We consider a voting problem in which a set of agents have metric preferences over a set of alternatives, and are also partitioned into disjoint groups. Given information about the preferences of the agents and their groups, our goal is to decide an alternative to approximately minimize an objective function that takes the groups of agents into account. We consider two natural group-fair objectives known as Max-of-Avg and Avg-of-Max which are different combinations of the max and the average cost in and out of the groups. We show tight bounds on the best possible distortion that can be achieved by various classes of mechanisms depending on the amount of information they have access to. In particular, we consider full-information group-oblivious mechanisms that do not know the groups but have access to the exact distances between agents and alternatives in the metric space, ordinal-information group-oblivious mechanisms that again do not know the groups but are given the ordinal preferences of the agents, and group-aware mechanisms that have full knowledge of the structure of the agent groups and also ordinal information about the metric space.

Abstract We consider a truthful facility location problem with agents that have private positions on the line of real numbers and known optional preferences over two obnoxious facilities that must be placed at locations chosen from a given set of candidate ones. Each agent wants to maximize the sum of distances from the facilities that affect her, and our goal is to design mechanisms that decide where to place the facilities so as to maximize the total happiness of the agents as well as provide the right incentives to them to truthfully report their positions. We consider separately the setting in which all agents are affected by both facilities (i.e., they have non-optional preferences) and the general optional setting. We show tight bounds on the approximation ratio of deterministic strategyproof mechanisms for both settings, and almost tight bounds for randomized mechanisms.

This paper studies the design of strategyproof distributed mechanisms for a constrained location problem involving two heterogeneous facilities under the max-variant cost model. A set of agents with private locations on the real line is partitioned into disjoint groups, and the two facilities must be placed at locations drawn from a given multiset of candidate locations, with each candidate location hosting at most one facility. Each agent requires access to both facilities, and her individual cost is defined as the distance from her location to the farther facility. Each such mechanism operates in two stages. First, it selects a pair of candidate locations as representatives for each group based solely on the reports of that group's members. It then selects the final locations of the two facilities from the aggregated multiset of group representatives. We investigate deterministic strategyproof mechanisms within this distributed framework and derive constant lower and upper bounds on their distortion with respect to four social objectives: the Average-of-Average, Max-of-Max, Max-of-Average, and Average-of-Max costs.

We study a truthful facility location problem where one out of k ≥ 2 available facilities must be built at a location chosen from a set of candidate ones in the interval [0,1]. This decision aims to accommodate a set of agents with private positions in [0,1] and approval preferences over the facilities; the agents act strategically and may misreport their private information to maximize their utility, which depends on the chosen facility and their distance from it. We focus on strategyproof mechanisms that incentivize the agents to act truthfully and bound the best possible approximation of the optimal social welfare (the total utility of the agents) they can achieve. We first show that deterministic mechanisms have unbounded approximation ratio, and then present a randomized mechanism with approximation ratio k, which is tight even when agents may only misreport their positions. For the restricted setting where agents may only misreport their approval preferences, we design a deterministic mechanism with approximation ratio of roughly 2.325, and establish lower bounds of 3/2 and 6/5 for deterministic and randomized mechanisms, respectively.

We study the distortion of one-sided and two-sided matching problems on the line. In the one-sided case, n agents need to be matched to n items, and each agent's cost in a matching is their distance from the item they were matched to. We propose an algorithm that is provided only with ordinal information regarding the agents' preferences (each agent's ranking of the items from most- to least-preferred) and returns a matching aiming to minimize the social cost with respect to the agents' true (cardinal) costs. We prove that our algorithm simultaneously achieves the best-possible approximation of 3 (known as distortion) with respect to a variety of social cost measures which include the utilitarian and egalitarian social cost. In the two-sided case, where the agents need be matched to n other agents and both sides report their ordinal preferences over each other, we show that it is always possible to compute an optimal matching. In fact, we show that this optimal matching can be achieved using even less information, and we provide bounds regarding the sufficient number of queries.

We study the utilitarian distortion of social choice mechanisms under the recently proposed learning-augmented framework where some (possibly unreliable) predicted information about the preferences of the agents is given as input. In particular, we consider two fundamental social choice problems: single-winner voting and one-sided matching. In these settings, the ordinal preferences of the agents over the alternatives (either candidates or items) is known, and some prediction about their underlying cardinal values is also provided. The goal is to leverage the prediction to achieve improved distortion guarantees when it is accurate, while simultaneously still achieving reasonable worst-case bounds when it is not. This leads to the notions of consistency and robustness, and the quest to achieve the best possible tradeoffs between the two. We show tight tradeoffs between the consistency and robustness of ordinal mechanisms for single-winner voting and one-sided matching, for different levels of information provided as prediction.

