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

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

We consider the computational complexity of computing Bayes-Nash equilibria in first-price auctions, where the bidders' values for the item are drawn from a general (possibly correlated) joint distribution. We show that when the values and the bidding space are discrete, determining the existence of a pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium is NP-hard. This is the first hardness result in the literature of the problem that does not rely on assumptions of subjectivity of the priors, or convoluted tie-breaking rules. We then present two main approaches for achieving positive results, via bid sparsification and via bid densification. The former is more combinatorial and is based on enumeration techniques, whereas the latter makes use of the continuous theory of the problem developed in the economics literature. Using these approaches, we develop polynomial-time approximation algorithms for computing equilibria in symmetric settings or settings with a fixed number of bidders, for different (discrete or continuous) variants of the auction.

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

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

We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of agents with additive valuation functions, aiming to achieve approximate envy-freeness up to any good (α-EFX). The state-of-the-art results on the problem include that (exact) EFX allocations exist when (a) there are at most three agents, or (b) the agents' valuation functions can take at most two values, or (c) the agents' valuation functions can be represented via a graph. For α-EFX, it is known that a 0.618-EFX allocation exists for any number of agents with additive valuation functions. In this paper, we show that 2/3-EFX allocations exist when (a) there are at most seven agents, (b) the agents' valuation functions can take at most three values, or (c) the agents' valuation functions can be represented via a multigraph. Our results can be interpreted in two ways. First, by relaxing the notion of EFX to 2/3-EFX, we obtain existence results for strict generalizations of the settings for which exact EFX allocations are known to exist. Secondly, by imposing restrictions on the setting, we manage to beat the barrier of 0.618 and achieve an approximation guarantee of 2/3. Therefore, our results push the frontier of existence and computation of approximate EFX allocations, and provide insights into the challenges of settling the existence of exact EFX allocations.

We study the computational complexity of computing Bayes-Nash equilibria in first-price auctions with discrete value distributions and discrete bidding space, under general subjective beliefs. It is known that such auctions do not always have pure equilibria. In this paper we prove that the problem of deciding their existence is NP-complete, even for approximate equilibria. On the other hand, it can be shown that mixed equilibria are guaranteed to exist; however, their computational complexity has not been studied before. We establish the PPAD-completeness of computing a mixed equilibrium and we complement this by an efficient algorithm for finding symmetric approximate equilibria in the special case of iid priors. En route to these results, we develop a computational equivalence framework between continuous and discrete first-price auctions, which can be of independent interest, and which allows us to transfer existing positive and negative results from one setting to the other. Finally, we show that correlated equilibria of the auction can be computed in polynomial time.

We introduce a general technique for proving membership of search problems with exact rational solutions in PPAD, one of the most well-known classes containing total search problems with polynomial-time verifiable solutions. In particular, we construct a "pseudogate", coined the linear-OPT-gate, which can be used as a "plug-and-play" component in a piecewise-linear (PL) arithmetic circuit, as an integral component of the "Linear-FIXP" equivalent definition of the class. The linear-OPT-gate can solve several convex optimization programs, including quadratic programs, which often appear organically in the simplest existence proofs for these problems. This effectively transforms existence proofs to PPAD-membership proofs, and consequently establishes the existence of solutions described by rational numbers. Using the linear-OPT-gate, we are able to significantly simplify and generalize almost all known PPAD-membership proofs for finding exact solutions in the application domains of game theory, competitive markets, auto-bidding auctions, and fair division, as well as to obtain new PPAD-membership results for problems in these domains.

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

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

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

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

With a rapid growth in the deployment of AI tools for making critical decisions (or aiding humans in doing so), there is a growing demand to be able to explain to the stakeholders how these tools arrive at a decision. Consequently, voting is frequently used to make such decisions due to its inherent explainability. Recent work suggests that using randomized (as opposed to deterministic) voting rules can lead to significant efficiency gains measured via the distortion framework. However, rules that use intricate randomization can often become too complex to explain to the stakeholders; losing explainability can eliminate the key advantage of voting over black-box AI tools, which may outweigh the efficiency gains. We study the efficiency gains which can be unlocked by using voting rules that add a simple randomization step to a deterministic rule, thereby retaining explainability. We focus on two such families of rules, randomized positional scoring rules and random committee member rules, and show, theoretically and empirically, that they indeed achieve explainability and efficiency simultaneously to some extent.

