We study multi-agent contract design with combinatorial actions, under budget constraints, and for a broad class of objective functions, including profit (principal's utility), reward, and welfare. Our first result is a strong impossibility: For submodular reward functions, no randomized poly-time algorithm can approximate the optimal budget-feasible value within \textit{any finite factor}, even with demand-oracle access. This result rules out extending known constant-factor guarantees from either (i) unbudgeted settings with combinatorial actions or (ii) budgeted settings with binary actions, to their combination. The hardness is tight: It holds even when all but one agent have binary actions and the remaining agent has just one additional action. On the positive side, we show that gross substitutes rewards (a well-studied strict subclass of submodular functions) admit a deterministic poly-time $O(1)$-approximation, using only value queries. Our results thus draw the first sharp separation between budgeted and unbudgeted settings in combinatorial contracts, and identifies gross substitutes as a tractable frontier for budgeted combinatorial contracts. Finally, we present an FPTAS for additive rewards, demonstrating that arbitrary approximation is tractable under any budget. This constitutes the first FPTAS for the multi-agent combinatorial-actions setting, even in the absence of budget constraints.

In the combinatorial-action contract model (Dütting et al., FOCS’21) a principal delegates the execution of a complex project to an agent, who can choose any subset from a given set of actions. Each set of actions incurs a cost to the agent, given by a set function \(c\), and induces an expected reward to the principal, given by a set function \(f\). To incentivize the agent, the principal designs a contract that specifies the payment upon success, with the optimal contract being the one that maximizes the principal’s utility.

We introduce a novel model of contracts with combinatorial actions that captures sequential and adaptive agent behavior. As in the standard setting, a principal delegates a costly project to an agent and incentivizes them via a contract specifying payments for each possible outcome. The novelty of our model lies in allowing the agent to select actions sequentially — after each action, they observe the outcome and decide whether to stop or continue. This framework captures common scenarios in which agents can make multiple attempts to achieve a desired outcome.

We study a natural combinatorial single-principal multi-agent contract design problem, in which a principal motivates a team of agents to exert effort toward a given task. At the heart of our model is a reward function , which maps the agent efforts to an expected reward of the principal. We seek to design computationally efficient algorithms for finding optimal (or near-optimal) linear contracts for reward functions that belong to the complement-free hierarchy. Our first main result gives constant-factor approximation algorithms for submodular and XOS reward functions, with value oracles for submodular reward functions and value and demand oracles for XOS reward functions. It relies on an unconventional use of “prices” and (approximate) demand queries for selecting the set of agents that the principal should contract with, and exploits a novel scaling property of XOS functions and their marginals, which may be of independent interest. As our second main result, we show that constant approximation is the best we can get for submodular reward functions, even with both value and demand oracles. For the larger class of subadditive reward functions, we establish an \(\Omega (\sqrt {n})\) impossibility for settings with n agents. A striking feature of this impossibility is that it applies to subadditive functions that are constant-factor close to submodular. This rapid degradation presents a surprising departure from previous literature, e.g., on combinatorial auctions, where approximation guarantees tend to deteriorate more gracefully.

Abstract. We introduce a new measure for the performance of online algorithms in Bayesian settings, where the input is drawn from a known prior, but the realizations are revealed one-by-one in an online fashion. Our new measure is called an order-competitive ratio. It is defined as the worst case (over all distribution sequences) ratio between the performance of the best order-unaware and order-aware algorithms, and quantifies the loss that is incurred due to lack of knowledge of the arrival order. Despite the growing interest in the role of the arrival order on the performance of online algorithms, this loss has been overlooked thus far. We study the order-competitive ratio in the paradigmatic prophet inequality problem, for the two common objective functions of (i) maximizing the expected value, and (ii) maximizing the probability of obtaining the largest value; and with respect to two families of algorithms, namely, (i) adaptive algorithms, and (ii) single-threshold algorithms. We provide tight bounds for all four combinations, with respect to deterministic algorithms, and preliminary results for randomized algorithms. Our analysis requires new ideas and departs from standard techniques. In particular, our adaptive algorithms inevitably go beyond single-threshold algorithms. In contrast to the classic competitive ratio measure, where the optimal performance is obtained by deterministic single-threshold algorithms, our results for order-competitive ratio capture the intuition that adaptive algorithms may be more powerful than single-threshold ones, and randomized algorithms outperform deterministic ones.

We study fair mechanisms for the classic job scheduling problem on unrelated machines with the objective of minimizing the makespan. This problem is equivalent to minimizing the egalitarian social cost in the fair division of chores. The two prevalent fairness notions in the fair division literature are envy-freeness and proportionality. Prior work has established that no envy-free mechanism can provide better than an Ω(log m / log log m)-approximation to the optimal makespan, where m is the number of machines, even when payments to the machines are allowed. In strong contrast to this impossibility, our main result demonstrates that there exists a proportional mechanism (with payments) that achieves a 3/2-approximation to the optimal makespan, and this ratio is tight. To prove this result, we provide a full characterization of allocation functions that can be made proportional with payments. Furthermore, we show that for instances with normalized costs, there exists a proportional mechanism that achieves the optimal makespan. We conclude with important directions for future research concerning other fairness notions, including relaxations of envy-freeness. Notably, we show that the technique leading to the impossibility result for envy-freeness does not extend to its relaxations.

Algorithmic contract design studies scenarios where a principal incentivizes an agent to exert effort on her behalf. In this work, we focus on settings where the agent's type is drawn from an unknown distribution, and formalize an offline learning framework for learning near-optimal contracts from sample agent types. A central tool in our analysis is the notion of pseudo-dimension from statistical learning theory. Beyond its role in establishing upper bounds on the sample complexity, pseudo-dimension measures the intrinsic complexity of a class of contracts, offering a new perspective on the tradeoffs between simplicity and optimality in contract design. Our main results provide essentially optimal tradeoffs between pseudo-dimension and representation error (defined as the loss in principal's utility) with respect to linear and bounded contracts. Using these tradeoffs, we derive sample- and time-efficient learning algorithms, and demonstrate their near-optimality by providing almost matching lower bounds on the sample complexity. Conversely, for unbounded contracts, we prove an impossibility result showing that no learning algorithm exists.

We study online combinatorial allocation problems in the secretary setting, under interdependent values. In the interdependent model, introduced by Milgrom and Weber (1982), each agent possesses a private signal that captures her information about an item for sale, and the value of every agent depends on the signals held by all agents. Mauras, Mohan, and Reiffenhäuser (2024) were the first to study interdependent values in online settings, providing constant-approximation guarantees for secretary settings, where agents arrive online along with their signals and values, and the goal is to select the agent with the highest value.

The problem of computing near-optimal contracts in combinatorial settings has recently attracted significant interest in the computer science community. Previous work has provided a rich body of structural and algorithmic insights into this problem. However, most of these results rely on the assumption that the principal has an unlimited budget for incentivizing agents, an assumption that is often unrealistic in practice. This motivates the study of the optimal contract problem under budget constraints.

Combinatorial contracts are emerging as a key paradigm in algorithmic contract design, paralleling the role of combinatorial auctions in algorithmic mechanism design. In this paper we study natural combinatorial contract settings involving teams of agents, each capable of performing multiple actions. This scenario extends two fundamental special cases: the single-agent combinatorial action model of [18], and the multi-agent binary- action model of [4, 19].

Abstract. We introduce a new model of combinatorial contracts in which a principal delegates the execution of a costly task to an agent. To complete the task, the agent can take any subset of a given set of unobservable actions, each of which has an associated cost. The cost of a set of actions is the sum of the costs of the individual actions, and the principal’s reward as a function of the chosen actions satisfies some form of diminishing returns. The principal incentivizes the agents through a contract based on the observed outcome. Our main results are for the case where the task delegated to the agent is a project, which can be successful or not. We show that if the success probability as a function of the set of actions is gross substitutes, then an optimal contract can be computed with polynomially many value queries, whereas if it is submodular, the optimal contract is NP-hard. All our results extend to linear contracts for higher-dimensional outcome spaces, which we show to be robustly optimal given first moment constraints. Our analysis uncovers a new property of gross substitutes functions and reveals many interesting connections between combinatorial contracts and combinatorial auctions, where gross substitutes is known to be the frontier for efficient computation.

Pandora’s problem is a fundamental model that studies optimal search under costly inspection. In the classic version, there are n boxes, each associated with a known cost and a known distribution over values. A strategy inspects the boxes sequentially and obtains a utility that equals the difference between the maximum value of an inspected box and the total inspection cost. Weitzman (1979) presented a surprisingly simple strategy that obtains the optimal expected utility. In this work we introduce a new variant of Pandora’s problem in which every box is also associated with a publicly known deadline, indicating the final round by which its value may be chosen. This model captures many real-life scenarios where alternatives admit deadlines, such as candidate interviews and college admissions. Our main result is an efficient threshold-based strategy that achieves a constant approximation relative to the performance of the optimal strategy for the deadlines setting.