Abstract We study matching settings in which a set of agents have private utilities over a set of items. Each agent reports a partition of the items into approval sets of different threshold utility levels. Given this limited information on input, the goal is to compute an assignment of the items to the agents (subject to cardinality constraints depending on the application) that (approximately) maximizes the social welfare (the total utility of the agents for their assigned items). We first consider the well-known, simple one-sided matching problem in which each of n agents is to be assigned exactly one of n items. We show that with t threshold utility levels, the distortion of deterministic matching algorithms is $$\Theta (\root t \of {n})$$ while that of randomized algorithms is $$\Theta (\root t+1 \of {n})$$ . We then show that our distortion bounds extend to a more general setting in which there are multiple copies of the items, each agent can be assigned a number of items (even copies of the same one) up to a capacity, and the utility of an agent for an item depends on the number of its copies that the agent is given.

Abstract Recently, strategic games inspired by Schelling’s influential model of residential segregation have been studied in the TCS and AI literature. In these games, agents of k different types occupy the nodes of a network topology aiming to maximize their utility, which is a function of the fraction of same-type agents they are adjacent to in the network. As such, the agents exhibit similarity-seeking strategic behavior. In this paper, we introduce a class of strategic jump games in which the agents are diversity-seeking : The utility of an agent is defined as the fraction of its neighbors that are of different type than itself. We show that in general it is computationally hard to determine the existence of an equilibrium in such games. However, when the network is a tree, diversity-seeking jump games always admit an equilibrium assignment. For regular graphs and spider graphs with a single empty node, we prove a stronger result: The game is potential, that is, the improving response dynamics always converge to an equilibrium from any initial placement of the agents. We also show (nearly tight) bounds on the price of anarchy and price of stability in terms of the social welfare (the total utility of the agents).

We consider a social choice setting in which agents and alternatives are represented by points in a metric space, and the cost of an agent for an alternative is the distance between the corresponding points in the space. The goal is to choose a single alternative to (approximately) minimize the social cost (cost of all agents) or the maximum cost of any agent, when only limited information about the preferences of the agents is given. Previous work has shown that the best possible distortion one can hope to achieve is 3 when access to the ordinal preferences of the agents is given, even when the distances between alternatives in the metric space are known. We improve upon this bound of 3 by designing deterministic mechanisms that exploit a bit of cardinal information. We show that it is possible to achieve distortion 1 + 2 by using the ordinal preferences of the agents, the distances between alternatives, and a threshold approval set per agent that contains all alternatives that are at distance from the agent within an appropriately chosen factor of the minimum distance of the agents from any alternative. We show that this bound is the best possible for any deterministic mechanism in general metric spaces, and also provide improved bounds for the fundamental case of a line metric.

We consider a distributed voting problem with a set of agents that are partitioned into disjoint groups and a set of obnoxious alternatives. Agents and alternatives are represented by points in a metric space. The goal is to compute the alternative that maximizes the total distance from all agents using a two-step mechanism which, given some information about the distances between agents and alternatives, first chooses a representative alternative for each group of agents, and then declares one of them as the overall winner. Due to the restricted nature of the mechanism and the potentially limited information it has to make its decision, it might not be always possible to choose the optimal alternative. We show tight bounds on the distortion of different mechanisms depending on the amount of the information they have access to; in particular, we study full-information and ordinal mechanisms.

We study a truthful two-facility location problem in which a set of agents have private positions on the line of real numbers and known approval preferences over two different facilities. Given the locations of the two facilities, the cost of an agent is the total distance from the facilities she approves. The goal is to decide where to place the facilities from a given finite set of candidate locations so as to (a) approximately optimize desired social objectives, and (b) incentivize the agents to truthfully report their private positions. We focus on the class of deterministic strategyproof mechanisms and show bounds on their approximation ratio in terms of the social cost (i.e., the total cost of the agents) and the max cost for several classes of instances depending on the preferences of the agents over the facilities.

We consider a social choice setting in which agents and alternatives are represented by points in a metric space, and the cost of an agent for an alternative is the distance between the corresponding points in the space. The goal is to choose a single alternative to (approximately) minimize the social cost (cost of all agents) or the maximum cost of any agent, when only limited information about the preferences of the agents is given. Previous work has shown that the best possible distortion one can hope to achieve is 3 when access to the ordinal preferences of the agents is given, even when the distances between alternatives in the metric space are known. We improve upon this bound of 3 by designing deterministic mechanisms that exploit a bit of cardinal information. We show that it is possible to achieve distortion 1+sqrt(2) by using the ordinal preferences of the agents, the distances between alternatives, and a threshold approval set per agent that contains all alternatives for whom her cost is within an appropriately chosen factor of her cost for her most-preferred alternative. We show that this bound is the best possible for any deterministic mechanism in general metric spaces, and also provide improved bounds for the fundamental case of a line metric.