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

Multi-unit auctions are a paradigmatic model of resource allocation , where a seller brings multiple units of a good to a set of buyers equipped with monetary budgets. It is well known that Walrasian equilibria do not always exist in this model, however compelling relaxations such as Walrasian envy-free pricing do. We design a best possible envy-free and prior-free mechanism for multi-unit auctions with budgets. When the market is even mildly competitive, the approximation ratios of this mechanism are small constants for both the revenue and welfare objectives, and in fact for welfare the approximation converges to 1 as the market becomes fully competitive. We also give an impossibility theorem , showing that truthfulness requires discarding resources and is thus incompatible with (Pareto) efficiency. • We consider multi-unit auctions with budgets and design a best possible envy-free and prior-free mechanism. • The mechanism approximates the optimal revenue and welfare within constant factors. • For welfare, the approximation converges to 1 as the market becomes fully competitive.

Abstract. We consider the problem of computing a (pure) Bayes–Nash equilibrium in the first-price auction with continuous value distributions and discrete bidding space. We prove that when bidders have independent subjective prior beliefs about the value distributions of the other bidders, computing an [Formula: see text]-equilibrium of the auction is PPAD-complete, and computing an exact equilibrium is FIXP-complete. We also provide an efficient algorithm for solving a special case of the problem for a fixed number of bidders and available bids.

Abstract. In the [Formula: see text]- Consensus-Halving problem, a fundamental problem in fair division, there are [Formula: see text] agents with valuations over the interval [0,1], and the goal is to divide the interval into pieces and assign a label “[Formula: see text]” or “[Formula: see text]” to each piece, such that every agent values the total amount of “[Formula: see text]” and the total amount of “[Formula: see text]” almost equally. The problem was recently proven by Filos-Ratsikas and Goldberg [ Proceedings of the 50 th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2018, pp. 51–64; Proceedings of the 51 st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2019, pp. 638–649] to be the first “natural” complete problem for the computational class PPA, answering a decade-old open question. In this paper, we examine the extent to which the problem becomes easy to solve if one restricts the class of valuation functions. To this end, we provide the following contributions. First, we obtain a strengthening of the PPA-hardness result of Filos-Ratsikas and Goldberg [ Proceedings of the 51 st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2019, pp. 638–649] to the case when agents have piecewise uniform valuations with only two blocks. We obtain this result via a new reduction, which is in fact conceptually much simpler than the corresponding one in Filos-Ratsikas and Goldberg [ Proceedings of the 51 st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2019, pp. 638–649]. Then, we consider the case of single-block (uniform) valuations and provide a parameterized polynomial-time algorithm for solving [Formula: see text]- Consensus-Halving for any [Formula: see text], as well as a polynomial-time algorithm for [Formula: see text]. Finally, an important application of our new techniques is the first hardness result for a generalization of Consensus-Halving, the Consensus-[Formula: see text]-Division problem [F. W. Simmons and F. E. Su, Math. Social Sci., 45 (2003), pp. 15–25]. In particular, we prove that [Formula: see text]-Consensus-[Formula: see text]-Division is PPAD-hard.

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

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

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

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

We consider the ε-Consensus-Halving problem, in which a set of heterogeneous agents aim at dividing a continuous resource into two (not necessarily contiguous) portions that all of them simultaneously consider to be of approximately the same value (up to ε). This problem was recently shown to be PPA-complete, for n agents and n cuts, even for very simple valuation functions. In a quest to understand the root of the complexity of the problem, we consider the setting where there is only a constant number of agents, and we consider both the computational complexity and the query complexity of the problem. For agents with monotone valuation functions, we show a dichotomy: for two agents the problem is polynomial-time solvable, whereas for three or more agents it becomes PPA-complete. Similarly, we show that for two monotone agents the problem can be solved with polynomially-many queries, whereas for three or more agents, we provide exponential query complexity lower bounds. These results are enabled via an interesting connection to a monotone Borsuk-Ulam problem, which may be of independent interest. For agents with general valuations, we show that the problem is PPA-complete and admits exponential query complexity lower bounds, even for two agents.