A major problem in fair division is how to allocate a set of indivisible resources among agents fairly and efficiently. The goal of this work is to characterize the tradeoffs between two well-studied measures of fairness and efficiency --- envy freeness up to any item (EFX) for fairness, and Nash welfare for efficiency --- by saying, for given constants α and β, whether there exists an α-EFX allocation that guarantees a β-fraction of the maximum Nash welfare (β-MNW). For additive valuations, we show that for any α ∈ [0,1], there exists a partial allocation that is α-EFX and 1/(α+1)-MNW. This tradeoff turns out to be tight (for every α) as demonstrated by an impossibility result that we give. We also show that for α ∈ [0, φ-1 ≃ 0.618] these partial allocations can be turned into complete allocations where all items are assigned. Furthermore, for any α ∈ [0, 1/2], we show that the tight tradeoff of α-EFX and 1/(α+1)-MNW with complete allocations holds for the more general setting of subadditive valuations. Our results improve upon the current state of the art, for both additive and subadditive valuations, and match the best-known approximations of EFX under complete allocations, regardless of Nash welfare guarantees. Notably, our constructions for additive valuations also provide EF1 and constant approximations for maximin share guarantees.

We study two combinatorial contract design models -- multi-agent and multi-action -- where a principal delegates the execution of a costly project to others. In both settings, the principal cannot observe the choices of the agent(s), only the project's outcome (success or failure), and incentivizes the agent(s) using a contract, which is a payment scheme that specifies the payment to the agent(s) upon a project's success. In the multi-agent setting, the project is delegated to a team of agents, and every agent chooses whether or not to exert effort. A success probability function specifies the probability of success for every subset of agents exerting effort. For the family of submodular success probability functions, Duetting et al. [2023] established a poly-time constant-factor approximation to the optimal contract, and left open whether this problem admits a PTAS. We show that no poly-time algorithm guarantees a better than $0.7$-approximation to the optimal contract. For XOS functions, Duetting et al. [2023] give a poly-time constant approximation with value and demand queries. We show that with value queries only, one cannot get any constant approximation. In the multi-action setting, the project is delegated to a single agent, who can take any subset of a given set of actions. Here, a success probability function specifies the probability of success for any subset of actions. Duetting et al. [2021a] devised a poly-time algorithm for computing an optimal contract for gross substitutes success probability functions, and established NP-hardness with respect to submodular functions. We further strengthen this hardness result by showing that this problem does not admit any constant approximation either. For the broader class of XOS functions, we establish the hardness of obtaining a $n^{-1/2+\varepsilon}$-approximation for any $\varepsilon > 0$.

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.

We study the classic single-choice prophet inequality problem through a resource augmentation lens. Our goal is to bound the (1 - ε)-competition complexity of different types of online algorithms. This metric asks for the smallest k such that the expected value of the online algorithm on k copies of the original instance, is at least a (1 - ε)-approximation to the expected offline optimum on a single copy.

We study auction design within the widely acclaimed model of interdependent values, introduced by Milgrom and Weber [1982]. In this model, every bidder i has a private signal si for the item for sale, and a public valuation function υi (s1, ..., sn) which maps every vector of private signals (of all bidders) into a real value. A recent line of work established the existence of approximately-optimal mechanisms within this framework, even in the more challenging scenario where each bidder's valuation function υi is also private. This body of work has primarily focused on single-item auctions with two natural classes of valuations: those exhibiting submodularity over signals (SOS) and d-critical valuations.

In Bayesian online settings, every element is associated with a value drawn from a known underlying distribution. This distribution, representing the population from which the element is drawn, is referred to as the element's identity. The elements arrive sequentially, with their values being revealed in an online manner. Most previous work has assumed that, upon the arrival of a new element, the online algorithm observes its value and its identity. However, practical scenarios frequently require algorithms to make decisions based solely on the element's value, disregarding its identity. This necessity emerges either from the algorithm's lack of knowledge about the element's identity or in the pursuit of fairness, aiming for bias-free decisions across varying identities. We call such algorithms identity-blind algorithms, and propose the identity-blindness gap as a metric to evaluate the performance loss in online algorithms caused by identity-blindness. This gap is defined as the maximum ratio between the expected performance of an identity-blind online algorithm and an optimal online algorithm that knows the arrival order, thus also the identities.

We study best-of-both-worlds guarantees for the fair division of indivisible items among agents with subadditive valuations. Our main result establishes the existence of a random allocation that is simultaneously ex-ante 1/2-envy-free, ex-post 1/2-EFX and ex-post EF1, for every instance with subadditive valuations. We achieve this result by a novel polynomial-time algorithm that randomizes the well-established envy cycles procedure in a way that provides ex-ante fairness. Notably, this is the first best-of-both-worlds fairness guarantee for subadditive valuations, even when considering only EF1 without EFX.

We study the combinatorial contracting problem of Dütting et al. [13], in which a principal seeks to incentivize an agent to take a set of costly actions. In their model, there is a binary outcome (the agent can succeed or fail), and the success probability and the costs depend on the set of actions taken. The optimal contract is linear, paying the agent an α fraction of the reward. For gross substitutes (GS) rewards and additive costs, they give a poly-time algorithm for finding the optimal contract. They use the properties of GS functions to argue that there are poly-many “critical values” of α, and that one can iterate through all of them efficiently in order to find the optimal contract.

We consider the problem of fair division, where a set of indivisible goods should be distributed fairly among a set of agents with combinatorial valuations. To capture fairness, we adopt the notion of shares, where each agent is entitled to a fair share, based on some fairness criterion, and an allocation is considered fair if the value of every agent (weakly) exceeds her fair share. A share-based notion is considered universally feasible if it admits a fair allocation for every profile of monotone valuations. A major question arises: is there a non-trivial share-based notion that is universally feasible? The most well-known share-based notions, namely the proportional share and the maximin share, are not universally feasible, nor are any constant approximations of them.

Algorithmic contract design is a new frontier at the interface of economics and computation, studying scenarios where a principal delegates the execution of a costly project to an agent or a team of agents, and incentivizes them through a contract that specifies payments contingent on the project's success. This domain has gained increasing interest from the theoretical computer science community, particularly in the realm of combinatorial contracts. In this talk, I will survey two distinct models of combinatorial contracts, each illustrating unique sources of complexity encountered in contract design. The first model allows an agent to select from a set of possible actions, examining the intricate dependencies among these actions. The second model involves motivating a team of agents, focusing on the interdependencies within various agent combinations. I will present both (approximation) algorithms and hardness results concerning the optimal contract problem in these settings. The talk is based on joint work with Paul Duetting, Tomer Ezra, Yoav Gal-Tzur, Thomas Kesselheim and Maya Schlesinger.

Abstract We study truthful mechanisms for welfare maximization in online bipartite matching. In our (multi-parameter) setting, every buyer is associated with a (possibly private) desired set of items, and has a private value for being assigned an item in her desired set. Unlike most online matching settings, where agents arrive online, in our setting the items arrive one by one in an adversarial order while the buyers are present for the entire duration of the process. This poses a significant challenge to the design of truthful mechanisms, due to the ability of buyers to strategize over future rounds. We provide an almost full picture of the competitive ratios in different scenarios, including myopic vs. non-myopic agents, tardy vs. prompt payments, and private vs. public desired sets. Among other results, we identify the frontier up to which the celebrated $$e/(e-1)$$ e / ( e - 1 ) competitive ratio for the vertex-weighted online matching of Karp, Vazirani and Vazirani extends to truthful agents and online items.

The celebrated model of auctions with interdependent valuations, introduced by Milgrom and Weber in 1982, has been studied almost exclusively under private signals $s_{1}, \ldots, s_{n}$ of the n bidders and public valuation functions $v_{i}\left(s_{1}, \ldots, s_{n}\right)$. Recent work in TCS has shown that this setting admits a constant approximation to the optimal social welfare if the valuations satisfy a natural property called submodularity over signals (SOS). More recently, Eden et al. (2022) have extended the analysis of interdependent valuations to include settings with private signals and private valuations, and established $O\left(\log ^{2} n\right)$-approximation for SOS valuations. In this paper we show that this setting admits a constant factor approximation, settling the open question raised by Eden et al. (2022).

We study truthful mechanisms for welfare maximization in online bipartite matching. In our (multiparameter) setting, every buyer is associated with a (possibly private) desired set of items, and has a private value for being assigned an item in her desired set. Unlike most online matching settings, where agents arrive online, in our setting the items arrive online in an adversarial order while the buyers are present for the entire duration of the process. This poses a significant challenge to the design of truthful mechanisms, due to the ability of buyers to strategize over future rounds. We provide an almost full picture of the competitive ratios in different scenarios, including myopic vs. non-myopic agents, tardy vs. prompt payments, and private vs. public desired sets. Among other results, we identify the frontier up to which the celebrated e/(e − 1) competitive ratio for the vertex-weighted online matching of Karp, Vazirani and Vazirani extends to truthful agents and online items.

Pandora's problem is a fundamental model in economics that studies optimal search strategies under costly inspection. In this paper we initiate the study of Pandora's problem with combinatorial costs, capturing many real-life scenarios where search cost is non-additive. Weitzman's celebrated algorithm [1979] establishes the remarkable result that, for additive costs, the optimal search strategy is non-adaptive and computationally feasible.

