We study the problem of designing procurement auctions for the strategic uncapacitated facility location problem: a company needs to procure a set of facility locations in order to serve its customers and each facility location is owned by a strategic agent. Each owner has a private cost for providing access to their facility (e.g., renting it or selling it to the company) and needs to be compensated accordingly. The goal is to design truthful auctions that decide which facilities the company should procure and how much to pay the corresponding owners, aiming to minimize the total cost, i.e., the monetary cost paid to the owners and the connection cost suffered by the customers (their distance to the nearest facility). We evaluate the performance of these auctions using the \emph{frugality ratio}. We first analyze the performance of the classic VCG auction in this context and prove that its frugality ratio is exactly $3$. We then leverage the learning-augmented framework and design auctions that are augmented with predictions regarding the owners' private costs. Specifically, we propose a family of learning-augmented auctions that achieve significant payment reductions when the predictions are accurate, leading to much better frugality ratios. At the same time, we demonstrate that these auctions remain robust even if the predictions are arbitrarily inaccurate, and maintain reasonable frugality ratios even under adversarially chosen predictions. We finally provide a family of ``error-tolerant'' auctions that maintain improved frugality ratios even if the predictions are only approximately accurate, and we provide upper bounds on their frugality ratio as a function of the prediction error.

We provide the first analysis of (deferred acceptance) clock auctions in the learning-augmented framework. These auctions satisfy a unique list of very appealing properties, including obvious strategyproofness, transparency, and unconditional winner privacy, making them particularly well-suited for real-world applications. However, early work that evaluated their performance from a worst-case analysis perspective concluded that no deterministic clock auction with n bidders can achieve a O (log1-∈ n ) approximation of the optimal social welfare for a constant ∈ > 0, even in very simple settings. This overly pessimistic impossibility result heavily depends on the assumption that the designer has no information regarding the bidders’ values. Leveraging the learning-augmented framework, we instead consider a designer equipped with some (machine-learned) advice regarding the optimal solution; this advice can provide useful guidance if accurate, but it may be unreliable.

We study the problem of finding the optimal bidding strategy for an advertiser in a multi-platform auction setting. The competition on a platform is captured by a value and a cost function, mapping bidding strategies to value and cost respectively. We assume a diminishing returns property, whereby the marginal cost is increasing in value. The advertiser uses an autobidder that selects a bidding strategy for each platform, aiming to maximize total value subject to budget and return-on-spend constraint. The advertiser has no prior information and learns about the value and cost functions by querying a platform with a specific bidding strategy. Our goal is to design algorithms that find the optimal bidding strategy with a small number of queries.

Aiming to overcome some of the limitations of worst-case analysis, the recently proposed framework of "algorithms with predictions" allows algorithms to be augmented with a (possibly erroneous) machine-learned prediction that they can use as a guide. In this framework, the goal is to obtain improved guarantees when the prediction is correct, which is called consistency, while simultaneously guaranteeing some worst-case bounds even when the prediction is arbitrarily wrong, which is called robustness. The vast majority of the work on this framework has focused on a refined analysis of online algorithms augmented with predictions regarding the future input. A subsequent line of work has also successfully adapted this framework to mechanism design, where the prediction is regarding the private information of strategic agents. In this paper, we initiate the study of online mechanism design with predictions, which combines the challenges of online algorithms with predictions and mechanism design with predictions.

In the metric distortion problem there is a set of candidates C and voters V within the same metric space. The goal is to select a candidate minimizing the social cost, defined as the sum of distances of the selected candidate from all the voters, and the challenge arises from the algorithm receiving only ordinal input --- each voter's list of candidates ranked by distance --- while the objective function is cardinal, determined by the underlying metric. The distortion of an algorithm is its worst-case approximation factor with respect to the optimal social cost.

Online navigation platforms are well optimized to solve the standard objective of minimizing travel time and typically require precomputation-based architectures (such as Contraction Hierarchies and Customizable Route Planning) to do so in a fast manner. The reason for this dependence is the size of the graph that represents the road network, which is large. The need to go beyond minimizing the travel time and introduce various types of customizations has led to approaches that rely on alternative route computation or, more generally, small subgraph extraction. On a small subgraph, one can run computationally expensive algorithms at query time and compute optimal solutions for multiple routing problems. In this framework, it is critical for the subgraph to (a) be small and (b) include (near) optimal routes for a collection of customizations. This is precisely the setting that we study in this work. We design algorithms that extract a subgraph connecting designated terminals with the objective of minimizing the subgraph's size and the constraint of including near-optimal routes for a set of predefined cost functions. We provide theoretical guarantees for our algorithms and evaluate them empirically using real-world road networks.

We study the problem of allocating indivisible items to budget-constrained agents, aiming to provide fairness and efficiency guarantees. Specifically, our goal is to ensure that the resulting allocation is envy-free up to any item (EFx) while minimizing the amount of inefficiency that this needs to introduce. We first show that there exist two-agent problem instances for which no EFx allocation is Pareto-efficient. We, therefore, turn to approximation and use the (Pareto-efficient) maximum Nash welfare allocation as a benchmark. For two-agent instances, we provide a procedure that always returns an EFx allocation while achieving the best possible approximation of the optimal Nash social welfare that EFx allocations can achieve. For the more complicated case of three-agent instances, we provide a procedure that guarantees EFx, while achieving a constant approximation of the optimal Nash social welfare for any number of items.