Abstract We initiate the study of a novel problem in mechanism design without money, which we term Truthful Interval Covering (TIC). An instance of TIC consists of a set of agents each associated with an individual interval on a line, and the objective is to decide where to place a covering interval to minimize the total social or egalitarian cost of the agents, which is determined by the intersection of this interval with their individual ones. This fundamental problem can model situations of provisioning a public good, such as the use of power generators to prevent or mitigate load shedding in developing countries. In the strategic version of the problem, the agents wish to minimize their individual costs, and might misreport the position and/or length of their intervals to achieve that. Our goal is to design truthful mechanisms to prevent such strategic misreports and achieve good approximations to the best possible social or egalitarian cost. We consider the fundamental setting of known intervals with equal lengths and provide tight bounds on the approximation ratios achieved by truthful deterministic mechanisms. For the social cost, we also design a randomized truthful mechanism that outperforms all possible deterministic ones. Finally, we highlight a plethora of natural extensions of our model for future work, as well as some natural limitations of those settings.

We study the distributed facility location problem, where a set of agents with positions on the line of real numbers are partitioned into disjoint districts, and the goal is to choose a point to satisfy certain criteria, such as optimize an objective function or avoid strategic behavior. A mechanism in our distributed setting works in two steps: For each district it chooses a point that is representative of the positions reported by the agents in the district, and then decides one of these representative points as the final output. We consider two classes of mechanisms: Unrestricted mechanisms which assume that the agents directly provide their true positions as input, and strategyproof mechanisms which deal with strategic agents and aim to incentivize them to truthfully report their positions. For both classes, we show tight bounds on the best possible approximation in terms of several minimization social objectives, including the well-known average social cost (average total distance of agents from the chosen point) and max cost (maximum distance among all agents from the chosen point), as well as other fairness-inspired objectives that are tailor-made for the distributed setting, in particular, the max-of-average and the average-of-max.

Abstract We consider a setting with agents that have preferences over alternatives and are partitioned into disjoint districts. The goal is to choose one alternative as the winner using a mechanism which first decides a representative alternative for each district based on a local election with the agents therein as participants, and then chooses one of the district representatives as the winner. Previous work showed bounds on the distortion of a specific class of deterministic plurality-based mechanisms depending on the available information about the preferences of the agents in the districts. In this paper, we first consider the whole class of deterministic mechanisms and show asymptotically tight bounds on their distortion. We then initiate the study of the distortion of randomized mechanisms in distributed voting and show bounds based on several informational assumptions, which in many cases turn out to be tight. Finally, we also experimentally compare the distortion of many different mechanisms of interest using synthetic and real-world data.

Abstract. In most social choice settings, the participating agents express their preferences over the different alternatives in the form of linear orderings. While this clearly simplifies preference elicitation, it inevitably leads to poor performance with respect to optimizing a cardinal objective, such as the social welfare, since the values of the agents remain virtually unknown. This loss in performance because of lack of information is measured by the notion of distortion. A recent array of works put forward the agenda of designing mechanisms that learn the values of the agents for a small number of alternatives via queries, and use this limited extra information to make better-informed decisions, thus improving distortion. Following this agenda, in this work we focus on a class of combinatorial problems that includes most well-known matching problems and several of their generalizations. For problems such as One-Sided Matching, Two-Sided Matching, General Graph Matching, and Short Cycle Packing, we design two-query mechanisms that achieve the best-possible worst-case distortion in terms of social welfare, and outperform the best-possible expected distortion achieved by randomized ordinal mechanisms. Our results extend to problems like [Formula: see text]-Constrained Resource Allocation, General Graph [Formula: see text]-Matching, and [Formula: see text]-Clique Packing, when [Formula: see text] is restricted to be any constant.

Allocating resources to individuals in a fair manner has been a topic of interest since ancient times, with most of the early mathematical work on the problem focusing on resources that are infinitely divisible. Over the last decade, there has been a surge of papers studying computational questions regarding the indivisible case, for which exact fairness notions such as envy-freeness and proportionality are hard to satisfy. One main theme in the recent research agenda is to investigate the extent to which their relaxations, like maximin share fairness (MMS) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), can be achieved. In this survey, we present a comprehensive review of the recent progress made in the related literature by highlighting different ways to relax fairness notions, common algorithm design techniques, and the most interesting questions for future research.