In this paper we introduce a model of ambiguous contracts, capturing many real-life scenarios where agents engage in contractual relations that leave some degree of uncertainty. In this paper we introduce a model of ambiguous contracts, capturing many real-life scenarios where agents engage in contractual relations that leave some degree of uncertainty. Our starting point is the celebrated hidden-action model and the classic notion of a contract, where the principal commits to an outcome-contingent payment scheme for incentivizing an agent to take a costly action.

In the interdependent values (IDV) model introduced by Milgrom and Weber [1982], agents have private signals that capture their information about different social alternatives, and the valuation of every agent is a function of all agent signals. While interdependence has been mainly studied for auctions, it is extremely relevant for a large variety of social choice settings, including the canonical and practically important setting of public projects. The IDV model is much more realistic but also very challenging relative to the standard independent private values model. Welfare guarantees for IDV have been achieved mainly through two alternative conditions known as single-crossing and submodularity over signals (SOS). In either case, the existing theory falls short of solving the public projects setting. Our contribution is twofold: (i) We give a useful characterization of truthfulness for IDV public projects, parallel to the known characterization for independent private values, and identify the domain frontier for which this characterization applies; (ii) Using this characterization, we provide possibility and impossibility results for welfare approximation in public projects with SOS valuations. Our main impossibility result is that, in contrast to auctions, no universally truthful mechanism performs better for public projects with SOS valuations than choosing a project at random. Our main positive result applies to excludable public projects with SOS, for which we establish a constant factor approximation similar to auctions. Our results suggest that exclusion may be a key tool for achieving welfare guarantees in the IDV model. * The full version of the paper can be accessed at https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08044. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 866132), by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF grant nos. 317/17 and 336/18), by an Amazon Research Award, and by the NSF-BSF (grant no. 2020788).

We introduce a new measure for the performance of online algorithms in Bayesian settings, where the input is drawn from a known prior, but the realizations are revealed one-by-one in an online fashion. Our new measure is called order-competitive ratio. It is defined as the worst case (over all distribution sequences) ratio between the performance of the best order-unaware and order-aware algorithms, and quantifies the loss that is incurred due to lack of knowledge of the arrival order. Despite the growing interest in the role of the arrival order on the performance of online algorithms, this loss has been overlooked thus far. We study the order-competitive ratio in the paradigmatic prophet inequality problem, for the two common objective functions of (i) maximizing the expected value, and (ii) maximizing the probability of obtaining the largest value; and with respect to two families of algorithms, namely (i) adaptive algorithms, and (ii) single-threshold algorithms. We provide tight bounds for all four combinations, with respect to deterministic algorithms. Our analysis requires new ideas and departs from standard techniques. In particular, our adaptive algorithms inevitably go beyond single-threshold algorithms. The results with respect to the order-competitive ratio measure capture the intuition that adaptive algorithms are stronger than single-threshold ones, and may lead to a better algorithmic advice than the classical competitive ratio measure. * This work is supported by Science and Technology Innovation 2030 –“New Generation of Artificial Intelligence” Major Project No.(2018AAA0100903), Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, Program for Innovative Research Team of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (IRTSHUFE) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 866132), by the Israel Science Foundation (grant number 317/17), by an Amazon Research Award, and by the NSF-BSF (grant number 2020788). Tomer Ezra was partially supported by the ERC Advanced Grant 788893 AMDROMA “Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” and MIUR PRIN project ALGADIMAR “Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets”. Zhihao Gavin Tang is supported by NSFC grant 61902233. Nick Gravin is supported by NSFC grant 62150610500.

We study a natural combinatorial single-principal multi-agent contract design problem, in which a principal motivates a team of agents to exert effort toward a given task. At the heart of our model is a reward function, which maps the agent efforts to an expected reward of the principal. We seek to design computationally efficient algorithms for finding optimal (or near-optimal) linear contracts for reward functions that belong to the complement-free hierarchy.

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.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010391.].

The existence of EFX allocations of goods is a major open problem in fair division, even for additive valuations. The current state of the art is that no setting where EFX allocations are impossible is known, and yet, existence results are known only for very restricted settings, such as: (i) agents with identical valuations, (ii) 2 agents, and (iii) 3 agents with additive valuations. It is also known that EFX exists if one can leave n-1 items unallocated, where n is the number of agents. We develop new techniques that allow us to push the boundaries of the enigmatic EFX problem beyond these known results, and (arguably) to simplify proofs of earlier results. Our main result is that every setting with 4 additive agents admits an EFX allocation that leaves at most a single item unallocated. Beyond our main result, we introduce a new class of valuations, termed nice cancelable, which includes additive, unit-demand, budget-additive and multiplicative valuations, among others. Using our new techniques, we show that both our results and previous results for additive valuations extend to nice cancelable valuations.

Walrasian equilibrium is a prominent market equilibrium notion, but rarely exists in markets with indivisible items. We introduce a new market equilibrium notion, called two-price equilibrium (2PE). A 2PE is a relaxation of Walrasian equilibrium, where instead of a single price per item, every item has two prices: one for the item's owner and a (possibly) higher one for all other buyers. Thus, a 2PE is given by a tuple (S,p_high,p_low) of an allocation S and two price vectors p_high,p_low, where every buyer i is maximally happy with her bundle S_i, given prices p_low for items in S_i and prices p_high for all other items. 2PE generalizes previous market equilibrium notions, such as conditional equilibrium, and is related to relaxed equilibrium notions like endowment equilibrium. We define the discrepancy of a 2PE --- a measure of distance from Walrasian equilibrium --- as the sum of differences p_high_j-p_low_j over all items (normalized by social welfare). We show that the social welfare degrades gracefully with the discrepancy; namely, the social welfare of a 2PE with discrepancy d is at least a fraction 1/d+1 of the optimal welfare. We use this to establish welfare guarantees for markets with subadditive valuations over identical items. In particular, we show that every such market admits a 2PE with at least 1/7 of the optimal welfare. This is in contrast to Walrasian equilibrium or conditional equilibrium which may not even exist. Our techniques provide new insights regarding valuation functions over identical items, which we also use to characterize instances that admit a WE.

Online algorithms for secretary matching in bipartite weighted graphs have been studied extensively in recent years. We generalize this study to secretary matching in general weighted graphs, for both vertex and edge arrival models.

In a single-parameter mechanism design problem, a provider is looking to sell some service to a group of potential buyers. Each buyer i has a private value vi for receiving this service, and some feasibility constraint restricts which subsets of buyers can be served simultaneously. Recent work in economics introduced (deferred-acceptance) clock auctions as a superior class of auctions for this problem, due to their transparency, simplicity, and very strong incentive guarantees. Subsequent work in computer science focused on evaluating these auctions with respect to their social welfare approximation guarantees, leading to strong impossibility results: in the absence of prior information regarding the buyers' values, no deterministic clock auction can achieve a bounded approximation, even for simple feasibility constraints with only two maximal feasible sets.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that the process of global vaccination against a novel virus can be a prolonged one. Social distancing measures, that are initially adopted to control the pandemic, are gradually relaxed as vaccination progresses and population immunity increases. The result is a prolonged period of high disease prevalence combined with a fitness advantage for vaccine-resistant variants, which together lead to a considerably increased probability for vaccine escape. A spatial vaccination strategy is proposed that has the potential to dramatically reduce this risk. Rather than dispersing the vaccination effort evenly throughout a country, distinct geographic regions of the country are sequentially vaccinated, quickly bringing each to effective herd immunity. Regions with high vaccination rates will then have low infection rates and vice versa. Since people primarily interact within their own region, spatial vaccination reduces the number of encounters between infected individuals (the source of mutations) and vaccinated individuals (who facilitate the spread of vaccine-resistant strains). Thus, spatial vaccination may help mitigate the global risk of vaccine-resistant variants.

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 expand the literature on the price of anarchy (PoA) of simultaneous item auctions by considering settings with correlated values; we do this via the fundamental economic model of interdependent values (IDV). It is well-known that in multi-item settings with private values, correlated values can lead to bad PoA, which can be polynomially large in the number of agents~n. In the more general model of IDV, we show that the PoA can be polynomially large even in single-item settings. On the positive side, we identify a natural condition on information dispersion in the market, which enables good PoA guarantees. Under this condition, we show that for single-item settings, the PoA of standard mechanisms degrades gracefully. For settings with multiple items we show a separation between two domains: If there are more buyers, we devise a new simultaneous item auction with good PoA, under limited information asymmetry. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first positive PoA result for correlated values in multi-item settings. The main technical difficulty in establishing this result is that the standard tool for establishing PoA results --- the smoothness framework --- is unsuitable for IDV settings, and so we must introduce new techniques to address the unique challenges imposed by such settings. In the domain of more items, we establish impossibility results even for surprisingly simple scenarios.

We introduce a new model of combinatorial contracts in which a principal delegates the execution of a costly task to an agent. To complete the task, the agent can take any subset of a given set of unobservable actions, each of which has an associated cost. The cost of a set of actions is the sum of the costs of the individual actions, and the principal's reward as a function of the chosen actions satisfies some form of diminishing returns. The principal incentivizes the agents through a contract, based on the observed outcome. Our main results are for the case where the task delegated to the agent is a project, which can be successful or not. We show that if the success probability as a function of the set of actions is gross substitutes, then an optimal contract can be computed with polynomially many value queries, whereas if it is submodular, the optimal contract is NP-hard. All our results extend to linear contracts for higher-dimensional outcome spaces, which we show to be robustly optimal given first moment constraints. Our analysis uncovers a new property of gross substitutes functions, and reveals many interesting connections between combinatorial contracts and combinatorial auctions, where gross substitutes is known to be the frontier for efficient computation.

