidelines. While it is sometimes impossible to allocate a proportional share to every agent under the separation requirement, we show that the well-known criterion of maximin share fairness can always be attained. We then establish several computational properties of maximin share fairness---for instance, the maximin share of an agent cannot be computed exactly by any finite algorithm, but can be approximated with an arbitrarily small error. In addition, we consider the division of a pie (i.e., a circular cake) and show that an ordinal relaxation of maximin share fairness can be achieved.

We study the recently introduced cake-cutting setting in which the cake is represented by an undirected graph. This generalizes the canonical interval cake and allows for modeling the division of road networks. We show that when the graph is a forest, an allocation satisfying the well-known criterion of maximin share fairness always exists. Our result holds even when separation constraints are imposed; however, in the latter case no multiplicative approximation of proportionality can be guaranteed. Furthermore, while maximin share fairness is not always achievable for general graphs, we prove that ordinal relaxations can be attained.

This paper is part of an ongoing endeavor to bring the theory of fair division closer to practice by handling requirements from real-life applications. We focus on two requirements originating from the division of land estates: (1) each agent should receive a plot of a usable geometric shape, and (2) plots of different agents must be physically separated. With these requirements, the classic fairness notion of proportionality is impractical, since it may be impossible to attain any multiplicative approximation of it. In contrast, the ordinal maximin share approximation, introduced by Budish in 2011, provides meaningful fairness guarantees. We prove upper and lower bounds on achievable maximin share guarantees when the usable shapes are squares, fat rectangles, or arbitrary axes-aligned rectangles, and explore the algorithmic and query complexity of finding fair partitions in this setting.

In two-sided markets, Myerson and Satterthwaite's impossibility theorem states that one can not maximize the gain-from-trade while also satisfying truthfulness, individual-rationality and no deficit. Attempts have been made to circumvent Myerson and Satterthwaite's result by attaining approximately-maximum gain-from-trade: the double-sided auctions of McAfee (1992) is truthful and has no deficit, and the one by Segal-Halevi et al. (2016) additionally has no surplus — it is strongly-budget-balanced. They consider two categories of agents — buyers and sellers, where each trade set is composed of a single buyer and a single seller.The practical complexity of applications such as supply chain require one to look beyond two-sided markets. Common requirements are for: buyers trading with multiple sellers of different or identical items, buyers trading with sellers through transporters and mediators, and sellers trading with multiple buyers. We attempt to address these settings.We generalize Segal-Halevi et al. (2016)'s strongly-budget-balanced double-sided auction setting to a multilateral market where each trade set is composed of any number of agent categories. Our generalization refines the notion of competition in multi-sided auctions by introducing the concepts of external competition and trade reduction. We also show an obviously-truthful implementation of our auction using multiple ascending prices.Full version, including omitted proofs and simulation experiments, is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08094.

Ranking alternatives is a natural way for humans to explain their preferences. It is used in many settings, such as school choice, course allocations and residency matches. Without having any information on the underlying cardinal utilities, arguing about the fairness of allocations requires extending the ordinal item ranking to ordinal bundle ranking. The most commonly used such extension is stochastic dominance (SD), where a bundle X is preferred over a bundle Y if its score is better according to all additive score functions. SD is a very conservative extension, by which few allocations are necessarily fair while many allocations are possibly fair. We propose to make a natural assumption on the underlying cardinal utilities of the players, namely that the difference between two items at the top is larger than the difference between two items at the bottom. This assumption implies a preference extension which we call diminishing differences (DD), where X is preferred over Y if its score is better according to all additive score functions satisfying the DD assumption. We give a full characterization of allocations that are necessarily-proportional or possibly-proportional according to this assumption. Based on this characterization, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a necessarily-DD-proportional allocation whenever it exists. Using simulations, we compare the various fairness criteria in terms of their probability of existence, and their probability of being fair by the underlying cardinal valuations. We find that necessary-DD-proportionality fares well in both measures. We also consider envy-freeness and Pareto optimality under diminishing-differences, as well as chore allocation under the analogous condition --- increasing-differences.

In a seminal paper, McAfee (1992) presented a truthful mechanism for double auctions, attaining asymptotically-optimal gain-from-trade without any prior information on the valuations of the traders. McAfee's mechanism handles single-parametric agents, allowing each seller to sell a single unit and each buyer to buy a single unit. This paper presents a double-auction mechanism that handles multi-parametric agents and allows multiple units per trader, as long as the valuation functions of all traders have decreasing marginal returns. The mechanism is prior-free, ex-post individually-rational, dominant-strategy truthful and strongly-budget-balanced. Its gain-from-trade approaches the optimum when the market size is sufficiently large.