Abstract. We revisit the discrete heterogeneous two-facility location problem, in which there is a set of agents that occupy nodes of a line graph and have private approval preferences over two facilities. When the facilities are located at some nodes of the line, each agent suffers a cost that is equal to her total distance from the facilities she approves. The goal is to decide where to locate the two facilities so as to (a) incentivize the agents to truthfully report their preferences and (b) achieve a good approximation of the minimum total (social) cost or the maximum cost among all agents. For both objectives, we design deterministic strategyproof mechanisms with approximation ratios that significantly outperform the state of the art and complement these results with (almost) tight lower bounds.

Schelling's famous model of segregation assumes agents of different types, who would like to be located in neighborhoods having at least a certain fraction of agents of the same type. We consider natural generalizations that allow for the possibility of agents being tolerant towards other agents, even if they are not of the same type. In particular, we consider an ordering of the types, and make the realistic assumption that the agents are in principle more tolerant towards agents of types that are closer to their own according to the ordering. Based on this, we study the strategic games induced when the agents aim to maximize their utility for a variety of tolerance levels. We provide a collection of results about the existence of equilibria, and their quality in terms of social welfare.

We extend the recently introduced framework of metric distortion to multiwinner voting. In this framework, n agents and m alternatives are located in an underlying metric space. The exact distances between agents and alternatives are unknown. Instead, each agent provides a ranking of the alternatives, ordered from the closest to the farthest. Typically, the goal is to select a single alternative that approximately minimizes the total distance from the agents, and the worst-case approximation ratio is termed distortion. In the case of multiwinner voting, the goal is to select a committee of k alternatives that (approximately) minimizes the total cost to all agents. We consider the scenario where the cost of an agent for a committee is her distance from the q-th closest alternative in the committee. We reveal a surprising trichotomy on the distortion of multiwinner voting rules in terms of k and q: The distortion is unbounded when q

We initiate the study of the heterogeneous facility location problem with limited resources. We mainly focus on the fundamental case where a set of agents are positioned in the line segment [0,1] and have approval preferences over two available facilities. A mechanism takes as input the positions and the preferences of the agents, and chooses to locate a single facility based on this information. We study mechanisms that aim to maximize the social welfare (the total utility the agents derive from facilities they approve), under the constraint of incentivizing the agents to truthfully report their positions and preferences. We consider three different settings depending on the level of agent-related information that is public or private. For each setting, we design deterministic and randomized strategyproof mechanisms that achieve a good approximation of the optimal social welfare, and complement these with nearly-tight impossibility results.

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) is a popular investment choice as it allows investors to hold shares in real estate rather than investing large sums of money to purchase real estate by themselves. Previous work studied the effectiveness of multi-asset portfolios that include REITs via an efficient frontier analysis. However, the advantages of including (both domestic and international) REITs in multi-asset portfolios, as well as analyzing all the possible combinations of asset classes, has not been investigated before. In this paper, we fill in this gap by performing a thorough investigation across 456 different portfolios to demonstrate the added value of including REITs in mixed-asset portfolios in terms of different important financial metrics. To this end, we use a genetic algorithm approach to maximize the Sharpe ratio of the portfolios. Our results show that optimization via a genetic algorithm outperforms the results obtained from a global minimum variance portfolio. More importantly, our results also show that there can be significant improvements in average returns, risk and Sharpe ratio when including REITs.

Allocating resources to individuals in a fair manner has been a topic of interest since the ancient times, with most of the early rigorous mathematical work on the problem focusing on infinitely divisible resources. Recently, there has been a surge of papers studying computational questions regarding various different notions of fairness for the indivisible case, like maximin share fairness (MMS) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX). We survey the most important results in the discrete fair division literature, focusing on the case of additive valuation functions and paying particular attention to the progress made in the last 10 years.

We revisit the discrete heterogeneous two-facility location problem, in which there is a set of agents that occupy nodes of a line graph, and have private approval preferences over two facilities. When the facilities are located at some nodes of the line, each agent derives a cost that is equal to her total distance from the facilities she approves. The goal is to decide where to locate the two facilities, so as to (a) incentivize the agents to truthfully report their preferences, and (b) achieve a good approximation of the minimum total (social) cost or the maximum cost among all agents. For both objectives, we design deterministic strategyproof mechanisms with approximation ratios that significantly outperform the state-of-the-art, and complement these results with (almost) tight lower bounds.