We study the secretary problem in multi-agent environments. In the standard secretary problem, a sequence of arbitrary awards arrive online, in a random order, and a single decision maker makes an immediate and irrevocable decision whether to accept each award upon its arrival. The requirement to make immediate decisions arises in many cases due to an implicit assumption regarding competition. Namely, if the decision maker does not take the offered award immediately, it will be taken by someone else. We introduce a novel multi-agent secretary model, in which the competition is explicit. In our model, multiple agents compete over the arriving awards, but the decisions need not be immediate; instead, agents may select previous awards as long as they are available (i.e., not taken by another agent). If an award is selected by multiple agents, ties are broken either randomly or according to a global ranking. This induces a multi-agent game in which the time of selection is not enforced by the rules of the games, rather it is an important component of the agent's strategy. We study the structure and performance of equilibria in this game. For random tie breaking, we characterize the equilibria of the game, and show that the expected social welfare in equilibrium is nearly optimal, despite competition among the agents. For ranked tie breaking, we give a full characterization of equilibria in the 3-agent game, and show that as the number of agents grows, the winning probability of every agent under non-immediate selections approaches her winning probability under immediate selections.

The class of gross substitutes (GS) set functions plays a central role in Economics and Computer Science. GS belongs to the hierarchy of complement free valuations introduced by Lehmann, Lehmann and Nisan, along with other prominent classes: GS ⊊ Submodular ⊊ XOS ⊊ Subadditive$. The GS class has always been more enigmatic than its counterpart classes, both in its definition and in its relation to the other classes. For example, while it is well understood how closely the Submodular, XOS and Subadditive classes (point-wise) approximate one another, approximability of these classes by GS remained wide open. In particular, the largest gap known between Submodular and GS valuations was some constant ratio smaller than 2. Our main result is the existence of a submodular valuation (one that is also budget additive) that cannot be approximated by GS within a ratio better than $Ømega(łog m/łogłog m), where m is the number of items. En route, we uncover a new symmetrization operation that preserves GS, which may be of independent interest. We show that our main result is tight with respect to budget additive valuations. However, whether GS approximates general submodular valuations within a poly-logarithmic factor remains open, even in the special case of concave of GS valuations (a subclass of Submodular containing budget additive). For concave of Rado valuations (Rado is a significant subclass of GS, containing, e.g., weighted matroid rank functions and OXS), we show approximability by GS within an O(łog2m) factor.

We consider a robust version of the revenue maximization problem, where a single seller wishes to sell n items to a single unit-demand buyer. In this robust version, the seller knows the buyer's marginal value distribution for each item separately, but not the joint distribution, and prices the items to maximize revenue in the worst case over all compatible correlation structures. We devise a computationally efficient (polynomial in the support size of the marginals) algorithm that computes the worst-case joint distribution for any choice of item prices. And yet, in sharp contrast to the additive buyer case [Carroll, 2017], we show that it is NP-hard to approximate the optimal choice of prices to within any factor better than n1/2-ε. For the special case of marginal distributions that satisfy the monotone hazard rate property, we show how to guarantee a constant fraction of the optimal worst-case revenue using item pricing; this pricing equates revenue across all possible correlations and can be computed efficiently.

The endowment effect , coined by Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler, posits that people tend to inflate the value of items they own. Recently, Babaioff, Dobzinski and Oren [EC'18] introduced the notion of endowed valuations --- valuations that capture the endowment effect --- and studied the stability and efficiency of combinatorial markets with endowed valuations. They showed that under a specific formulation of the endowment effect, an endowed equilibrium --- market equilibrium with respect to endowed valuations --- is guaranteed to exist in markets with submodular valuations, but fails to exist under XOS valuations. We harness the endowment effect further by introducing a general framework that captures a wide range of different formulations of the endowment effect. The different formulations are (partially) ranked from weak to strong, based on a stability-preserving order. We then provide algorithms for computing endowment equilibria with high welfare for sufficiently strong endowment effects, and non-existence results for weaker ones. Among other results, we prove the existence of endowment equilibria under XOS valuations, and show that if one can pre-pack items into irrevocable bundles then an endowment equilibrium exists for arbitrary markets.

We provide prophet inequality algorithms for online weighted matching in general (non-bipartite) graphs, under two well-studied arrival models, namely edge arrival and vertex arrival. The weight of each edge is drawn independently from an a-priori known probability distribution. Under edge arrival, the weight of each edge is revealed upon arrival, and the algorithm decides whether to include it in the matching or not. Under vertex arrival, the weights of all edges from the newly arriving vertex to all previously arrived vertices are revealed, and the algorithm decides which of these edges, if any, to include in the matching. To study these settings, we introduce a novel unified framework of batched prophet inequalities that captures online settings where elements arrive in batches; in particular it captures matching under the two aforementioned arrival models. Our algorithms rely on the construction of suitable online contention resolution schemes (OCRS). We first extend the framework of OCRS to batched-OCRS, we then establish a reduction from batched prophet inequality to batched OCRS, and finally we construct batched OCRSs with selectable ratios of 0.337 and 0.5 for edge and vertex arrival models, respectively. Both results improve the state of the art for the corresponding settings. For vertex arrival, our result is tight. Interestingly, pricing-based prophet inequalities with comparable competitive ratios are unknown.

Set functions with convenient properties (such as submodularity) appear in application areas of current interest, such as algorithmic game theory, and allow for improved optimization algorithms. It is natural to ask (e.g., in the context of data driven optimization) how robust such properties are, and whether small deviations from them can be tolerated. We consider two such questions in the important special case of linear set functions. One question that we address is whether any set function that approximately satisfies the modularity equation (linear functions satisfy the modularity equation exactly) is close to a linear function. The answer to this is positive (in a precise formal sense) as shown by Kalton and Roberts [ Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 278 (1983), pp. 803--816] (and further improved by Bondarenko, Prymak, and Radchenko [ J. Math. Anal. Appl., 402 (2013), pp. 234--241]). We revisit their proof idea that is based on expander graphs and provide significantly stronger upper bounds by combining it with new techniques. Furthermore, we provide improved lower bounds for this problem. Another question that we address is that of how to learn a linear function $h$ that is close to an approximately linear function $f$, while querying the value of $f$ on only a small number of sets. We present a deterministic algorithm that makes only linearly many (in the number of items) nonadaptive queries, and thus improve upon a previous algorithm of Chierichetti, Das, Dasgupta, and Kumar [ Proceedings of the 56th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2015, pp. 1143--1162] that is randomized and makes more than a quadratic number of queries. Our learning algorithm is based on the Hadamard transform.

We study the communication complexity of welfare maximization in combinatorial auctions with m items and two players with subadditive valuations. We show that outperforming the trivial 1/2-approximation requires exponential communication, settling an open problem of Dobzinski, Nisan and Schapira [STOC’05, MOR’10] and Feige [STOC’06, SICOMP ’09]. To derive our results, we introduce a new class of subadditive functions that are “far from” fractionally subadditive (XOS) functions, and establish randomized communication lower bounds for a new “near-EQUALITY” problem, both of which may be of independent interest.

We give a prompt online mechanism for minimizing the sum of [weighted] completion times. This is the first prompt online algorithm for the problem. When such jobs are strategic agents, delaying scheduling decisions makes little sense. Moreover, the mechanism has a particularly simple form of an anonymous menu of options.

We consider a setting where an auctioneer sells a single item to n potential agents with interdependent values. That is, each agent has her own private signal, and the valuation of each agent is a known function of all n private signals. This captures settings such as valuations for oil drilling rights, broadcast rights, pieces of art, and many more.

The prophet and secretary problems demonstrate online scenarios involving the optimal stopping theory. In a typical prophet or secretary problem, selection decisions are assumed to be immediate and irrevocable. However, many online settings accommodate some degree of revocability. To study such scenarios, we introduce the l-out-of- k setting, where the decision maker can select up to k elements immediately and irrevocably, but her performance is measured by the top l elements in the selected set. Equivalently, the decision makes can hold up to l elements at any given point in time, but can make up to k-l returns as new elements arrive. We give upper and lower bounds on the competitive ratio of l-out-of- k prophet and secretary scenarios. For l-out-of- k prophet scenarios we provide a single-sample algorithm with competitive ratio 1-l· e-Θ((k-l)2/k) . The algorithm is a single-threshold algorithm, which sets a threshold that equals the (l+k/2)th highest sample, and accepts all values exceeding this threshold, up to reaching capacity k . On the other hand, we show that this result is tight if the number of possible returns is linear in l (i.e., k-l =Θ(l)). In particular, we show that no single-sample algorithm obtains a competitive ratio better than 1 - 2-(2k+1)/k+1 . We also present a deterministic single-threshold algorithm for the 1-out-of- k prophet setting which obtains a competitive ratio of 1-3/2 · e-s/k 6, knowing only the distribution of the maximum value. This result improves the result of [Assaf & Samuel-Cahn, J. of App. Prob., 2000].