Motivated by applications such as stock exchanges and spectrum auctions, there is a growing interest in mechanisms for arranging trade in two-sided markets. However, existing mechanisms are either not truthful, do not guarantee an asymptotically-optimal gain-from-trade, rely on a prior on the traders' valuations, or operate in limited settings such as a single type of good. We extend the random-sampling technique used in earlier works to multi-good markets where traders have gross-substitute valuations. We show a prior free, truthful and strongly-budget-balanced mechanism which guarantees near-optimal gain from trade when the market sizes of all goods grow to infinity at a similar rate.

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to groups of agents. Agents in the same group share the same set of goods even though they may have different preferences. Previous work has focused on unanimous fairness, in which all agents in each group must agree that their group's share is fair. Under this strict requirement, fair allocations exist only for small groups. We introduce the concept of democratic fairness, which aims to satisfy a certain fraction of the agents in each group. This concept is better suited to large groups such as cities or countries. We present protocols for democratic fair allocation among two or more arbitrarily large groups of agents with monotonic, additive, or binary valuations. Our protocols approximate both envy-freeness and maximin-share fairness. As an example, for two groups of agents with additive valuations, our protocol yields an allocation that is envy-free up to one good and gives at least half of the maximin share to at least half of the agents in each group.

Inside a two-dimensional region (``cake''), there are $m$ nonoverlapping tiles of a certain kind (``toppings''). We want to expand the toppings while keeping them nonoverlapping, and possibly add some blank pieces of the same “certain kind,” such that the entire cake is covered. How many blanks must we add? We study this question in several cases: (1) The cake and toppings are general polygons. (2) The cake and toppings are convex figures. (3) The cake and toppings are axis-parallel rectangles. (4) The cake is an axis-parallel rectilinear polygon and the toppings are axis-parallel rectangles. In all four cases, we provide tight bounds on the number of blanks.

Ranking alternatives is a natural way for humans to explain their preferences. It is being used in many settings, such as school choice (NY, Boston), Course allocations, and the Israeli medical lottery. In some cases (such as the latter two), several ``items'' are given to each participant. Without having any information on the underlying cardinal utilities, arguing about fairness of allocation requires extending the ordinal item ranking to ordinal bundle ranking. The most commonly used such extension is stochastic dominance (SD), where a bundle X is preferred over a bundle Y if its score is better according to all additive score functions. SD is a very conservative extension, by which few allocations are necessarily fair while many allocations are possibly fair. We propose to make a natural assumption on the underlying cardinal utilities of the players, namely that the difference between two items at the top is larger than the difference between two items at the bottom. This assumption implies a preference extension which we call diminishing differences (DD), where a X is preferred over Y if its score is better according to all additive score functions satisfying the DD assumption. We give a full characterization of allocations that are necessarily-proportional or possibly-proportional according to this assumption. Based on this characterization, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a necessarily-DD-proportional allocation if it exists. Using simulations, we show that with high probability, a necessarily-proportional allocation does not exist but a necessarily-DD-proportional allocation exists, and moreover, that allocation is proportional according to the underlying cardinal utilities.

We consider the classic problem of envy-free division of a heterogeneous good (“cake”) among several agents. It is known that, when the allotted pieces must be connected, the problem cannot be solved by a finite algorithm for three or more agents. The impossibility result, however, assumes that the entire cake must be allocated. In this article, we replace the entire-allocation requirement with a weaker partial-proportionality requirement: the piece given to each agent must be worth for it at least a certain positive fraction of the entire cake value. We prove that this version of the problem is solvable in bounded time even when the pieces must be connected. We present simple, bounded-time envy-free cake-cutting algorithms for (1) giving each of n agents a connected piece with a positive value; (2) giving each of three agents a connected piece worth at least 1/3; (3) giving each of four agents a connected piece worth at least 1/7; (4) giving each of four agents a disconnected piece worth at least 1/4; and (5) giving each of n agents a disconnected piece worth at least (1 − ϵ)/ n for any positive ϵ.

We consider the problem of fair division of a two dimensional heterogeneous good among several agents. Applications include division of land as well as ad space in print and electronic media. Classical cake cutting protocols either consider a one-dimensional resource, or allocate each agent several disconnected pieces. In practice, however, the two dimensional shape of the allotted piece is of crucial importance in many applications, e.g., squares or bounded aspect-ratio rectangles are most useful for building houses as well as advertisements. We thus introduce and study the problem of envy-free two-dimensional division wherein the utility of the agents depends on the geometric shape of the allocated pieces (as well as the location and size). In addition to envy-freeness, we require that the fraction allocated to each agent be at least a certain constant that depends only on the shape of the cake and the number of agents. We focus on the case where the allotted pieces must be square and the cakes are either squares or the unbounded plane. We provide algorithms for the problem for settings with two and three agents.