Schelling's model considers $k$ types of agents each of whom needs to select a vertex on an undirected graph, where every agent prefers to neighbor agents of the same type. We are motivated by a recent line of work that studies solutions that are optimal with respect to notions related to the welfare of the agents. We explore the parameterized complexity of computing such solutions. We focus on the well-studied notions of social welfare (WO) and Pareto optimality (PO), alongside the recently proposed notions of group-welfare optimality (GWO) and utility-vector optimality (UVO), both of which lie between WO and PO. Firstly, we focus on the fundamental case where $k=2$ and there are $r$ red agents and $b$ blue agents. We show that all solution-notions we consider are $\textsf{NP}$-hard to compute even when $b=1$ and that they are $\textsf{W}[1]$-hard when parameterized by $r$ and $b$. In addition, we show that WO and GWO are $\textsf{NP}$-hard even on cubic graphs. We complement these negative results by an $\textsf{FPT}$ algorithm parameterized by $r, b$ and the maximum degree of the graph. For the general case with $k$ types of agents, we prove that for any of the notions we consider the problem is $\textsf{W}[1]$-hard when parameterized by $k$ for a large family of graphs that includes trees. We accompany these negative results with an $\textsf{XP}$ algorithm parameterized by $k$ and the treewidth of the graph.

In most social choice settings, the participating agents express their preferences over the different alternatives in the form of linear orderings. While this clearly simplifies preference elicitation, it inevitably leads to poor performance with respect to optimizing a cardinal objective, such as the social welfare, since the values of the agents remain virtually unknown. This loss in performance because of lack of information is measured by distortion. A recent array of works put forward the agenda of designing mechanisms that learn the values of the agents for a small number of alternatives via queries, and use this limited extra information to make better-informed decisions, thus improving distortion. Following this agenda, in this work we focus on a class of combinatorial problems that includes most well-known matching problems and several of their generalizations, such as One-Sided Matching, Two-Sided Matching, General Graph Matching, and k-Constrained Resource Allocation. We design two-query mechanisms that achieve the best-possible worst-case distortion in terms of social welfare, and outperform the best-possible expected distortion achieved by randomized ordinal mechanisms.

We consider a social choice setting with agents that are partitioned into disjoint groups, and have metric preferences over a set of alternatives. Our goal is to choose a single alternative aiming to optimize various objectives that are functions of the distances between agents and alternatives in the metric space, under the constraint that this choice must be made in a distributed way: The preferences of the agents within each group are first aggregated into a representative alternative for the group, and then these group representatives are aggregated into the final winner. Deciding the winner in such a way naturally leads to loss of efficiency, even when complete information about the metric space is available. We provide a series of (mostly tight) bounds on the distortion of distributed mechanisms for variations of well-known objectives, such as the (average) total cost and the maximum cost, and also for new objectives that are particularly appropriate for this distributed setting and have not been studied before.

We extend the recently introduced framework of metric distortion to multiwinner voting. In this framework, n agents and m alternatives are located in an underlying metric space. The exact distances between agents and alternatives are unknown. Instead, each agent provides a ranking of the alternatives, ordered from the closest to the farthest. Typically, the goal is to select a single alternative that approximately minimizes the total distance from the agents, and the worst-case approximation ratio is termed distortion. In the case of multiwinner voting, the goal is to select a committee of k alternatives that (approximately) minimizes the total cost to all agents. We consider the scenario where the cost of an agent for a committee is her distance from the q-th closest alternative in the committee. We reveal a surprising trichotomy on the distortion of multiwinner voting rules in terms of k and q: The distortion is unbounded when q⩽k/3, asymptotically linear in the number of agents when k/3 k/2.

Social networks on the Internet have seen an enormous growth recently and play a crucial role in different aspects of today's life. They have facilitated information dissemination in ways that have been beneficial for their users but they are often used strategically in order to spread information that only serves the objectives of particular users. These properties have inspired a revision of classical opinion formation models from sociology using game-theoretic notions and tools. We follow the same modeling approach, focusing on scenarios where the opinion expressed by each user is a compromise between her internal belief and the opinions of a small number of neighbors among her social acquaintances. We formulate simple games that capture this behavior and quantify the inefficiency of equilibria using the well-known notion of the price of anarchy. Our results indicate that compromise comes at a cost that strongly depends on the neighborhood size.