A sequence of recent studies show that even in the simple setting of a single seller and a single buyer with additive, independent valuations over m items, the revenue-maximizing mechanism is prohibitively complex. This problem has been addressed using two main approaches: Approximation: the best of two simple mechanisms (sell each item separately, or sell all the items as one bundle) gives 1/6 of the optimal revenue [1]. Enhanced competition: running the simple VCG mechanism with additional m buyers extracts at least the optimal revenue in the original market [17]. Both approaches, however, suffer from severe drawbacks: On the one hand, losing 83% of the revenue is hardly acceptable in any application. On the other hand, attracting a linear number of new buyers may be prohibitive. We show that by combining the two approaches one can achieve the best of both worlds. Specifically, for any constant ε one can obtain a (1-ε) fraction of the optimal revenue by running simple mechanisms --- either selling each item separately or selling all items as a single bundle --- with substantially fewer additional buyers: logarithmic, constant, or even none in some cases.

We present a general framework for stochastic online maximization problems with combinatorial feasibility constraints. The framework establishes prophet inequalities by constructing price-based online approximation algorithms, a natural extension of threshold algorithms for settings beyond binary selection. Our analysis takes the form of an extension theorem: we derive sufficient conditions on prices when all weights are known in advance, then prove that the resulting approximation guarantees extend directly to stochastic settings. Our framework unifies and simplifies much of the existing literature on prophet inequalities and posted price mechanisms and is used to derive new and improved results for combinatorial markets (with and without complements), multidimensional matroids, and sparse packing problems. Finally, we highlight a surprising connection between the smoothness framework for bounding the price of anarchy of mechanisms and our framework, and show that many smooth mechanisms can be recast as posted price mechanisms with comparable performance guarantees.

We define and study a new variant of the secretary problem. Whereas in the classic setting multiple secretaries compete for a single position, we study the case where the secretaries arrive one at a time and are assigned, in an on-line fashion, to one of multiple positions. Secretaries are ranked according to talent, as in the original formulation, and in addition positions are ranked according to attractiveness. To evaluate an online matching mechanism, we use the notion of blocking pairs from stable matching theory: our goal is to maximize the number of positions (or secretaries) that do not take part in a blocking pair. This is compared with a stable matching in which no blocking pair exists. We consider the case where secretaries arrive randomly, as well as that of an adversarial arrival order, and provide corresponding upper and lower bounds.

Recent literature on approximately optimal revenue maximization has shown that in settings where agent valuations for items are complement free, the better of selling the items separately and bundling them together guarantees a constant fraction of the optimal revenue. However, most real-world settings involve some degree of complementarity among items. The role that complementarity plays in the trade-off of simplicity versus optimality has been an obvious missing piece of the puzzle. In “A Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for a Buyer with Complements,” the authors show that the same simple selling mechanism—the better of selling separately and as a grand bundle—guarantees a $\Theta(d)$ fraction of the optimal revenue, where $d$ is a measure of the degree of complementarity. One key modeling contribution is a tractable notion of “degree of complementarity” that admits meaningful results and insights—they demonstrate that previous definitions fall short in this regard.

A seminal result of Bulow and Klemperer [1989] demonstrates the power of competition for extracting revenue: when selling a single item to n bidders whose values are drawn i.i.d. from a regular distribution, the simple welfare-maximizing VCG mechanism (in this case, a second price-auction) with one additional bidder extracts at least as much revenue in expectation as the optimal mechanism. The beauty of this theorem stems from the fact that VCG is a prior-independent mechanism, where the seller possesses no information about the distribution, and yet, by recruiting one additional bidder it performs better than any prior-dependent mechanism tailored exactly to the distribution at hand (without the additional bidder).

We consider job scheduling settings, with multiple machines, where jobs arrive online and choose a machine selfishly so as to minimize their cost. Our objective is the classic makespan minimization objective, which corresponds to the completion time of the last job to complete. The incentives of the selfish jobs may lead to poor performance. To reconcile the differing objectives, we introduce posted machine prices. The selfish job seeks to minimize the sum of its completion time on the machine and the posted price for the machine. Prices may be static (i.e., set once and for all before any arrival) or dynamic (i.e., change over time), but they are determined only by the past, assuming nothing about upcoming events. Obviously, such schemes are inherently truthful.

Set functions with convenient properties (such as submodularity) appear in application areas of current interest, such as algorithmic game theory, and allow for improved optimization algorithms. It is natural to ask (e.g., in the context of data driven optimization) how robust such properties are, and whether small deviations from them can be tolerated. We consider two such questions in the important special case of linear set functions.

In this paper we expand the standard Hotelling-Downs model of spatial competition to a setting where clients do not necessarily choose their closest candidate (retail product or political). Specifically, we consider a setting where clients may disavow all candidates if there is no candidate that is sufficiently close to the client preferences. Moreover, if there are multiple candidates that are sufficiently close, the client may choose amongst them at random. We show the existence of Nash Equilibria for some such models, and study the price of anarchy and stability in such scenarios.

The following paradigm is often used for handling NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems. One first formulates the problem as an integer program, then one relaxes it to a linear program (LP, or more generally, a convex program), then one solves the LP relaxation in polynomial time, and finally one rounds the optimal LP solution, obtaining a feasible solution to the original problem. Many of the commonly used rounding schemes (such as randomized rounding, threshold rounding and others) are "oblivious" in the sense that the rounding is performed based on the LP solution alone, disregarding the objective function. The goal of our work is to better understand in which cases oblivious rounding suffices in order to obtain approximation ratios that match the integrality gap of the underlying LP. Our study is information theoretic - the rounding is restricted to be oblivious but not restricted to run in polynomial time. In this information theoretic setting we characterize the approximation ratio achievable by oblivious rounding. It turns out to equal the integrality gap of the underlying LP on a problem that is the closure of the original combinatorial optimization problem. We apply our findings to the study of the approximation ratios obtainable by oblivious rounding for the maximum welfare problem, showing that when valuation functions are submodular oblivious rounding can match the integrality gap of the configuration LP (though we do not know what this integrality gap is), but when valuation functions are gross substitutes oblivious rounding cannot match the integrality gap (which is 1).

We consider a seller with an unlimited supply of a single good, who is faced with a stream of $T$ buyers. Each buyer has a window of time in which she would like to purchase, and would buy at the lowest price in that window, provided that this price is lower than her private value (and otherwise, would not buy at all). In this setting, we give an algorithm that attains $O(T^{2/3})$ regret over any sequence of $T$ buyers with respect to the best fixed price in hindsight, and prove that no algorithm can perform better in the worst case.

Exclusive social groups are ones in which the group members decide whether or not to admit a candidate to the group. Examples of exclusive social groups include academic departments and fraternal organizations. In the present paper we introduce an analytic framework for studying the dynamics of exclusive social groups. In our model, every group member is characterized by his opinion, which is represented as a point on the real line. The group evolves in discrete time steps through a voting process carried out by the group's members. Due to homophily, each member votes for the candidate who is more similar to him (i.e., closer to him on the line). An admission rule is then applied to determine which candidate, if any, is admitted. We consider several natural admission rules including majority and consensus.

Walrasian prices, if they exist, have the property that one can assign every buyer some bundle in her demand set, such that the resulting assignment will maximize social welfare. Unfortunately, this assumes carefully breaking ties amongst different bundles in the buyer demand set. Presumably, the shopkeeper cleverly convinces the buyer to break ties in a manner consistent with maximizing social welfare. Lacking such a shopkeeper, if buyers arrive sequentially and simply choose some arbitrary bundle in their demand set, the social welfare may be arbitrarily bad. In the context of matching markets, we show how to compute dynamic prices, based upon the current inventory, that guarantee that social welfare is maximized. Such prices are set without knowing the identity of the next buyer to arrive. We also show that this is impossible in general (e.g., for coverage valuations), but consider other scenarios where this can be done. We further extend our results to Bayesian and bounded rationality models.

We extend the notion of Combinatorial Walrasian Equilibrium, as defined by \citet{FGL13}, to settings with budgets. When agents have budgets, the maximum social welfare as traditionally defined is not a suitable benchmark since it is overly optimistic. This motivated the liquid welfare of \cite{DP14} as an alternative. Observing that no combinatorial Walrasian equilibrium guarantees a non-zero fraction of the maximum liquid welfare in the absence of randomization, we instead work with randomized allocations and extend the notions of liquid welfare and Combinatorial Walrasian Equilibrium accordingly. Our generalization of the Combinatorial Walrasian Equilibrium prices lotteries over bundles of items rather than bundles, and we term it a lottery pricing equilibrium.

We study mechanisms for candidate selection that seek to minimize the social cost, where voters and candidates are associated with points in some underlying metric space. The social cost of a candidate is the sum of its distances to each voter. Some of our work assumes that these points can be modeled on the real line, but other results of ours are more general.

