In Hotelling's model of spatial competition, a unit mass of voters is distributed in the interval [0,1] (with their location corresponding to their political persuasion), and each of m candidates selects as a strategy their distinct position in this interval. Each voter votes for the nearest candidate, and candidates choose their strategy to maximize their votes. It is known that if there are more than two candidates, equilibria may not exist in this model. It was unknown, however, how close to an equilibrium one could get. Our work studies approximate equilibria in this model, where a strategy profile is an (additive) ϵ-equilibria if no candidate can increase their votes by ϵ, and provides tight or nearly-tight bounds on the approximation ϵ achievable. We show that for 3 candidates, for any distribution of the voters, ϵ ≥ 1/12. Thus, somewhat surprisingly, for any distribution of the voters and any strategy profile of the candidates, at least 1/12th of the total votes is always left ``on the table.'' Extending this, we show that in the worst case, there exist voter distributions for which ϵ ≥ 1/6, and this is tight: one can always compute a 1/6-approximate equilibria in polynomial time. We then study the general case of m candidates, and show that as m grows large, we get closer to an exact equilibrium: one can always obtain a 1/(m+1)-approximate equilibria in polynomial time. We show this bound is asymptotically tight, by giving voter distributions for which ϵ ≥ 1/(m+3).

The existence of EFX allocations is one of the most significant open questions in fair division. Recent work by Christodoulou, Fiat, Koutsoupias, and Sgouritsa ("Fair allocation in graphs," EC 2023) establishes the existence of EFX allocations for graphical valuations, when agents are vertices in a graph, items are edges, and each item has zero value for all agents other than those at its endpoints. Thus, in this setting, each good has non-zero value for at most two agents, and there is at most one good valued by any pair of agents. This marks one of the few cases when an exact and complete EFX allocation is known to exist for more than three agents. In this work, we partially extend these results to multi-graphs, when each pair of vertices can have more than one edge between them. The existence of EFX allocations in multi-graphs is a natural open question given their existence in simple graphs. We show that EFX allocations exist, and can be computed in polynomial time, for agents with cancelable valuations in the following cases: (i) bipartite multi-graphs, (ii) multi-trees with monotone valuations, and (iii) multi-graphs with girth (2t-1), where t is the chromatic number of the multi-graph. The existence of EFX in cycle multi-graphs follows from (i), (iii), and the known existence of EFX for three agents.

Equitability (EQ) in fair division requires that items be allocated such that all agents value the bundle they receive equally. With indivisible items, an equitable allocation may not exist, and hence we instead consider a meaningful analog, EQx, that requires equitability up to any item. EQx allocations exist for monotone, additive valuations. However, if (1) the agents' valuations are not additive or (2) the set of indivisible items includes both goods and chores (positively and negatively valued items), then prior to the current work it was not known whether EQx allocations exist or not. We study both the existence and efficient computation of EQx allocations. (1) For monotone valuations (not necessarily additive), we show that EQx allocations always exist. Also, for the large class of weakly well-layered valuations, EQx allocations can be found in polynomial time. Further, we prove that approximately EQx allocations can be computed efficiently under general monotone valuations. (2) For non-monotone valuations, we show that an EQx allocation may not exist, even for two agents with additive valuations. Under some special cases, however, we show existence and efficient computability of EQx allocations. This includes the case of two agents with additive valuations where each item is either a good or a chore, and there are no mixed items.

We study the fair allocation of undesirable indivisible items, or chores. While the case of desirable indivisible items (or goods) is extensively studied, with many results known for different notions of fairness, less is known about the fair division of chores. We study envy-free allocation of chores and make three contributions. First, we show that determining the existence of an envy-free allocation is NP-complete even in the simple case when agents have binary additive valuations. Second, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an allocation that satisfies envy-freeness up to one chore (EF1), correcting a claim in the existing literature. A modification of our algorithm can be used to compute an EF1 allocation for doubly monotone instances (where each agent can partition the set of items into objective goods and objective chores). Our third result applies to a mixed resources model consisting of indivisible items and a divisible, undesirable heterogeneous resource (i.e., a bad cake). We show that there always exists an allocation that satisfies envy-freeness for mixed resources (EFM) in this setting, complementing a recent result of Bei et al. [Bei et al., 2021] for indivisible goods and divisible cake.