We consider the One-Sided Matching problem, where n agents have preferences over n items, and these preferences are induced by underlying cardinal valuation functions. The goal is to match every agent to a single item so as to maximize the social welfare. Most of the related literature, however, assumes that the values of the agents are not a priori known, and only access to the ordinal preferences of the agents over the items is provided. Consequently, this incomplete information leads to loss of efficiency, which is measured by the notion of distortion. In this paper, we further assume that the agents can answer a small number of queries, allowing us partial access to their values. We study the interplay between elicited cardinal information (measured by the number of queries per agent) and distortion for One-Sided Matching, as well as a wide range of well-studied related problems. Qualitatively, our results show that with a limited number of queries, it is possible to obtain significant improvements over the classic setting, where only access to ordinal information is given.

We consider the one-sided matching problem, where n agents have preferences over n items, and these preferences are induced by underlying cardinal valuation functions. The goal is to match every agent to a single item so as to maximize the social welfare. Most of the related literature, however, assumes that the values of the agents are not a priori known, and only access to the ordinal preferences of the agents over the items is provided. Consequently, this incomplete information leads to loss of efficiency, which is measured by the notion of distortion. In this paper, we further assume that the agents can answer a small number of queries, allowing us partial access to their values. We study the interplay between elicited cardinal information (measured by the number of queries per agent) and distortion for one-sided matching, as well as a wide range of well-studied related problems. Qualitatively, our results show that with a limited number of queries, it is possible to obtain significant improvements over the classic setting, where only access to ordinal information is given.

The notion of distortion in social choice problems has been defined to measure the loss in efficiency---typically measured by the utilitarian social welfare, the sum of utilities of the participating agents---due to having access only to limited information about the preferences of the agents. We survey the most significant results of the literature on distortion from the past 15 years, and highlight important open problems and the most promising avenues of ongoing and future work.

Aggregating the preferences of individuals into a collective decision is the core subject of study of social choice theory. In 2006, Procaccia and Rosenschein considered a utilitarian social choice setting, where the agents have explicit numerical values for the alternatives, yet they only report their linear orderings over them. To compare different aggregation mechanisms, Procaccia and Rosenschein introduced the notion of distortion, which quantifies the inefficiency of using only ordinal information when trying to maximize the social welfare, i.e., the sum of the underlying values of the agents for the chosen outcome. Since then, this research area has flourished and bounds on the distortion have been obtained for a wide variety of fundamental scenarios. However, the vast majority of the existing literature is focused on the case where nothing is known beyond the ordinal preferences of the agents over the alternatives. In this paper, we take a more expressive approach, and consider mechanisms that are allowed to further ask a few cardinal queries in order to gain partial access to the underlying values that the agents have for the alternatives. With this extra power, we design new deterministic mechanisms that achieve significantly improved distortion bounds and, in many cases, outperform the best-known randomized ordinal mechanisms. We paint an almost complete picture of the number of queries required by deterministic mechanisms to achieve specific distortion bounds.

Complexity of voting manipulation is a prominent topic in computational social choice. In this work, we consider a two-stage voting manipulation scenario. First, a malicious party (an attacker) attempts to manipulate the election outcome in favor of a preferred candidate by changing the vote counts in some of the voting districts. Afterwards, another party (a defender), which cares about the voters' wishes, demands a recount in a subset of the manipulated districts, restoring their vote counts to their original values. We investigate the resulting Stackelberg game for the case where votes are aggregated using two variants of the Plurality rule, and obtain an almost complete picture of the complexity landscape, both from the attacker's and from the defender's perspective.

Recent results have shown that algorithms for learning the optimal commitment in a Stackelberg game are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. These learning algorithms operate by querying the best responses of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by using fake best responses, typically by responding according to fake payoffs that are different from the actual ones. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the fake payoffs that would make the learning algorithm output a commitment that benefits them the most. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature has only focused on a simple setting where the follower can only choose from a finite set of payoff matrices, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill this gap by showing that it is always possible for the follower to efficiently compute (near-)optimal fake payoffs, for various scenarios of learning interaction between the leader and the follower. Our results also establish an interesting connection between the follower’s deception and the leader’s maximin utility: through deception, the follower can induce almost any (fake) Stackelberg equilibrium if and only if the leader obtains at least their maximin utility in this equilibrium.

Schelling’s model is an influential model that reveals how individual perceptions and incentives can lead to residential segregation. Inspired by a recent stream of work, we study welfare guarantees and complexity in this model with respect to several welfare measures. First, we show that while maximizing the social welfare is NP-hard, computing an assignment of agents to the nodes of any topology graph with approximately half of the maximum welfare can be done in polynomial time. We then consider Pareto optimality, introduce two new optimality notions based on it, and establish mostly tight bounds on the worst-case welfare loss for assignments satisfying these notions as well as the complexity of computing such assignments. In addition, we show that for tree topologies, it is possible to decide whether there exists an assignment that gives every agent a positive utility in polynomial time; moreover, when every node in the topology has degree at least 2, such an assignment always exists and can be found efficiently.