We study the efficiency of simple auctions in the presence of complements. Devanur et al. [2015] introduced the single-bid auction, and showed that it has a price of anarchy (PoA) of O(log m) for complement-free (i.e., subadditive) valuations. Prior to our work, no non-trivial upper bound on the PoA of single bid auctions was known for valuations exhibiting complements. We introduce a hierarchy over valuations, where levels of the hierarchy correspond to the degree of complementarity, and the PoA of the single bid auction degrades gracefully with the level of the hierarchy. This hierarchy is a refinement of the Maximum over Positive Hypergraphs (MPH) hierarchy [Feige et al. 2015], where the degree of complementarity d is captured by the maximum number of neighbours of a node in the positive hypergraph representation.We show that the price of anarchy of the single bid auction for valuations of level d of the hierarchy is O(d2 log(m/d)), where m is the number of items. We also establish an improved upper bound of O(d log m) for a subclass where every hyperedge in the positive hypergraph representation is of size at most 2 (but the degree is still d). Finally, we show that randomizing between the single bid auction and the grand bundle auction has a price of anarchy of at most O(√m) for general valuations. All of our results are derived via the smoothness framework, thus extend to coarse-correlated equilibria and to Bayes Nash equilibria.

We present an analysis framework for bounding the price of anarchy (POA) in games that have many players, as in many of the games most pertinent to computer science applications. We use this framework to demonstrate that, in many of the models in which the POA has been studied, the POA in large games is much smaller than the worst-case bound. Our framework also differentiates between mechanisms with similar worst-case performance, such as simultaneous uniform-price auctions and greedy combinatorial auctions, thereby providing new insights about which mechanisms are likely to perform well in realistic settings.

We study a combinatorial market design problem, where a collection of indivisible objects is to be priced and sold to potential buyers subject to equilibrium constraints. The classic solution concept for such problems is Walrasian equilibrium (WE), which provides a simple and transparent pricing structure that achieves optimal social welfare. The main weakness of the WE notion is that it exists only in very restrictive cases. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the notion of a combinatorial Walrasian equilibium (CWE), a natural relaxation of WE. The difference between a CWE and a (noncombinatorial) WE is that the seller can package the items into indivisible bundles prior to sale, and the market does not necessarily clear. We show that every valuation profile admits a CWE that obtains at least half the optimal (unconstrained) social welfare. Moreover, we devise a polynomial time algorithm that, given an arbitrary allocation, computes a CWE that achieves at least half its welfare. Thus, the economic problem of finding a CWE with high social welfare reduces to the algorithmic problem of social-welfare approximation. In addition, we show that every valuation profile admits a CWE that extracts a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare as revenue. Finally, to motivate the use of bundles, we establish strong lower bounds when the seller is restricted to using item prices only. The strength of our results derives partly from their generality---our results hold for arbitrary valuations that may exhibit complex combinations of substitutes and complements.

We introduce a new hierarchy over monotone set functions, that we refer to as MPH (Maximum over Positive Hypergraphs). Levels of the hierarchy correspond to the degree of complementarity in a given function. The highest level of the hierarchy, MPH-m (where m is the total number of items) captures all monotone functions. The lowest level, MPH-1, captures all monotone submodular functions, and more generally, the class of functions known as XOS. Every monotone function that has a positive hypergraph representation of rank k (in the sense defined by Abraham, Babaioff, Dughmi and Roughgarden [EC 2012]) is in MPH-k. Every monotone function that has supermodular degree k (in the sense defined by Feige and Izsak [ITCS 2013]) is in MPH-(k+1). In both cases, the converse direction does not hold, even in an approximate sense. We present additional results that demonstrate the expressiveness power of MPH-k.One can obtain good approximation ratios for some natural optimization problems, provided that functions are required to lie in low levels of the MPH hierarchy. We present two such applications. One shows that the maximum welfare problem can be approximated within a ratio of k+1 if all players hold valuation functions in MPH-k. The other is an upper bound of 2k on the price of anarchy of simultaneous first price auctions.

We study strong equilibria in symmetric capacitated cost-sharing games. In these games, a graph with designated source s and sink t is given, and each edge is associated with some cost. Each agent chooses strategically an s-t path, knowing that the cost of each edge is shared equally between all agents using it. Two variants of cost-sharing games have been previously studied: (i) games where coalitions can form, and (ii) games where edges are associated with capacities; both variants are inspired by real-life scenarios. In this work we combine these variants and analyze strong equilibria (profiles where no coalition can deviate) in capacitated games. This combination gives rise to new phenomena that do not occur in the previous variants. Our contribution is two-fold. First, we provide a topological characterization of networks that always admit a strong equilibrium. Second, we establish tight bounds on the efficiency loss that may be incurred due to strategic behavior, as quantified by the strong price of anarchy (and stability) measures. Interestingly, our results are qualitatively different than those obtained in the analysis of each variant alone, and the combination of coalitions and capacities entails the introduction of more refined topology classes than previously studied.

We study anonymous posted price mechanisms for combinatorial auctions in a Bayesian framework. In a posted price mechanism, item prices are posted, then the consumers approach the seller sequentially in an arbitrary order, each purchasing her favorite bundle from among the unsold items at the posted prices. These mechanisms are simple, transparent and trivially dominant strategy incentive compatible (DSIC). We show that when agent preferences are fractionally subadditive (which includes all submodular functions), there always exist prices that, in expectation, obtain at least half of the optimal welfare. Our result is constructive: given black-box access to a combinatorial auction algorithm A, sample access to the prior distribution, and appropriate query access to the sampled valuations, one can compute, in polytime, prices that guarantee at least half of the expected welfare of A. As a corollary, we obtain the first polytime (in n and m) constant-factor DSIC mechanism for Bayesian submodular combinatorial auctions, given access to demand query oracles. Our results also extend to valuations with complements, where the approximation factor degrades linearly with the level of complementarity.

Competitive equilibrium, the central equilibrium notion in markets with indivisible goods, is based on pricing each good such that the demand for goods equals their supply and the market clears. This equilibrium notion is not guaranteed to exist beyond the narrow case of substitute goods, might result in zero revenue even when consumers value the goods highly, and overlooks the widespread practice of pricing bundles rather than individual goods. Alternative equilibrium notions proposed to address these shortcomings have either made a strong assumption on the ability to withhold supply in equilibrium, or have allowed an exponential number of prices. In this paper we study the notion of competitive bundling equilibrium – a competitive equilibrium over the market induced by partitioning the goods into bundles. Such an equilibrium is guaranteed to exist, is succinct, and satisfies the fundamental economic condition of market clearance. We establish positive welfare and revenue guarantees for this solution concept: For welfare we show that in markets with homogeneous goods, there always exists a competitive bundling equilibrium that achieves a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare. We also extend this result to establish nontrivial welfare guarantees for markets with heterogeneous goods. For revenue we show that in a natural class of markets for which competitive equilibrium does not guarantee positive revenue, there always exists a competitive bundling equilibrium that extracts as revenue a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare. Both results are tight. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

We study the outcomes of information aggregation in online social networks. Our main result is that networks with certain realistic structural properties avoid information cascades and enable a population to effectively aggregate information. In our model, each individual in a network holds a private, independent opinion about a product or idea, biased toward a ground truth. Individuals declare their opinions asynchronously, can observe the stated opinions of their neighbors, and are free to update their declarations over time. Supposing that individuals conform with the majority report of their neighbors, we ask whether the population will eventually arrive at consensus on the ground truth. We show that the answer depends on the network structure: there exist networks for which consensus is unlikely, or for which declarations converge on the incorrect opinion with positive probability. On the other hand, we prove that for networks that are sparse and expansive, the population will converge to the correct opinion with high probability.

We study a multi-round optimization setting in which in each round a player may select one of several actions, and each action produces an outcome vector, not observable to the player until the round ends. The final payoff for the player is computed by applying some known function f to the sum of all outcome vectors (e.g., the minimum of all coordinates of the sum). We show that standard notions of performance measure (such as comparison to the best single action) used in related expert and bandit settings (in which the payoff in each round is scalar) are not useful in our vector setting. Instead, we propose a different performance measure, and design algorithms that have vanishing regret with respect to our new measure.

We consider the pricing problem faced by a seller who assigns a price to a good that confers its benefits not only to its buyers, but also to other individuals around them. For example, a snow-blower is potentially useful not only to the household that buys it, but also to others on the same street. Given that the seller is constrained to selling such a (locally) public good via individual private sales, how should he set his prices given the distribution of values held by the agents?

We consider the problem of locating a public facility on a tree, where a set of n strategic agents report their locations and a mechanism determines, either deterministically or randomly, the location of the facility. The contribution of this paper is twofold.

Simultaneous item auctions are simple and practical procedures for allocating items to bidders with potentially complex preferences. In a simultaneous auction, every bidder submits independent bids on all items simultaneously. The allocation and prices are then resolved for each item separately, based solely on the bids submitted on that item. We study the efficiency of Bayes-Nash equilibrium (BNE) outcomes of simultaneous first- and second-price auctions when bidders have complement-free (a.k.a. subadditive) valuations. While it is known that the social welfare of every pure Nash equilibrium (NE) constitutes a constant fraction of the optimal social welfare, a pure NE rarely exists, and moreover, the full information assumption is often unrealistic. Therefore, quantifying the welfare loss in Bayes-Nash equilibria is of particular interest. Previous work established a logarithmic bound on the ratio between the social welfare of a BNE and the expected optimal social welfare in both first-price auctions (Hassidim et al., 2011) and second-price auctions (Bhawalkar and Roughgarden, 2011), leaving a large gap between a constant and a logarithmic ratio. We introduce a new proof technique and use it to resolve both of these gaps in a unified way. Specifically, we show that the expected social welfare of any BNE is at least 1/2 of the optimal social welfare in the case of first-price auctions, and at least 1/4 in the case of second-price auctions.

