We study a game-theoretic model for pool formation in Proof of Stake blockchain protocols. In such systems, stakeholders can form pools as a means of obtaining regular rewards from participation in ledger maintenance, with the power of each pool being dependent on its collective stake. The question we are interested in is the design of mechanisms, i.e., "reward sharing schemes," that suitably split rewards among pool members and achieve favorable properties in the resulting pool configuration. With this in mind, we initiate a non-cooperative game-theoretic analysis of the well known Shapley value scheme from cooperative game theory into the context of blockchains. In particular, we focus on the oceanic model of games, proposed by Milnor and Shapley (1978), which is suitable for populations where a small set of large players coexists with a big mass of rather small, negligible players. This provides an appropriate level of abstraction for pool formation processes that occur among the stakeholders of a blockchain. We provide comparisons between the Shapley mechanism and the more standard proportional scheme, in terms of attained decentralization, via a Price of Stability analysis and in terms of susceptibility to Sybil attacks, i.e., the strategic splitting of a players' stake with the intention of participating in multiple pools for increased profit. Interestingly, while the widely deployed proportional scheme appears to have certain advantages, the Shapley value scheme, which rewards higher the most pivotal players, emerges as a competitive alternative, by being able to bypass some of the downsides of proportional sharing in terms of Sybil attack susceptibility, while also not being far from optimal guarantees w.r.t. decentralization. Finally, we also complement our study with some variations of proportional sharing, where the profit is split in proportion to a superadditive or a subadditive function of the stake, showing that our results for the Shapley value scheme are maintained in comparison to these functions as well.

Participatory budgeting allows citizens to decide how to allocate public funds among projects. Motivated by recent real-world applications in both municipal and blockchain environments, we propose and study a framework where voters can donate additional private funds to enhance their own satisfaction, using cumulative ballots to express preferences. We introduce the first mechanisms for this setting and evaluate them primarily based on the satisfaction of axioms, while also exploring their algorithmic and strategic aspects.

We focus on the design of algorithms for finding equilibria in 2-player zero-sum games. Although it is well known that such problems can be solved by a single linear program, there has been a surge of interest in recent years for simpler algorithms, motivated in part by applications in machine learning. Our work proposes such a method, inspired by the observation that the duality gap (a standard metric for evaluating convergence in min-max optimization problems) is a convex function for bilinear zero-sum games. To this end, we analyze a descent-based approach, variants of which have also been used as a subroutine in a series of algorithms for approximating Nash equilibria in general non-zero-sum games. In particular, we study a steepest descent approach, by finding the direction that minimises the directional derivative of the duality gap function. Our main theoretical result is that the derived algorithms achieve a geometric decrease in the duality gap until we reach an approximate equilibrium. Finally, we complement this with an experimental evaluation, which provides promising findings. Our algorithm is comparable with (and in some cases outperforms) some of the standard approaches for solving 0-sum games, such as OGDA (Optimistic Gradient Descent/Ascent), even with thousands of available strategies per player.

We study the fair allocation of indivisible goods under cardinality constraints, where each agent must receive a bundle of fixed size. This models practical scenarios–such as assigning shifts or forming equally sized teams. Recently, variants of envy-freeness up to one/any item (EF1, EFX) were introduced for this setting, based on flips or exchanges of items. Namely, one can define envy-freeness up to one/any flip (EFF1, EFFX), meaning that an agent i does not envy another agent j after performing one or any one-item flip between their bundles that improves the value of i . We explore algorithmic aspects of this notion, and our contribution is twofold: we present both algorithmic and impossibility results, highlighting a stark contrast between the classic EFX concept and its flip-based analogue. First, we explore standard techniques used in the literature and show that they fail to guarantee EFFX approximations. On the positive side, we show that we can achieve a constant factor approximation guarantee when agents share a common ranking over item values, based on the well-known envy cycle elimination technique. This idea also leads to a generalized algorithm with approximation guarantees when agents agree on the top n items and their valuation functions are bounded. Finally, we show that an algorithm that maximizes the Nash welfare guarantees a 1/2-EFF1 allocation, and that this bound is tight.

We focus on a generalization of the classic Minisum approval voting rule, introduced by Barrot and Lang (2016), and referred to as Conditional Minisum ( cms ), for multi-issue elections with preferential dependencies. Under this rule, voters are allowed to declare dependencies between different issues, but the price we have to pay for this higher level of expressiveness is that we end up with a computationally hard rule. Motivated by this, we first focus on finding special cases that admit efficient algorithms for cms . Our main result in this direction is that we identify the condition of bounded treewidth (of an appropriate graph, emerging from the provided ballots) as the necessary and sufficient condition for exact polynomial algorithms , under common complexity assumptions. We then move to the design of approximation algorithms . For the (still hard) case of binary issues, we identify natural restrictions on the voters' ballots, under which we provide the first multiplicative approximation algorithms for the problem. The restrictions involve upper bounds on the number of dependencies an issue can have on the others and on the number of alternatives per issue that a voter can approve. Finally, we also investigate the complexity of problems related to the strategic control of conditional approval elections by adding or deleting either voters or alternatives and we show that in most variants of these problems, cms is computationally resistant against control. Overall, we conclude that cms can be viewed as a solution that achieves a satisfactory tradeoff between expressiveness and computational efficiency, when we have a limited number of dependencies among issues, while at the same time exhibiting sufficient resistance to control.