We develop polynomial-time algorithms for the fair and efficient allocation of indivisible goods among n agents that have subadditive valuations over the goods. We first consider the Nash social welfare as our objective and design a polynomial-time algorithm that, in the value oracle model, finds an 8n-approximation to the Nash optimal allocation. Subadditive valuations include XOS (fractionally subadditive) and submodular valuations as special cases. Our result, even for the special case of submodular valuations, improves upon the previously best known O(n log n)-approximation ratio of Garg et al. (2020). More generally, we study maximization of p-mean welfare. The p-mean welfare is parameterized by an exponent term p ∈ (-∞, 1] and encompasses a range of welfare functions, such as social welfare (p = 1), Nash social welfare (p → 0), and egalitarian welfare (p → -∞). We give an algorithm that, for subadditive valuations and any given p ∈ (-∞, 1], computes (in the value oracle model and in polynomial time) an allocation with p-mean welfare at least 1/(8n) times the optimal. Further, we show that our approximation guarantees are essentially tight for XOS and, hence, subadditive valuations. We adapt a result of Dobzinski et al. (2010) to show that, under XOS valuations, an O (n^{1-ε}) approximation for the p-mean welfare for any p ∈ (-∞,1] (including the Nash social welfare) requires exponentially many value queries; here, ε > 0 is any fixed constant.

Coverage functions are an important subclass of submodular functions, finding applications in machine learning, game theory, social networks, and facility location. We study the complexity of partial function extension to coverage functions. That is, given a partial function consisting of a family of subsets of [m] and a value at each point, does there exist a coverage function defined on all subsets of [m] that extends this partial function? Partial function extension is previously studied for other function classes, including boolean functions and convex functions, and is useful in many fields, such as obtaining bounds on learning these function classes. We show that determining extendibility of a partial function to a coverage function is NP-complete, establishing in the process that there is a polynomial-sized certificate of extendibility. The hardness also gives us a lower bound for learning coverage functions. We then study two natural notions of approximate extension, to account for errors in the data set. The two notions correspond roughly to multiplicative point-wise approximation and additive L_1 approximation. We show upper and lower bounds for both notions of approximation. In the second case we obtain nearly tight bounds.

We study the complexity of equilibrium computation in discrete preference games. These games were introduced by Chierichetti, Kleinberg, and Oren (EC '13, JCSS '18) to model decision-making by agents in a social network that choose a strategy from a finite, discrete set, balancing between their intrinsic preferences for the strategies and their desire to choose a strategy that is `similar' to their neighbours. There are thus two components: a social network with the agents as vertices, and a metric space of strategies. These games are potential games, and hence pure Nash equilibria exist. Since their introduction, a number of papers have studied various aspects of this model, including the social cost at equilibria, and arrival at a consensus. We show that in general, equilibrium computation in discrete preference games is PLS-complete, even in the simple case where each agent has a constant number of neighbours. If the edges in the social network are weighted, then the problem is PLS-complete even if each agent has a constant number of neighbours, the metric space has constant size, and every pair of strategies is at distance 1 or 2. Further, if the social network is directed, modelling asymmetric influence, an equilibrium may not even exist. On the positive side, we show that if the metric space is a tree metric, or is the product of path metrics, then the equilibrium can be computed in polynomial time.

Mechanisms for aggregating the preferences of agents in elections need to balance many different considerations, including efficiency, information elicited from agents, and manipulability. We consider the utilitarian social welfare of mechanisms for preference aggregation, measured by the distortion. We show that for a particular input format called threshold approval voting, where each agent is presented with an independently chosen threshold, there is a mechanism with nearly optimal distortion when the number of voters is large. Threshold mechanisms are potentially manipulable, but place a low informational burden on voters. We then consider truthful mechanisms. For the widely-studied class of ordinal mechanisms which elicit the rankings of candidates from each agent, we show that truthfulness essentially imposes no additional loss of welfare. We give truthful mechanisms with distortion O(√m log m) for k-winner elections, and distortion O(√m log m) when candidates have arbitrary costs, in elections with m candidates. These nearly match known lower bounds for ordinal mechanisms that ignore the strategic behavior. We further tighten these lower bounds and show that for truthful mechanisms our first upper bound is tight. Lastly, when agents decide between two candidates, we give tight bounds on the distortion for truthful mechanisms.

We study inverse optimization problems, wherein the goal is to map given solutions to an underlying optimization problem to a cost vector for which the given solutions are the (unique) optimal solutions. Inverse optimization problems find diverse applications and have been widely studied. A prominent problem in this field is the inverse shortest path (ISP) problem [D. Burton and Ph.L. Toint, 1992; W. Ben-Ameur and E. Gourdin, 2004; A. Bley, 2007], which finds applications in shortest-path routing protocols used in telecommunications. Here we seek a cost vector that is positive, integral, induces a set of given paths as the unique shortest paths, and has minimum l_infty norm. Despite being extensively studied, very few algorithmic results are known for inverse optimization problems involving integrality constraints on the desired cost vector whose norm has to be minimized. Motivated by ISP, we initiate a systematic study of such integral inverse optimization problems from the perspective of designing polynomial time approximation algorithms. For ISP, our main result is an additive 1-approximation algorithm for multicommodity ISP with node-disjoint commodities, which we show is tight assuming P!=NP. We then consider the integral-cost inverse versions of various other fundamental combinatorial optimization problems, including min-cost flow, max/min-cost bipartite matching, and max/min-cost basis in a matroid, and obtain tight or nearly-tight approximation guarantees for these. Our guarantees for the first two problems are based on results for a broad generalization, namely integral inverse polyhedral optimization, for which we also give approximation guarantees. Our techniques also give similar results for variants, including l_p-norm minimization of the integral cost vector, and distance-minimization from an initial cost vector.