In their seminal paper that initiated the field of algorithmic mechanism design, \citet{NR99} studied the problem of designing strategyproof mechanisms for scheduling jobs on unrelated machines aiming to minimize the makespan. They provided a strategyproof mechanism that achieves an $n$-approximation and they made the bold conjecture that this is the best approximation achievable by any deterministic strategyproof scheduling mechanism. After more than two decades and several efforts, $n$ remains the best known approximation and very recent work by \citet{CKK21} has been able to prove an $Ω(\sqrt{n})$ approximation lower bound for all deterministic strategyproof mechanisms. This strong negative result, however, heavily depends on the fact that the performance of these mechanisms is evaluated using worst-case analysis. To overcome such overly pessimistic, and often uninformative, worst-case bounds, a surge of recent work has focused on the ``learning-augmented framework'', whose goal is to leverage machine-learned predictions to obtain improved approximations when these predictions are accurate (consistency), while also achieving near-optimal worst-case approximations even when the predictions are arbitrarily wrong (robustness). In this work, we study the classic strategic scheduling problem of~\citet{NR99} using the learning-augmented framework and give a deterministic polynomial-time strategyproof mechanism that is $6$-consistent and $2n$-robust. We thus achieve the ``best of both worlds'': an $O(1)$ consistency and an $O(n)$ robustness that asymptotically matches the best-known approximation. We then extend this result to provide more general worst-case approximation guarantees as a function of the prediction error. Finally, we complement our positive results by showing that any $1$-consistent deterministic strategyproof mechanism has unbounded robustness.

In this work we introduce an alternative model for the design and analysis of strategyproof mechanisms that is motivated by the recent surge of work in "learning-augmented algorithms". Aiming to complement the traditional approach in computer science, which analyzes the performance of algorithms based on worst-case instances, this line of work has focused on the design and analysis of algorithms that are enhanced with machine-learned predictions regarding the optimal solution. The algorithms can use the predictions as a guide to inform their decisions, and the goal is to achieve much stronger performance guarantees when these predictions are accurate (consistency), while also maintaining near-optimal worst-case guarantees, even if these predictions are very inaccurate (robustness). So far, these results have been limited to algorithms, but in this work we argue that another fertile ground for this framework is in mechanism design.

A central goal in algorithmic game theory is to analyze the performance of decentralized multiagent systems, like communication and information networks. In the absence of a central planner who can enforce how these systems are utilized, the users can strategically interact with the system, aiming to maximize their own utility, possibly leading to very inefficient outcomes, and thus a high price of anarchy. To alleviate this issue, the system designer can use decentralized mechanisms that regulate the use of each resource (e.g., using local queuing protocols or scheduling mechanisms), but with only limited information regarding the state of the system. These information limitations have a severe impact on what such decentralized mechanisms can achieve, so most of the success stories in this literature have had to make restrictive assumptions (e.g., by either restricting the structure of the networks or the types of cost functions).

We revisit the well-studied problem of budget-feasible procurement, where a buyer with a strict budget constraint seeks to acquire services from a group of strategic providers (the sellers). During the last decade, several strategyproof budget-feasible procurement auctions have been proposed, aiming to maximize the value of the buyer, while eliciting each seller's true cost for providing their service. These solutions predominantly take the form of randomized sealed-bid auctions: they ask the sellers to report their private costs and then use randomization to determine which subset of services will be procured and how much each of the chosen providers will be paid, ensuring that the total payment does not exceed the buyer's budget. Our main result in this paper is a novel method for designing budget-feasible auctions, leading to solutions that outperform the previously proposed auctions in multiple ways. First, our solutions take the form of descending clock auctions, and thus satisfy a list of very appealing properties, such as obvious strategyproofness, group strategyproofness, transparency, and unconditional winner privacy; this makes these auctions much more likely to be used in practice. Second, in contrast to previous results that heavily depend on randomization, our auctions are deterministic. As a result, we provide an affirmative answer to one of the main open questions in this literature, asking whether a deterministic strategyproof auction can achieve a constant approximation when the buyer's valuation function is submodular over the set of services. In addition to this, we also provide the first deterministic budget-feasible auction that matches the approximation bound of the best-known randomized auction for the class of subadditive valuations. Finally, using our method, we improve the best-known approximation factor for monotone submodular valuations, which has been the focus of most of the prior work.

A set of divisible resources becomes available over a sequence of rounds and needs to be allocated immediately and irrevocably. Our goal is to distribute these resources to maximize fairness and efficiency. Achieving any non-trivial guarantees in an adversarial setting is impossible. However, we show that normalizing the agent values, a very common assumption in fair division, allows us to escape this impossibility. Our main result is an online algorithm for the case of two agents that ensures the outcome is fair while guaranteeing 91.6% of the optimal social welfare. We also show that this is near-optimal: there is no fair algorithm that guarantees more than 93.3% of the optimal social welfare.