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

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

We introduce a new technique for proving membership of problems in FIXP – the class capturing the complexity of computing a fixed-point of an algebraic circuit. Our technique constructs a “pseudogate” which can be used as a black box when building FIXP circuits. This pseudogate, which we term the “OPT-gate”, can solve most convex optimization problems. Using the OPT-gate, we prove new FIXP-membership results, and we generalize and simplify several known results from the literature on fair division, game theory and competitive markets. In particular, we prove complexity results for two classic problems: computing a market equilibrium in the Arrow-Debreu model with general concave utilities is in FIXP, and computing an envy-free division of a cake with general valuations is FIXP-complete. We further showcase the wide applicability of our technique, by using it to obtain simplified proofs and extensions of known FIXP-membership results for equilibrium computation for various types of strategic games, as well as the pseudomarket mechanism of Hylland and Zeckhauser.

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

The study of approximate mechanism design for facility location has been in the center of research at the intersection of artificial intelligence and economics for the last decade, largely due to its practical importance in various domains, such as social planning and clustering. At a high level, the goal is to select a number of locations on which to build a set of facilities, aiming to optimize some social objective based on the preferences of strategic agents, who might have incentives to misreport their private information. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the significant progress that has been made since the introduction of the problem, highlighting all the different variants and methodologies, as well as the most interesting directions for future research.

We consider the ε-Consensus-Halving problem, in which a set of heterogeneous agents aim at dividing a continuous resource into two (not necessarily contiguous) portions that all of them simultaneously consider to be of approximately the same value (up to ε). This problem was recently shown to be PPA-complete, for n agents and n cuts, even for very simple valuation functions. In a quest to understand the root of the complexity of the problem, we consider the setting where there is only a constant number of agents, and we consider both the computational complexity and the query complexity of the problem.

We consider the problem of computing a (pure) Bayes-Nash equilibrium in the first-price auction with continuous value distributions and discrete bidding space. We prove that when bidders have independent subjective prior beliefs about the value distributions of the other bidders, computing an $\varepsilon$-equilibrium of the auction is PPAD-complete, and computing an exact equilibrium is FIXP-complete.

We resolve the computational complexity of three problems known as Necklace Splitting, Consensus-Halving, and Discrete Ham sandwich, showing that they are PPA-complete. For NECKLACE SPLITTING, this result is specific to the important special case in which two thieves share the necklace. These are the first PPA-completeness results for problems whose definition does not contain an explicit circuit, thus settling the status of PPA as a class that captures the complexity of such “natural' problems.

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

We study a generalization of the classical stable matching problem that allows for cardinal preferences (as opposed to ordinal) and fractional matchings (as opposed to integral). In this cardinal setting, stable fractional matchings can have much larger social welfare than stable integral ones. Our goal is to understand the computational complexity of finding an optimal (i.e., welfare-maximizing) stable fractional matching. We consider both exact and approximate stability notions, and provide simple approximation algorithms with weak welfare guarantees. Our main result is that, somewhat surprisingly, achieving better approximations is computationally hard. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first computational complexity results for stable fractional matchings in the cardinal model. En route to these results, we provide a number of structural observations that could be of independent interest.

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

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

We derive conditions under which a peer-consistency mechanism can be used to elicit truthful data from non-trusted rational agents when an aggregate statistic of the collected data affects the amount of their incentives to lie. Furthermore, we discuss the relative saving that can be achieved by the mechanism, compared to the rational outcome, if no such mechanism was implemented. Our work is motivated by distributed platforms, where decentralized data oracles collect information about real-world events, based on the aggregate information provided by often self-interested participants. We compare our theoretical observations with numerical simulations on two public real datasets.