We consider the classic problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods among agents with additive valuation functions and explore the connection between two prominent fairness notions: maximum Nash welfare (MNW) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX). We establish that an MNW allocation is always EFX as long as there are at most two possible values for the goods, whereas this implication is no longer true for three or more distinct values. As a notable consequence, this proves the existence of EFX allocations for these restricted valuation functions. While the efficient computation of an MNW allocation for two possible values remains an open problem, we present a novel algorithm for directly constructing EFX allocations in this setting. Finally, we study the question of whether an MNW allocation implies any EFX guarantee for general additive valuation functions under a natural new interpretation of approximate EFX allocations.

We study a recently introduced class of strategic games that is motivated by and generalizes Schelling's well-known residential segregation model. These games are played on undirected graphs, with the set of agents partitioned into multiple types; each agent either occupies a node of the graph and never moves away or aims to maximize the fraction of her neighbors who are of her own type. We consider a variant of this model that we call swap Schelling games, where the number of agents is equal to the number of nodes of the graph, and agents may swap positions with other agents to increase their utility. We study the existence, computational complexity and quality of equilibrium assignments in these games, both from a social welfare perspective and from a diversity perspective.

The notion of distortion was introduced by Procaccia and Rosenschein (2006) to quantify the inefficiency of using only ordinal information when trying to maximize the social welfare. Since then, this research area has flourished and bounds on the distortion have been obtained for a wide variety of fundamental scenarios. However, the vast majority of the existing literature is focused on the case where nothing is known beyond the ordinal preferences of the agents over the alternatives. In this paper, we take a more expressive approach, and consider mechanisms that are allowed to further ask a few cardinal queries in order to gain partial access to the underlying values that the agents have for the alternatives. With this extra power, we design new deterministic mechanisms that achieve significantly improved distortion bounds and outperform the best-known randomized ordinal mechanisms. We draw an almost complete picture of the number of queries required to achieve specific distortion bounds.

Recent results in the ML community have revealed that learning algorithms used to compute the optimal strategy for the leader to commit to in a Stackelberg game, are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. Such a learning algorithm operates by querying the best responses or the payoffs of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by responding as if their payoffs were much different than what they actually are. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the payoffs that would make the learning algorithm compute a commitment so that best responding to it maximizes the follower's utility, according to the true payoffs. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature only focused on the simplified scenario in which the payoff space is finite, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill this gap by showing that it is always possible for the follower to efficiently compute (near-)optimal payoffs for various scenarios of learning interaction between the leader and the follower.

We consider strategic games that are inspired by Schelling's model of residential segregation. In our model, the agents are partitioned into k types and need to select locations on an undirected graph. Agents can be either stubborn, in which case they will always choose their preferred location, or strategic, in which case they aim to maximize the fraction of agents of their own type in their neighborhood. We investigate the existence of equilibria in these games, study the complexity of finding an equilibrium outcome or an outcome with high social welfare, and also provide upper and lower bounds on the price of anarchy and stability. Some of our results extend to the setting where the preferences of the agents over their neighbors are defined by a social network rather than a partition into types.

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods between groups of agents using the recently introduced relaxations of envy-freeness. We consider the existence of fair allocations under different assumptions on the valuations of the agents. In particular, our results cover cases of arbitrary monotonic, responsive, and additive valuations, while for the case of binary valuations we fully characterize the cardinalities of two groups of agents for which a fair allocation can be guaranteed with respect to both envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX). Moreover, we introduce a new model where the agents are not partitioned into groups in advance, but instead the partition can be chosen in conjunction with the allocation of the goods. In this model, we show that for agents with arbitrary monotonic valuations, there is always a partition of the agents into two groups of any given sizes along with an EF1 allocation of the goods. We also provide an extension of this result to any number of groups.

Nowadays, several crowdsourcing projects exploit social choice methods for computing an aggregate ranking of alternatives given individual rankings provided by workers. Motivated by such systems, we consider a setting where each worker is asked to rank a fixed (small) number of alternatives and, then, a positional scoring rule is used to compute the aggregate ranking. Among the apparently infinite such rules, what is the best one to use? To answer this question, we assume that we have partial access to an underlying true ranking. Then, the important optimization problem to be solved is to compute the positional scoring rule whose outcome, when applied to the profile of individual rankings, is as close as possible to the part of the underlying true ranking we know. We study this fundamental problem from a theoretical point of view and present positive and negative complexity results. Furthermore, we complement our theoretical findings with experiments on real-world and synthetic data.