We study a combinatorial market design problem, where a collection of indivisible objects is to be priced and sold to potential buyers subject to equilibrium constraints. The classic solution concept for such problems is Walrasian Equilibrium (WE), which provides a simple and transparent pricing structure that achieves optimal social welfare. The main weakness of the WE notion is that it exists only in very restrictive cases. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the notion of a Combinatorial Walrasian equilibium (CWE), a natural relaxation of WE. The difference between a CWE and a (non-combinatorial) WE is that the seller can package the items into indivisible bundles prior to sale, and the market does not necessarily clear. We show that every valuation profile admits a CWE that obtains at least half of the optimal (unconstrained) social welfare. Moreover, we devise a poly-time algorithm that, given an arbitrary allocation X, computes a CWE that achieves at least half of the welfare of X. Thus, the economic problem of finding a CWE with high social welfare reduces to the algorithmic problem of social-welfare approximation. In addition, we show that every valuation profile admits a CWE that extracts a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare as revenue. Finally, these results are complemented by strong lower bounds when the seller is restricted to using item prices only, which motivates the use of bundles. The strength of our results derives partly from their generality --- our results hold for arbitrary valuations that may exhibit complex combinations of substitutes and complements.

While the minimax (or maximin) strategy has become the standard and most agreed-upon solution for decision making in adversarial settings, as discussed in game theory, computer science, and other disciplines, its power arises from the use of mixed strategies, also known as probabilistic algorithms. Nevertheless, in adversarial settings we face the risk of information leakage about the actual strategy instantiation. Hence, real robust algorithms should take information leakage into account. In this paper we introduce the notion of adversarial leakage in games, namely, the ability of a player to learn the value of $b$ binary predicates about the strategy instantiation of her opponent. Different leakage models are suggested and tight bounds on the effect of adversarial leakage as a function of the level of leakage (captured by $b$) are established. The complexity of computing optimal strategies under these adversarial leakage models is also addressed. Together, our study introduces a new framework for robust decision making and provides rigorous fundamental understanding of its properties.

We consider the problem of selecting fair divisions of a heterogeneous divisible good among a set of agents. Recent work (Cohler et al., AAAI 2011) focused on designing algorithms for computing maxsum—social welfare maximizing—allocations under the fairness notion of envy-freeness. Maxsum allocations can also be found under alternative notions such as equitability. In this paper, we examine the properties of these allocations. In particular, We provide conditions for when maxsum envy-free or equitable allocations are Pareto optimal and give examples where fairness with Pareto optimality is not possible. We also prove that maxsum envy-free allocations have weakly greater welfare than maxsum equitable allocations when agents have structured valuations, and we derive an approximate version of this inequality for general valuations.

We study strategyproof (SP) mechanisms for the location of a facility on a discrete graph. We give a full characterization of SP mechanisms on lines and on sufficiently large cycles. Interestingly, the characterization deviates from the one given by Schummer and Vohra (2004) for the continuous case. In particular, it is shown that an SP mechanism on a cycle is close to dictatorial, but all agents can affect the outcome, in contrast to the continuous case. Our characterization is also used to derive a lower bound on the approximation ratio with respect to the social cost that can be achieved by an SP mechanism on certain graphs. Finally, we show how the representation of such graphs as subsets of the binary cube reveals common properties of SP mechanisms and enables one to extend the lower bound to related domains.

Signaling is an important topic in the study of asymmetric information in economic settings. In particular, the transparency of information available to a seller in an auction setting is a question of major interest. We introduce the study of signaling when conducting a second price auction of a probabilistic good whose actual instantiation is known to the auctioneer but not to the bidders. This framework can be used to model impressions selling in display advertising. We establish several results within this framework. First, we study the problem of computing a signaling scheme that maximizes the auctioneer's revenue in a Bayesian setting. We show that this problem is polynomially solvable for some interesting special cases, but computationally hard in general. Second, we establish a tight bound on the minimum number of signals required to implement an optimal signaling scheme. Finally, we show that at least half of the maximum social welfare can be preserved within such a scheme.

We study envy-free (EF) mechanisms for multi-unit auctions with budgeted agents that approximately maximize revenue. In an EF auction, prices are set so that every bidder receives a bundle that maximizes her utility amongst all bundles; We show that the problem of revenue-maximizing EF auctions is NP-hard, even for the case of identical items and additive valuations (up to the budget). The main result of our paper is a novel EF auction that runs in polynomial time and provides a approximation of 1/2 with respect to the revenue-maximizing EF auction. A slight variant of our mechanism will produce an allocation and pricing that is more restrictive (so called item pricing) and gives a 1/2 approximation to the optimal revenue within this more restrictive class.

We study envy-free mechanisms for assigning tasks to agents, where every task may take a different amount of time to perform by each agent, and the goal is to get all the tasks done as soon as possible (i.e., minimize the makespan). For indivisible tasks, we put forward an envy-free polynomial mechanism that approximates the minimal makespan to within a factor of $O(\log m)$, where m is the number of machines. This bound is almost tight, as we also show that no envy-free mechanism can achieve a better bound than $\Omega(\log m / \log\log m)$. This improves the recent result of Mu'alem [On multi-dimensional envy-free mechanisms, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory, F. Rossi and A. Tsoukias, eds., Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 5783, Springer, Berlin, 2009, pp. 120–131] who introduced the model and gave an upper bound of $(m+1)/2$ and a lower bound of $2-1/m$. For divisible tasks, we show that there always exists an envy-free poly-time mechanism with optimal makespan. Finally, we demonstrate how our mechanism for envy-free makespan minimization can be interpreted as a market clearing problem.

We quantify the effect of Bayesian ignorance by comparing the social cost obtained in a Bayesian game by agents with local views to the expected social cost of agents having global views. Both benevolent agents, whose goal is to minimize the social cost, and selfish agents, aiming at minimizing their own individual costs, are considered. When dealing with selfish agents, we consider both best and worst equilibria outcomes. While our model is general, most of our results concern the setting of network cost sharing (NCS) games. We provide tight asymptotic results on the effect of Bayesian ignorance in directed and undirected NCS games with benevolent and selfish agents. Among our findings we expose the counter-intuitive phenomenon that "gnorance is bliss": Bayesian ignorance may substantially improve the social cost of selfish agents. We also prove that public random bits can replace the knowledge of the common prior in attempt to bound the effect of Bayesian ignorance in settings with benevolent agents. Together, our work initiates the study of the effects of local vs. global views on the social cost of agents in Bayesian contexts.

We study envy-free mechanisms for scheduling tasks on unrelated machines (agents) that approximately minimize the makespan. For indivisible tasks, we put forward an envy-free poly-time mechanism that approximates the minimal makespan to within a factor of O(log m), where m is the number of machines. We also show a lower bound of γ(log m / log log m). This improves the recent result of Mu'alem [22] who give an upper bound of (m+1)/2, and a lower bound of 2-1/m. For divisible tasks, we show that there always exists an envy-free poly-time mechanism with optimal makespan. Finally, we demonstrate how our mechanism for envy free makespan minimization can be interpreted as a market clearing problem.

In many multiagent domains a set of agents exert effort towards a joint outcome, yet the individual effort levels cannot be easily observed. A typical example for such a scenario is routing in communication networks, where the sender can only observe whether the packet reached its destination, but often has no information about the actions of the intermediate routers, which influences the final outcome. We study a setting where a principal needs to motivate a team of agents whose combination of hidden efforts stochastically determines an outcome. In a companion paper we devise and study a basic ''combinatorial agency'' model for this setting, where the principal is restricted to inducing a pure Nash equilibrium. Here we study various implications of this restriction. First, we show that, in contrast to the case of observable efforts, inducing a mixed-strategies equilibrium may be beneficial for the principal. Second, we present a sufficient condition for technologies for which no gain can be generated. Third, we bound the principal's gain for various families of technologies. Finally, we study the robustness of mixed equilibria to coalitional deviations and the computational hardness of the optimal mixed equilibria.

We study stability against coalitional deviations in resource selection games where the coalitions have a certain structure . In particular, the agents are partitioned into coalitions, and only deviations by the prescribed coalitions are considered. This is in contrast to the classical concept of strong equilibrium according to which any subset of the agents may deviate. In resource selection games, each agent selects a resource from a set of resources, and its payoff is an increasing (or nondecreasing) function of the number of agents selecting its resource. While it has been shown that a strong equilibrium always exists in resource selection games, a closer look reveals severe limitations to the applicability of the existence result even in the simplest case of two identical resources with increasing cost functions. First, these games do not possess a super strong equilibrium in which a fruitful deviation benefits at least one deviator without hurting any other deviator. Second, a strong equilibrium may not exist when the game is played repeatedly. We prove that for any given partition, there exists a super strong equilibrium for resource selection games of identical resources with increasing cost functions. In addition, we show similar existence results for a variety of other classes of resource selection games. For the case of repeated games, we characterize partitions that guarantee the existence of a strong equilibrium. Together, our work introduces a natural concept, which turns out to lead to positive and applicable results in one of the basic domains studied in the literature.