We present polynomial-time algorithms as well as hardness results for equilibrium computation in atomic splittable routing games, for the case of general convex cost functions. These games model traffic in freight transportation, market oligopolies, data networks, and various other applications. An atomic splittable routing game is played on a network where the edges have traffic-dependent cost functions, and player strategies correspond to flows in the network. A player can thus split it's traffic arbitrarily among different paths. While many properties of equilibria in these games have been studied, efficient algorithms for equilibrium computation are known for only two cases: if cost functions are affine, or if players are symmetric. Neither of these conditions is met in most practical applications. We present two algorithms for routing games with general convex cost functions on parallel links. The first algorithm is exponential in the number of players, while the second is exponential in the number of edges; thus if either of these is small, we get a polynomial-time algorithm. These are the first algorithms for these games with convex cost functions. Lastly, we show that in general networks, given input $C$, it is NP-hard to decide if there exists an equilibrium where every player has cost at most $C$.

A voting mechanism is a method for preference aggregation that takes as input preferences over alternatives from voters, and selects an alternative, or a distribution over alternatives. While preferences of voters are generally assumed to be cardinal utility functions that map each alternative to a real value, mechanisms typically studied assume coarser inputs, such as rankings of the alternatives (called ordinal mechanisms). We study cardinal mechanisms, that take as input the cardinal utilities of the voters, with the objective of minimizing the distortion - the worst-case ratio of the best social welfare to that obtained by the mechanism. For truthful cardinal mechanisms with m alternatives and n voters, we show bounds of Theta(mn), Omega(m), and Omega(sqrt{m}) for deterministic, unanimous, and randomized mechanisms respectively. This shows, somewhat surprisingly, that even mechanisms that allow cardinal inputs have large distortion. There exist ordinal (and hence, cardinal) mechanisms with distortion O(sqrt{m log m}), and hence our lower bound for randomized mechanisms is nearly tight. In an effort to close this gap, we give a class of truthful cardinal mechanisms that we call randomized hyperspherical mechanisms that have O(sqrt{m log m}) distortion. These are interesting because they violate two properties - localization and non-perversity - that characterize truthful ordinal mechanisms, demonstrating non-trivial mechanisms that differ significantly from ordinal mechanisms. Given the strong lower bounds for truthful mechanisms, we then consider approximately truthful mechanisms. We give a mechanism that is delta-truthful given delta in (0,1), and has distortion close to 1. Finally, we consider the simple mechanism that selects the alternative that maximizes social welfare. This mechanism is not truthful, and we study the distortion at equilibria for the voters (equivalent to the Price of Anarchy, or PoA). While in general, the PoA is unbounded, we show that for equilibria obtained from natural dynamics, the PoA is close to 1. Thus relaxing the notion of truthfulness in both cases allows us to obtain near-optimal distortion.

We study an online assignment problem where the offline servers have capacities, and the objective is to obtain a maximum-weight assignment of requests that arrive online. The weight of edges incident to any server can be at most the server capacity. Our problem is related to the adwords problem, where the assignment to a server is allowed to exceed its capacity. In many applications, however, server capacities are strict and partially-served requests are of no use, motivating the problem we study. While no deterministic algorithm can be competitive in general for this problem, we give an algorithm with competitive ratio that depends on the ratio of maximum weight of any edge to the capacity of the server it is incident to. If this ratio is 1/2, our algorithm is tight. Further, we give a randomized algorithm that is 6-competitive in expectation for the general problem. Most previous work on the problem and its variants assumes that the edge weights are much smaller than server capacities. Our guarantee, in contrast, does not require any assumptions about job weights. We also give improved lower bounds for both deterministic and randomized algorithms. For the special case of parallel servers, we show that a load-balancing algorithm is tight and near-optimal.

We study the optimization problem faced by a perfectly informed principal in a Bayesian game, who reveals information to the players about the state of nature to obtain a desirable equilibrium. This signaling problem is the natural design question motivated by uncertainty in games and has attracted much recent attention. We present new hardness results for signaling problems in (a) Bayesian two-player zero-sum games, and (b) Bayesian network routing games.

