  We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods among strategic
agents. Amanatidis et al. show that truthfulness is incompatible with any
meaningful fairness notions. Thus we adopt the notion of incentive ratio, which
is defined as the ratio between the largest possible utility that an agent can
gain by manipulation and his utility in honest behavior under a given
mechanism. We select four of the most fundamental mechanisms in the literature
on discrete fair division, which are Round-Robin, a cut-and-choose mechanism of
Plaut and Roughgarden, Maximum-Nash-Welfare and Envy-Graph Procedure, and
obtain extensive results regarding the incentive ratios of them and their
variants.
  For Round-Robin, we establish the incentive ratio of $2$ for additive and
subadditive cancelable valuations, the unbounded incentive ratio for cancelable
valuations, and the incentive ratios of $n$ and $\lceil m / n \rceil$ for
submodular and XOS valuations, respectively. Moreover, the incentive ratio is
unbounded for a variant that provides the $1/n$-approximate maximum social
welfare guarantee. For the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden, the incentive
ratio is either unbounded or $3$ with lexicographic tie-breaking and is $2$
with welfare maximizing tie-breaking. This separation exhibits the essential
role of tie-breaking rules in the design of mechanisms with low incentive
ratios. For Maximum-Nash-Welfare, the incentive ratio is unbounded.
Furthermore, the unboundedness can be bypassed by restricting agents to have a
strictly positive value for each good. For Envy-Graph Procedure, both of the
two possible ways of implementation lead to an unbounded incentive ratio.
  Finally, we complement our results with a proof that the incentive ratio of
every mechanism satisfying envy-freeness up to one good is at least $1.074$,
and thus is larger than $1$ by a constant.