The voting rules proposed by Dodgson and Young are both designed to find the alternative closest to being a Condorcet winner, according to two different notions of proximity; the score of a given alternative is known to be hard to compute under either rule. In this paper, we put forward two algorithms for approximating the Dodgson score: an LP-based randomized rounding algorithm and a deterministic greedy algorithm, both of which yield an approximation ratio, where m is the number of alternatives; we observe that this result is asymptotically optimal, and further prove that our greedy algorithm is optimal up to a factor of 2, unless problems in have quasi-polynomial time algorithms. Although the greedy algorithm is computationally superior, we argue that the randomized rounding algorithm has an advantage from a social choice point of view. Further, we demonstrate that computing any reasonable approximation of the ranking produced by Dodgson's rule is -hard. This result provides a complexity-theoretic explanation of sharp discrepancies that have been observed in the Social Choice Theory literature when comparing Dodgson elections with simpler voting rules. Finally, we show that the problem of calculating the Young score is -hard to approximate by any factor. This leads to an inapproximability result for the Young ranking.

A Nash Equilibrium (NE) is a strategy profile resilient to unilateral deviations, and is predominantly used in the analysis of multiagent systems. A downside of NE is that it is not necessarily stable against deviations by coalitions. Yet, as we show in this paper, in some cases, NE does exhibit stability against coalitional deviations, in that the benefits from a joint deviation are bounded. In this sense, NE approximates strong equilibrium. Coalition formation is a key issue in multiagent systems. We provide a framework for quantifying the stability and the performance of various assignment policies and solution concepts in the face of coalitional deviations. Within this framework we evaluate a given configuration according to three measures: (i) IR_min: the maximal number alpha, such that there exists a coalition in which the minimal improvement ratio among the coalition members is alpha, (ii) IR_max: the maximal number alpha, such that there exists a coalition in which the maximal improvement ratio among the coalition members is alpha, and (iii) DR_max: the maximal possible damage ratio of an agent outside the coalition. We analyze these measures in job scheduling games on identical machines. In particular, we provide upper and lower bounds for the above three measures for both NE and the well-known assignment rule Longest Processing Time (LPT). Our results indicate that LPT performs better than a general NE. However, LPT is not the best possible approximation. In particular, we present a polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for the makespan minimization problem which provides a schedule with IR_min of 1+epsilon for any given epsilon. With respect to computational complexity, we show that given an NE on m >= 3 identical machines or m >= 2 unrelated machines, it is NP-hard to determine whether a given coalition can deviate such that every member decreases its cost.

We study the problem of allocating shared resources, such as bandwidth in computer networks and computational resources in shared clusters, among multiple users by the proportional-share market mechanism. Under this mechanism, each user partitions his budget among the multiple resources and receives a fraction of each resource proportional to his bid. We first formulate the resource allocation game under the proportional-share mechanism and study the efficiency and fairness of the equilibrium in this game. We present analytic and simulation results demonstrating that the proportional-share mechanism achieves a reasonable balance of high degrees of efficiency and fairness at the equilibrium.

In this work we study cost sharing connection games, where each player has a source and sink he would like to connect, and the cost of the edges is either shared equally (fair connection games) or in an arbitrary way (general connection games).We study the graph topologies that guarantee the existence of a strong equilibrium (where no coalition can improve the cost of eachof its members) regardless of the specific costs on the edges.Our main existence results are the following: (1) For a single source and sink we show that there is always a strong equilibrium (both for fair and general connection games). (2) For a single source multiple sinks we show that for a series parallel graph a strong equilibrium always exists (both for fair and general connection games). (3) For multi source and sink we show that an extension parallel graph always admits a strong equilibrium in fair connection games.As for the quality of the strong equilibrium we show that in any fair connection games the cost of a strong equilibrium is Θ(log n) from the optimal solution, where n is the number of players. (This should be contrasted with the Ω(n) price of anarchy for the same setting.) For single source general connection games and single source single sink fair connection games, we show that a strong equilibrium is always an optimal solution.

In communication networks, such as the Internet or mobile ad-hoc networks, the actions taken by intermediate nodes or links are typically hidden from the communicating endpoints; all the endpoints can observe is whether or not the end-to-end transmission was successful. Therefore, in the absence of incentives to the contrary, rational (i.e., selfish) intermediaries may choose to forward messages at a low priority or simply not forward messages at all. Using a principal-agent model, we show how the hidden-action problem can be overcome through appropriate design of contracts in both the direct (the endpoints contract with each individual router directly) and the recursive (each router contracts with the next downstream router) cases. We further show that, depending on the network topology, per-hop or per-path monitoring may not necessarily improve the utility of the principal or the social welfare of the system.

Much recent research concerns systems, such as the Internet, whose components are owned and operated by different parties, each with his own "selfish" goal. The field of Algorithmic Mechanism Design handles the issue of private information held by the different parties in such computational settings. This paper deals with a complementary problem in such settings: handling the "hidden actions" that are performed by the different parties.Our model is a combinatorial variant of the classical principalagent problem from economic theory. In our setting a principal must motivate a team of strategic agents to exert costly effort on his behalf, but their actions are hidden from him. Our focus is on cases where complex combinations of the efforts of the agents influence the outcome. The principal motivates the agents by offering to them a set of contracts, which together put the agents in an equilibrium point of the induced game. We present formal models for this setting, suggest and embark on an analysis of some basic issues, but leave many questions open.

While traditional mechanism design typically assumes isomorphism between the agents' type- and action spaces, in many situations the agents face strict restrictions on their action space due to, e.g., technical, behavioral or regulatory reasons. We devise a general framework for the study of mechanism design in single-parameter environments with restricted action spaces. Our contribution is threefold. First, we characterize sufficient conditions under which the information-theoretically optimal social-choice rule can be implemented in dominant strategies, and prove that any multi-linear social-choice rule is dominant-strategy implementable with no additional cost. Second, we identify necessary conditions for the optimality of action-bounded mechanisms, and fully characterize the optimal mechanisms and strategies in games with two players and two alternatives. Finally, we prove that for any multilinear social-choice rule, the optimal mechanism with k actions incurs an expected loss of O( 1k2 ) compared to the optimal mechanisms with unrestricted action spaces. Our results apply to various economic and computational settings, and we demonstrate their applicability to signaling games, public-good models and routing in networks.

We devise a model to study the phenomenon of free-riding and free-identities in peer-to-peer systems. At the heart of our model is a user of a certain type, an intrinsic and private parameter that reflects the user's willingness to contribute resources to the system. A user decides whether to contribute or free-ride based on how the current contribution cost in the system compares to her type. We study the impact of mechanisms that exclude low type users or, more realistically, penalize free-riders with degraded service. We also consider dynamic scenarios with arrivals and departures of users, and with whitewashers -users who leave the system and rejoin with new identities to avoid reputational penalties. We find that imposing penalty on all users that join the system is effective under many scenarios. In particular, system performance degrades significantly only when the turnover rate among users is high. Finally, we show that the optimal exclusion or penalty level differs significantly from the level that optimizes the performance of contributors only for a limited range of societal generosity levels.

In multi-hop networks, the actions taken by individual intermediate nodes are typically hidden from the communicating endpoints; all the endpoints can observe is whether or not the end-to-end transmission was successful. Therefore, in the absence of incentives to the contrary, rational (i.e., selfish) intermediate nodes may choose to forward packets at a low priority or simply not forward packets at all. Using a principal-agent model, we show how the hidden-action problem can be overcome through appropriate design of contracts, in both the direct (the endpoints contract with each individual router) and recursive (each router contracts with the next downstream router) cases. We further demonstrate that per-hop monitoring does not necessarily improve the utility of the principal or the social welfare in the system. In addition, we generalize existing mechanisms that deal with hidden-information to handle scenarios involving both hidden-information and hidden-action.

In this paper we formulate the fixed budget resource allocation game to understand the performance of a distributed market-based resource allocation system. Multiple users decide how to distribute their budget bids) among multiple machines according to their individual preferences to maximize their individual utility. We look at both the efficiency and the fairness of the allocation at the equilibrium, where fairness is evaluated through the measures of utility uniformity and envy-freeness. We show analytically and through simulations that despite being highly decentralized, such a system converges quickly to an equilibrium and unlike the social optimum that achieves high efficiency but poor fairness, the proposed allocation scheme achieves a nice balance of high degrees of efficiency and fairness at the equilibrium.

Lack of cooperation (free riding) is one of the key problems that confronts today's P2P systems. What makes this problem particularly difficult is the unique set of challenges that P2P systems pose: large populations, high turnover, a symmetry of interest, collusion, zero-cost identities, and traitors. To tackle these challenges we model the P2P system using the Generalized Prisoner's Dilemma (GPD),and propose the Reciprocative decision function as the basis of a family of incentives techniques. These techniques are fullydistributed and include: discriminating server selection, maxflow-based subjective reputation, and adaptive stranger policies. Through simulation, we show that these techniques can drive a system of strategic users to nearly optimal levels of cooperation.