The analysis of network routing games typically assumes, right at the onset, precise and detailed information about the latency functions. Such information may, however, be unavailable or difficult to obtain. Moreover, one is often primarily interested in enforcing a desirable target flow as the equilibrium by suitably influencing player behavior in the routing game. We ask whether one can achieve target flows as equilibria without knowing the underlying latency functions. Our main result gives a crisp positive answer to this question. We show that, under fairly general settings, one can efficiently compute edge tolls that induce a given target multicommodity flow in a nonatomic routing game using a polynomial number of queries to an oracle that takes candidate tolls as input and returns the resulting equilibrium flow. This result is obtained via a novel application of the ellipsoid method, and applies to arbitrary multicommodity settings and non-linear latency functions. Our algorithm extends easily to many other settings, such as (i) when certain edges cannot be tolled or there is an upper bound on the total toll paid by a user, and (ii) general nonatomic congestion games. We obtain tighter bounds on the query complexity for series-parallel networks, and single-commodity routing games with linear latency functions, and complement these with a query-complexity lower bound applicable even to single-commodity routing games on parallel-link graphs with linear latency functions. We also explore the use of Stackelberg routing to achieve target equilibria and obtain strong positive results for series-parallel graphs. Our results build upon various new techniques that we develop pertaining to the computation of, and connections between, different notions of approximate equilibrium, properties of multicommodity flows and tolls in series-parallel graphs, and sensitivity of equilibrium flow with respect to tolls. Our results demonstrate that one can indeed circumvent the potentially-onerous task of modeling latency functions, and yet obtain meaningful results for the underlying routing game.

We study the structural complexity of bimatrix games, formalized via rank, from an empirical perspective. We consider a setting where we have data on player behavior in diverse strategic situations, but where we do not observe the relevant payoff functions. We prove that high complexity (high rank) has empirical consequences when arbitrary data is considered. Additionally, we prove that, in more restrictive classes of data (termed laminar), any observation is rationalizable using a low-rank game: specifically a zero-sum game. Hence complexity as a structural property of a game is not always testable. Finally, we prove a general result connecting the structure of the feasible data sets with the highest rank that may be needed to rationalize a set of observations.

Recent work has shown that the classical framework of solving optimization problems by obtaining a fractional solution to a linear program (LP) and rounding it to an integer solution can be extended to the online setting using primal-dual techniques. The success of this new framework for online optimization can be gauged from the fact that it has led to progress in several longstanding open questions. However, to the best of our knowledge, this framework has previously been applied to LPs containing only packing or only covering constraints, or minor variants of these. We extend this framework in a fundamental way by demonstrating that it can be used to solve mixed packing and covering LPs online, where packing constraints are given offline and covering constraints are received online. The objective is to minimize the maximum multiplicative factor by which any packing constraint is violated, while satisfying the covering constraints. Our results represent the first algorithm that obtains a polylogarithmic competitive ratio for solving mixed LPs online. We then consider two canonical examples of mixed LPs: unrelated machine scheduling with startup costs, and capacity constrained facility location. We use ideas generated from our result for mixed packing and covering to obtain polylogarithmic-competitive algorithms for these problems. We also give lower bounds to show that the competitive ratios of our algorithms are nearly tight.

Routing games are used to to understand the impact of individual users’ decisions on network efficiency. Most prior work on routing games uses a simplified model of network flow where all flow exists simultaneously, and users care about either their maximum delay or their total delay. Both of these measures are surrogates for measuring how long it takes to get all of a user's traffic through the network. We attempt a more direct study of how competition affects network efficiency by examining routing games in a flow over time model. We give an efficiently computable Stackelberg strategy for this model and show that the competitive equilibrium under this strategy is no worse than a small constant times the optimal, for two natural measures of optimality.

In routing games with infinitesimal players, it follows from well-known convexity arguments that equilibria exist and are unique (up to induced delays, and under weak assumptions on delay functions). In routing games with players that control large amounts of flow, uniqueness has been demonstrated only in limited cases: in 2-terminal, nearly-parallel graphs; when all players control exactly the same amount of flow; when latency functions are polynomials of degree at most three. In this work, we answer an open question posed by Cominetti, Correa, and Stier-Moses (ICALP 2006) and show that there may be multiple equilibria in atomic player routing games. We demonstrate this multiplicity via two specific examples. In addition, we show our examples are topologically minimal by giving a complete characterization of the class of network topologies for which unique equilibria exist. Our proofs and examples are based on a novel characterization of these topologies in terms of sets of circulations.