In social networks, opinions and behaviors tend to spread quickly. When an idea seeks to gain attention, success requires both attracting individual users and a careful understanding of cascading behavior -- an idea that attracts a small set of highly influential individuals can easily overwhelm an idea with a much larger, but less influential, support base. Understanding exactly how the choices of individuals propagate through a network, however, poses significant challenges. In this work, we consider a model recently studied by Chierichetti, Kleinberg, and Panconesi (EC 2012) to model cascading behavior when members of a social network must each choose one of two opposing ideas. The model captures the struggle between a desire to follow personal preferences and to match the choices of those you interact with.

We study the power of fractional allocations of resources to maximize our influence in a network. This work extends in a natural way the well-studied model by Kleinberg, Kempe, and Tardos (2003), where a designer selects a (small) seed set of nodes in a social network to influence directly, this influence cascades when other nodes reach certain thresholds of neighbor influence, and the goal is to maximize the final number of influenced nodes. Despite extensive study from both practical and theoretical viewpoints, this model limits the designer to a binary choice for each node, with no chance to apply intermediate levels of influence. This model captures some settings precisely, such as exposure to an idea or pathogen, but it fails to capture very relevant concerns in others, for example, a manufacturer promoting a new product by distributing five "20% off" coupons instead of giving away a single free product.

We study the makespan minimization problem with unrelated selfish machines under the assumption that job sizes are stochastic. We design simple truthful mechanisms that under different distributional assumptions provide constant and sublogarithmic approximations to expected makespan. Our mechanisms are prior-independent in that they do not rely on knowledge of the job size distributions. Prior-independent approximations were previously known only for the revenue maximization objective [13, 11, 26]. In contrast to our results, in prior-free settings no truthful anonymous deterministic mechanism for the makespan objective can provide a sublinear approximation [3].

We study Bayesian mechanism design problems in settings where agents have budgets. Specifically, an agent's utility for an outcome is given by his value for the outcome minus any payment he makes to the mechanism, as long as the payment is below his budget, and is negative infinity otherwise. This discontinuity in the utility function presents a significant challenge in the design of good mechanisms, and classical mechanisms fail to work in settings with budgets. The goal of this paper is to develop general reductions from budget-constrained Bayesian MD to unconstrained Bayesian MD with small loss in performance. We consider this question in the context of the two most well-studied objectives in mechanism design---social welfare and revenue---and present constant factor approximations in a number of settings. Some of our results extend to settings where budgets are private and agents need to be incentivized to reveal them truthfully.

We investigate the power of randomness in the context of a fundamental Bayesian optimal mechanism design problem - a single seller aims to maximize expected revenue by allocating multiple kinds of resources to "unit-demand" agents with preferences drawn from a known distribution. When the agents' preferences are single-dimensional Myerson's seminal work [14] shows that randomness offers no benefit - the optimal mechanism is always deterministic. In the multi-dimensional case, where each agent's preferences are given by different values for each of the available services, Briest et al.[6] recently showed that the gap between the expected revenue obtained by an optimal randomized mechanism and an optimal deterministic mechanism can be unbounded even when a single agent is offered only 4 services. However, this large gap is attained through unnatural instances where values of the agent for different services are correlated in a specific way. We show that when the agent's values involve no correlation or a specific kind of positive correlation, the benefit of randomness is only a small constant factor (4 and 8 respectively). Our model of positively correlated values (that we call the common base value model) is a natural model for unit-demand agents and items that are substitutes. Our results extend to multiple agent settings as well.

We study the classic mathematical economics problem of Bayesian optimal mechanism design where a principal aims to optimize expected revenue when allocating resources to self-interested agents with preferences drawn from a known distribution. In single parameter settings (i.e., where each agent's preference is given by a single private value for being served and zero for not being served) this problem is solved [20]. Unfortunately, these single parameter optimal mechanisms are impractical and rarely employed [1], and furthermore the underlying economic theory fails to generalize to the important, relevant, and unsolved multi-dimensional setting (i.e., where each agent's preference is given by multiple values for each of the multiple services available) [25].