In this work, we investigate the interesting impact of mobility on the problem of efficient wireless power transfer in ad hoc networks. We consider a set of mobile agents (consuming energy to perform certain sensing and communication tasks), and a single static charger (with finite energy) which can recharge the agents when they get in its range. In particular, we focus on the problem of efficiently computing the appropriate range of the charger with the goal of prolonging the network lifetime. We first demonstrate (under the realistic assumption of fixed energy supplies) the limitations of any fixed charging range and, therefore, the need for (and power of) a dynamic selection of the charging range, by adapting to the behavior of the mobile agents which is revealed in an online manner. We investigate the complexity of optimizing the selection of such an adaptive charging range, by showing that two offline optimization problems (closely related to the online one) are NP-hard. To effectively address the involved performance trade-offs, we finally present a variety of adaptive heuristics, assuming different levels of agent information regarding their mobility and energy.

We study the efficiency of mechanisms for allocating a divisible resource. Given scalar signals submitted by all users, such a mechanism decides the fraction of the resource that each user will receive and a payment that will be collected from her. Users are self-interested and aim to maximize their utility (defined as their value for the resource fraction they receive minus their payment). Starting with the seminal work of Johari and Tsitsiklis, a long list of papers studied the price of anarchy (in terms of the social welfare—the total users’ value) of resource allocation mechanisms for a variety of allocation and payment rules. Here, we further assume that each user has a budget constraint that invalidates strategies that yield a payment that is higher than the user’s budget. This subtle assumption, which is arguably more realistic, constitutes the traditional price of anarchy analysis meaningless as the set of equilibria may change drastically and their social welfare can be arbitrarily far from optimal. Instead, we study the price of anarchy using the liquid welfare benchmark that measures efficiency taking budget constraints into account. We show a tight bound of 2 on the liquid price of anarchy of the well-known Kelly mechanism and prove that this result is essentially best possible among all multiuser resource allocation mechanisms. This comes in sharp contrast to the no-budget setting where there are mechanisms that considerably outperform Kelly in terms of social welfare and even achieve full efficiency. In our proofs, we exploit the particular structure of worst-case games and equilibria, which also allows us to design (nearly) optimal two-player mechanisms by solving simple differential equations.

Nowadays, several crowdsourcing projects exploit social choice methods for computing an aggregate ranking of alternatives given individual rankings provided by workers. Motivated by such systems, we consider a setting where each worker is asked to rank a fixed (small) number of alternatives and, then, a positional scoring rule is used to compute the aggregate ranking. Among the apparently infinite such rules, what is the best one to use? To answer this question, we assume that we have partial access to an underlying true ranking. Then, the important optimization problem to be solved is to compute the positional scoring rule whose outcome, when applied to the profile of individual rankings, is as close as possible to the part of the underlying true ranking we know. We study this fundamental problem from a theoretical point of view and present positive and negative complexity results. Furthermore, we complement our theoretical findings with experiments on real-world and synthetic data.

Social networks on the Internet have seen an enormous growth recently and play a crucial role in different aspects of today's life. They have facilitated information dissemination in ways that have been beneficial for their users but it is also a common belief that they are often used strategically in order to spread information that only serves the objectives of particular users. These properties have inspired a revision of classical opinion formation models from sociology using game-theoretic notions and tools. We follow the same modeling approach, focusing on scenarios where the opinion expressed by each user is a compromise between her internal belief and the opinions of a small number of neighbors among her social acquaintances. We formulate simple games that capture this behavior and quantify the inefficiency of equilibria using the well-known notion of the price of anarchy. Our results indicate that compromise comes at a cost that strongly depends on the neighborhood size.

Our aim with co-rank is to facilitate the grading of exams or assignments in massive open online courses (MOOCs).

Ordinal peer grading has been proposed as a simple and scalable solution for computing reliable information about student performance in massive open online courses. The idea is to outsource the grading task to the students themselves as follows. After the end of an exam, each student is asked to rank --- in terms of quality --- a bundle of exam papers by fellow students. An aggregation rule will then combine the individual rankings into a global one that contains all students. We define a broad class of simple aggregation rules and present a theoretical framework for assessing their effectiveness. When statistical information about the grading behaviour of students is available, the framework can be used to compute the optimal rule from this class with respect to a series of performance objectives. For example, a natural rule known as Borda is proved to be optimal when students grade correctly. In addition, we present extensive simulations and a field experiment that validate our theory and prove it to be extremely accurate in predicting the performance of aggregation rules even when only rough information about grading behaviour is available.