Blockchain based systems allow various kinds of financial transactions to be executed in a decentralized manner. However, these systems often rely on a trusted third party (oracle) to get correct information about the real-world events, which trigger the financial transactions. In this paper, we identify two biggest challenges in building decentralized, trustless and transparent oracles. The first challenge is acquiring correct information about the real-world events without relying on a trusted information provider. We show how a peer-consistency incentive mechanism can be used to acquire truthful information from an untrusted and self-interested crowd, even when the crowd has outside incentives to provide wrong informations. The second is a system design and implementation challenge. For the first time, we show how to implement a trustless and transparent oracle in Ethereum. We discuss various non-trivial issues that arise in implementing peer-consistency mechanisms in Ethereum, suggest several optimizations to reduce gas cost and provide empirical analysis.

In the ε-Consensus-Halvingproblem, a fundamental problem in fair division, there are n agents with valuations over the interval [0,1], and the goal is to divide the interval into pieces and assign a label "+" or "-" to each piece, such that every agent values the total amount of "+" and the total amount of "-" almost equally. The problem was recently proven by Filos-Ratsikas and Goldberg[18,19] to be the first "natural" complete problem for the computational class PPA, answering a decade-old open question.

In a multi-unit market, a seller brings multiple units of a good and tries to sell them to a set of buyers that have monetary endowments. While a Walrasian equilibrium does not always exist in this model, natural relaxations of the concept that retain its desirable fairness properties do exist. We study the dynamics of (Walrasian) envy-free pricing mechanisms in this environment, showing that for any such pricing mechanism, the best response dynamic starting from truth-telling converges to a pure Nash equilibrium with small loss in revenue and welfare. Moreover, we generalize these bounds to capture all the (reasonable) Nash equilibria for a large class of (monotone) pricing mechanisms. We also identify a natural mechanism, which selects the minimum Walrasian envy-free price, in which for n=2 buyers the best response dynamic converges from any starting profile. We conjecture convergence of the mechanism for any number of buyers and provide simulation results to support our conjecture.

We present a novel anytime heuristic (ALMA), inspired by the human principle of altruism, for solving the assignment problem. ALMA is decentralized, completely uncoupled, and requires no communication between the participants. We prove an upper bound on the convergence speed that is polynomial in the desired number of resources and competing agents per resource; crucially, in the realistic case where the aforementioned quantities are bounded independently of the total number of agents/resources, the convergence time remains constant as the total problem size increases. We have evaluated ALMA under three test cases: (i) an anti-coordination scenario where agents with similar preferences compete over the same set of actions, (ii) a resource allocation scenario in an urban environment, under a constant-time constraint, and finally, (iii) an on-line matching scenario using real passenger-taxi data. In all of the cases, ALMA was able to reach high social welfare, while being orders of magnitude faster than the centralized, optimal algorithm. The latter allows our algorithm to scale to realistic scenarios with hundreds of thousands of agents, e.g., vehicle coordination in urban environments.

In this work, we study the computational complexity of the MINIMUM DISTANCE CODE DETECTION problem. In this problem, we are given a set of noisy codeword observations and we wish to find a code in a set of linear codes C of a given dimension k, for which the sum of distances between the observations and the code is minimized. We prove that, for the practically relevant case when the set C only contains a fixed number of candidate linear codes, the detection problem is NPhard and we identify a number of interesting open questions related to the code detection problem.

We resolve the computational complexity of two problems known as Necklace Splitting and Discrete Ham Sandwich, showing that they are PPA-complete. For Necklace Splitting, this result is specific to the important special case in which two thieves share the necklace. We do this via a PPA-completeness result for an approximate version of the Consensus Halving problem, strengthening our recent result that the problem is PPA-complete for inverse-exponential precision. At the heart of our construction is a smooth embedding of the high-dimensional Mobius strip in the Consensus Halving problem. These results settle the status of PPA as a class that captures the complexity of “natural” problems whose definitions do not incorporate a circuit.

