We study rank aggregation algorithms that take as input the opinions of players over their peers, represented as rankings, and output a social ordering of the players (which reflects, e.g., relative contribution to a project or fit for a job). To prevent strategic behavior, these algorithms must be impartial, i.e., players should not be able to influence their own position in the output ranking. We design several randomized algorithms that are impartial and closely emulate given (non-impartial) rank aggregation rules in a rigorous sense. Experimental results further support the efficacy and practicability of our algorithms.

We consider the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods, focusing on a recently introduced notion of fairness called maximin share guarantee : each player’s value for his allocation should be at least as high as what he can guarantee by dividing the items into as many bundles as there are players and receiving his least desirable bundle. Assuming additive valuation functions, we show that such allocations may not exist, but allocations guaranteeing each player 2/3 of the above value always exist. These theoretical results have direct practical implications.

We study the paradigmatic fair division problem of fairly allocating a divisible good among agents with heterogeneous preferences, commonly known as cake cutting. Classic cake cutting protocols are susceptible to manipulation. Do their strategic outcomes still guarantee fairness? To address this question we adopt a novel algorithmic approach, proposing a concrete computational model and reasoning about the game-theoretic properties of algorithms that operate in this model. Specifically, we show that each protocol in the class of generalized cut and choose (GCC) protocols --- which includes the most important discrete cake cutting protocols --- is guaranteed to have approximate subgame perfect Nash equilibria, or even exact equilibria if the protocol's tie-breaking rule is flexible. We further observe that the (approximate) equilibria of proportional protocols --- which guarantee each of the n agents a 1/n-fraction of the cake --- must be (approximately) proportional, thereby answering the above question in the positive (at least for one common notion of fairness).

The fairness notion of maximin share (MMS) guarantee underlies a deployed algorithm for allocating indivisible goods under additive valuations. Our goal is to understand when we can expect to be able to give each player his MMS guarantee. Previous work has shown that such an MMS allocation may not exist, but the counterexample requires a number of goods that is exponential in the number of players; we give a new construction that uses only a linear number of goods. On the positive side, we formalize the intuition that these counterexamples are very delicate by designing an algorithm that provably finds an MMS allocation with high probability when valuations are drawn at random.

The maximum Nash welfare (MNW) solution --- which selects an allocation that maximizes the product of utilities --- is known to provide outstanding fairness guarantees when allocating divisible goods. And while it seems to lose its luster when applied to indivisible goods, we show that, in fact, the MNW solution is unexpectedly, strikingly fair even in that setting. In particular, we prove that it selects allocations that are envy free up to one good --- a compelling notion that is quite elusive when coupled with economic efficiency. We also establish that the MNW solution provides a good approximation to another popular (yet possibly infeasible) fairness property, the maximin share guarantee, in theory and --- even more so --- in practice. While finding the MNW solution is computationally hard, we develop a nontrivial implementation, and demonstrate that it scales well on real data. These results lead us to believe that MNW is the ultimate solution for allocating indivisible goods, and underlie its deployment on a popular fair division website.

As part of a collaboration with a major California school district, we study the problem of fairly allocating unused classrooms in public schools to charter schools. Our approach revolves around the randomized leximin mechanism. We extend previous work to the classroom allocation setting, showing that the leximin mechanism is proportional, envy-free, efficient, and group strategyproof. We also prove that the leximin mechanism provides a (worst-case) 4-approximation to the maximum number of classrooms that can possibly be allocated. Our experiments, which are based on real data, show that a nontrivial implementation of the leximin mechanism scales gracefully in terms of running time (even though the problem is intractable in theory), and performs extremely well with respect to a number of efficiency objectives. We take great pains to establish the practicability of our approach, and discuss issues related to its deployment.

We introduce the simultaneous model for cake cutting (the fair allocation of a divisible good), in which agents simultaneously send messages containing a sketch of their preferences over the cake. We show that this model enables the computation of divisions that satisfy proportionality -- a popular fairness notion -- using a protocol that circumvents a standard lower bound via parallel information elicitation. Cake divisions satisfying another prominent fairness notion, envy-freeness, are impossible to compute in the simultaneous model, but admit arbitrarily good approximations.

We present a novel extension of normal form games that we call biased games. In these games, a player's utility is influenced by the distance between his mixed strategy and a given base strategy. We argue that biased games capture important aspects of the interaction between software agents. Our main result is that biased games satisfying certain mild conditions always admit an equilibrium. We also tackle the computation of equilibria in biased games.

We examine trade-offs among stakeholders in ad auctions. Our metrics are the revenue for the utility of the auctioneer, the number of clicks for the utility of the users and the welfare for the utility of the advertisers. We show how to optimize linear combinations of the stakeholder utilities, showing that these can be tackled through a GSP auction with a per-click reserve price. We then examine constrained optimization of stakeholder utilities.

For decades researchers have struggled with the problem of envy-free cake cutting: how to divide a divisible good between multiple agents so that each agent likes his own allocation best. Although an envy-free cake cutting protocol was ultimately devised, it is unbounded, in the sense that the number of operations can be arbitrarily large, depending on the preferences of the agents. We ask whether bounded protocols exist when the agents' preferences are restricted. Our main result is an envy-free cake cutting protocol for agents with piecewise linear valuations, which requires a number of operations that is polynomial in natural parameters of the given instance.