We study the trade-off between the Price of Anarchy (PoA) and the Price of Stability (PoS) in mechanism design, in the prototypical problem of unrelated machine scheduling. We give bounds on the space of feasible mechanisms with respect to the above metrics, and observe that two fundamental mechanisms, namely the First-Price (FP) and the Second-Price (SP), lie on the two opposite extrema of this boundary. Furthermore, for the natural class of anonymous task-independent mechanisms, we completely characterize the PoA/PoS Pareto frontier; we design a class of optimal mechanisms \(\mathcal {SP}_\alpha \) that lie exactly on this frontier. In particular, these mechanisms range smoothly, with respect to parameter \(\alpha \ge 1\) across the frontier, between the First-Price ( \(\mathcal {SP}_1\) ) and Second-Price ( \(\mathcal {SP}_\infty \) ) mechanisms. En route to these results, we also provide a definitive answer to an important question related to the scheduling problem, namely whether non-truthful mechanisms can provide better makespan guarantees in the equilibrium, compared to truthful ones. We answer this question in the negative, by proving that the Price of Anarchy of all scheduling mechanisms is at least n , where n is the number of machines.

We resolve the computational complexity of three problems known as Necklace Splitting, Consensus-Halving, and Discrete Ham sandwich, showing that they are PPA-complete. For NECKLACE SPLITTING, this result is specific to the important special case in which two thieves share the necklace. These are the first PPA-completeness results for problems whose definition does not contain an explicit circuit, thus settling the status of PPA as a class that captures the complexity of such “natural' problems.

In large e-commerce websites, sellers have been observed to engage in fraudulent behaviour, faking historical transactions in order to receive favourable treatment from the platforms, specifically through the allocation of additional buyer impressions which results in higher revenue for them, but not for the system as a whole. This emergent phenomenon has attracted considerable attention, with previous approaches focusing on trying to detect illicit practices and to punish the miscreants. In this paper, we employ the principles of reinforcement mechanism design, a framework that combines the fundamental goals of classical mechanism design, i.e. the consideration of agents' incentives and their alignment with the objectives of the designer, with deep reinforcement learning for optimizing the performance based on these incentives. In particular, first we set up a deep-learning framework for predicting the sellers' rationality, based on real data from any allocation algorithm. We use data from one of largest e-commerce platforms worldwide and train a neural network model to predict the extent to which the sellers will engage in fraudulent behaviour. Using this rationality model, we employ an algorithm based on deep reinforcement learning to optimize the objectives and compare its performance against several natural heuristics, including the platform's implementation and incentive-based mechanisms from the related literature.

The Consensus-halving problem is the problem of dividing an object into two portions, such that each of n agents has equal valuation for the two portions. We study the epsilon-approximate version, which allows each agent to have an epsilon discrepancy on the values of the portions. It was recently proven in [Filos-Ratsikas and Goldberg, 2018] that the problem of computing an epsilon-approximate Consensus-halving solution (for n agents and n cuts) is PPA-complete when epsilon is inverse-exponential. In this paper, we prove that when epsilon is constant, the problem is PPAD-hard and the problem remains PPAD-hard when we allow a constant number of additional cuts. Additionally, we prove that deciding whether a solution with n-1 cuts exists for the problem is NP-hard.

We show that the computational problem Consensus Halving is PPA-Complete, the first PPA-Completeness result for a problem whose definition does not involve an explicit circuit. We also show that an approximate version of this problem is polynomial-time equivalent to Necklace Splitting, which establishes PPAD-hardness for Necklace Splitting and suggests that it is also PPA-Complete.

We study the problem of allocating impressions to sellers in e-commerce websites, such as Amazon, eBay or Taobao, aiming to maximize the total revenue generated by the platform. We employ a general framework of reinforcement mechanism design, which uses deep reinforcement learning to design efficient algorithms, taking the strategic behaviour of the sellers into account. Specifically, we model the impression allocation problem as a Markov decision process, where the states encode the history of impressions, prices, transactions and generated revenue and the actions are the possible impression allocations in each round. To tackle the problem of continuity and high-dimensionality of states and actions, we adopt the ideas of the DDPG algorithm to design an actor-critic policy gradient algorithm which takes advantage of the problem domain in order to achieve convergence and stability. We evaluate our proposed algorithm, coined IA(GRU), by comparing it against DDPG, as well as several natural heuristics, under different rationality models for the sellers - we assume that sellers follow well-known no-regret type strategies which may vary in their degree of sophistication. We find that IA(GRU) outperforms all algorithms in terms of the total revenue.

Multi-unit auctions are a paradigmatic model, where a seller brings multiple units of a good, while several buyers bring monetary endowments. It is well known that Walrasian equilibria do not always exist in this model, however compelling relaxations such as Walrasian envy-free pricing do. In this paper we design an optimal envy-free mechanism for multi-unit auctions with budgets. When the market is even mildly competitive, the approximation ratios of this mechanism are small constants for both the revenue and welfare objectives, and in fact for welfare the approximation converges to 1 as the market becomes fully competitive. We also give an impossibility theorem, showing that truthfulness requires discarding resources, and in particular, is incompatible with (Pareto) efficiency.

We study the problem of locating a single facility on a real line based on the reports of self-interested agents, when agents have double-peaked preferences, with the peaks being on opposite sides of their locations. We observe that double-peaked preferences capture real-life scenarios and thus complement the well-studied notion of single-peaked preferences. As a motivating example, assume that the government plans to build a primary school along a street; an agent with single-peaked preferences would prefer having the school built exactly next to her house. However, while that would make it very easy for her children to go to school, it would also introduce several problems, such as noise or parking congestion in the morning. A 5-min walking distance would be sufficiently far for such problems to no longer be much of a factor and at the same time sufficiently close for the school to be easily accessible by the children on foot. There are two positions (symmetrically) in each direction and those would be the agent’s two peaks of her double-peaked preference. Motivated by natural scenarios like the one described above, we mainly focus on the case where peaks are equidistant from the agents’ locations and discuss how our results extend to more general settings. We show that most of the results for single-peaked preferences do not directly apply to this setting, which makes the problem more challenging. As our main contribution, we present a simple truthful-in-expectation mechanism that achieves an approximation ratio of $$1+b/c$$ for both the social and the maximum cost, where b is the distance of the agent from the peak and c is the minimum cost of an agent. For the latter case, we provide a 3 / 2 lower bound on the approximation ratio of any truthful-in-expectation mechanism. We also study deterministic mechanisms under some natural conditions, proving lower bounds and approximation guarantees. We prove that among a large class of reasonable strategyproof mechanisms, there is no deterministic mechanism that outperforms our truthful-in-expectation mechanism. In order to obtain this result, we first characterize mechanisms for two agents that satisfy two simple properties; we use the same characterization to prove that no mechanism in this class can be group-strategyproof.

Strategic behaviour from sellers on e-commerce websites, such as faking transactions and manipulating the recommendation scores through artificial reviews, have been among the most notorious obstacles that prevent websites from maximizing the efficiency of their recommendations. Previous approaches have focused almost exclusively on machine learning-related techniques to detect and penalize such behaviour. In this paper, we tackle the problem from a different perspective, using the approach of the field of mechanism design. We put forward a game model tailored for the setting at hand and aim to construct truthful mechanisms, i.e. mechanisms that do not provide incentives for dishonest reputation-augmenting actions, that guarantee good recommendations in the worst-case. For the setting with two agents, we propose a truthful mechanism that is optimal in terms of social efficiency. For the general case of m agents, we prove both lower and upper bound results on the effciency of truthful mechanisms and propose truthful mechanisms that yield significantly better results, when compared to an existing mechanism from a leading e-commerce site on real data.

We study the truthful facility assignment problem, where a set of agents with private most-preferred points on a metric space are assigned to facilities that lie on the metric space, under capacity constraints on the facilities. The goal is to produce such an assignment that minimizes the social cost, i.e., the total distance between the most-preferred points of the agents and their corresponding facilities in the assignment, under the constraint of truthfulness, which ensures that agents do not misreport their most-preferred points. We propose a resource augmentation framework, where a truthful mechanism is evaluated by its worst-case performance on an instance with enhanced facility capacities against the optimal mechanism on the same instance with the original capacities. We study a well-known mechanism, Serial Dictatorship, and provide an exact analysis of its performance. Among other results, we prove that Serial Dictatorship has approximation ratio $$g/(g-2)$$ when the capacities are multiplied by any integer $$g \ge 3$$ . Our results suggest that even a limited augmentation of the resources can have wondrous effects on the performance of the mechanism and in particular, the approximation ratio goes to 1 as the augmentation factor becomes large. We complement our results with bounds on the approximation ratio of Random Serial Dictatorship, the randomized version of Serial Dictatorship, when there is no resource augmentation.

We study the problem of locating a single facility on a real line based on the reports of self-interested agents, when agents have double-peaked preferences, with the peaks being on opposite sides of their locations.We observe that double-peaked preferences capture real-life scenarios and thus complement the well-studied notion of single-peaked preferences. We mainly focus on the case where peaks are equidistant from the agents’ locations and discuss how our results extend to more general settings. We show that most of the results for single-peaked preferences do not directly apply to this setting; this makes the problem essentially more challenging. As our main contribution, we present a simple truthful-in-expectation mechanism that achieves an approximation ratio of 1+b/c for both the social and the maximum cost, where b is the distance of the agent from the peak and c is the minimum cost of an agent. For the latter case, we provide a 3/2 lower bound on the approximation ratio of any truthful-in-expectation mechanism. We also study deterministic mechanisms under some natural conditions, proving lower bounds and approximation guarantees. We prove that among a large class of reasonable mechanisms, there is no deterministic mechanism that outpeforms our truthful-in-expectation mechanism.

The Fisher market model is one of the most fundamental resource allocation models in economics. In a Fisher market, the prices and allocations of goods are determined according to the preferences and budgets of buyers to clear the market. In a Fisher market game, however, buyers are strategic and report their preferences over goods; the market-clearing prices and allocations are then determined based on their reported preferences rather than their real preferences. We show that the Fisher market game always has a pure Nash equilibrium, for buyers with linear, Leontief, and Cobb-Douglas utility functions, which are three representative classes of utility functions in the important Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) family. Furthermore, to quantify the social efficiency, we prove Price of Anarchy bounds for the game when the utility functions of buyers fall into these three classes respectively.

We study the problem of approximate social welfare maximization (without money) in one-sided matching problems when agents have unrestricted cardinal preferences over a finite set of items. Random priority is a very well-known truthful-in-expectation mechanism for the problem. We prove that the approximation ratio of random priority is Θ( n − 1/2 ) while no truthful-in-expectation mechanism can achieve an approximation ratio better than O ( n − 1/2 ), where n is the number of agents and items. Furthermore, we prove that the approximation ratio of all ordinal (not necessarily truthful-in-expectation) mechanisms is upper bounded by O ( n − 1/2 ), indicating that random priority is asymptotically the best truthful-in-expectation mechanism and the best ordinal mechanism for the problem. 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 consider the fundamental mechanism design problem of approximate social welfare maximization under general cardinal preferences on a finite number of alternatives and without money . The well-known range voting scheme can be thought of as a non-truthful mechanism for exact social welfare maximization in this setting. With m being the number of alternatives, we exhibit a randomized truthful-in-expectation ordinal mechanism with approximation ratio Ω( m − 3/4 ). On the other hand, we show that for sufficiently many agents, the approximation ratio of any truthful-in-expectation ordinal mechanism is O ( m − 2/3 ). We supplement our results with an upper bound for any truthful-in-expectation mechanism. We get tighter bounds for the natural special case of m = 3, and in that case furthermore obtain separation results concerning the approximation ratios achievable by natural restricted classes of truthful-in-expectation mechanisms. In particular, we show that the best cardinal truthful mechanism strictly outperforms all ordinal ones. 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.