We consider a multi-issue election setting over a set of possibly interdependent issues with the goal of achieving proportional representation of the views of the electorate. To this end, we employ a proportionality criterion suggested recently in the literature, that guarantees fair representation for all groups of voters of sufficient size. For this criterion, there exist rules that perform well in the case where all the issues have a binary domain and are independent of each other. In particular, this has been shown for Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and for the Method of Equal Shares (MES). In this paper, we go two steps further: we generalize these guarantees for issues with a non-binary domain, and, most importantly, we consider extensions to elections with dependencies among issues, where we identify restrictions that lead to analogous results. To achieve this, we define appropriate generalizations of PAV and MES to handle conditional ballots. In addition to proportionality considerations, we also examine the computational properties of the conditional version of MES. Our findings indicate that the conditional case poses additional challenges and differs significantly from the unconditional one, both in terms of proportionality guarantees and computational complexity.

Since the seminal PPAD-completeness result for computing a Nash equilibrium even in two-player games, an important line of research has focused on relaxations achievable in polynomial time. In this paper, we consider the notion of ε-well-supported Nash equilibrium, where ε ∈ [0,1] corresponds to the approximation guarantee. Put simply, in an ε-well-supported equilibrium, every player chooses with positive probability actions that are within ε of the maximum achievable payoff, against the other player's strategy. Ever since the initial approximation guarantee of 2/3 for well-supported equilibria, which was established more than a decade ago, the progress on this problem has been extremely slow and incremental. Notably, the small improvements to 0.6608, and finally to 0.6528, were achieved by algorithms of growing complexity. Our main result is a simple and intuitive algorithm, that improves the approximation guarantee to 1/2. Our algorithm is based on linear programming and in particular on exploiting suitably defined zero-sum games that arise from the payoff matrices of the two players. As a byproduct, we show how to achieve the same approximation guarantee in a query-efficient way. * The full version of the paper can be accessed at https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07007

Abstract. Since the seminal PPAD -completeness result for computing a Nash equilibrium even in two-player games, an important line of research has focused on relaxations achievable in polynomial time. In this paper, we consider the notion of an [Formula: see text]-well-supported Nash equilibrium, where [Formula: see text] corresponds to the approximation guarantee. Put simply, in an [Formula: see text]-well-supported equilibrium, every player chooses with positive probability actions that are within [Formula: see text] of the maximum achievable payoff against the other player’s strategy. Ever since the initial approximation guarantee of 2/3 for well-supported equilibria, which was established more than a decade ago, the progress on this problem has been extremely slow and incremental. Notably, the small improvements to 0.6608, and finally to 0.6528, were achieved by algorithms of growing complexity. Our main result is a simple and intuitive algorithm that improves the approximation guarantee to 1/2. Our algorithm is based on linear programming and in particular on exploiting suitably defined zero-sum games that arise from the payoff matrices of the two players. As a byproduct, we show how to achieve the same approximation guarantee in a query-efficient way.

Since the celebrated PPAD-completeness result for Nash equilibria in bimatrix games, a long line of research has focused on polynomial-time algorithms that compute ε-approximate Nash equilibria. Finding the best possible approximation guarantee that we can have in polynomial time has been a fundamental and non-trivial pursuit on settling the complexity of approximate equilibria. Despite a significant amount of effort, the algorithm of Tsaknakis and Spirakis [ 38 ], with an approximation guarantee of (0.3393+δ), remains the state of the art over the last 15 years. In this paper, we propose a new refinement of the Tsaknakis-Spirakis algorithm, resulting in a polynomial-time algorithm that computes a \((\frac{1}{3}+\delta)\) -Nash equilibrium, for any constant δ > 0. The main idea of our approach is to go beyond the use of convex combinations of primal and dual strategies, as defined in the optimization framework of [ 38 ], and enrich the pool of strategies from which we build the strategy profiles that we output in certain bottleneck cases of the algorithm.

Our work focuses on extra gradient learning algorithms for finding Nash equilibria in bilinear zero-sum games. The proposed method, which can be formally considered as a variant of Optimistic Mirror Descent (Mertikopoulos et al., 2019), uses a large learning rate for the intermediate gradient step which essentially leads to computing (approximate) best response strategies against the profile of the previous iteration. Although counter-intuitive at first sight due to the irrationally large, for an iterative algorithm, intermediate learning step, we prove that the method guarantees last-iterate convergence to an equilibrium. Particularly, we show that the algorithm reaches first an $\eta^{1/\rho}$-approximate Nash equilibrium, with $\rho > 1$, by decreasing the Kullback-Leibler divergence of each iterate by at least $\Omega(\eta^{1+\frac{1}{\rho}})$, for sufficiently small learning rate $\eta$, until the method becomes a contracting map, and converges to the exact equilibrium. Furthermore, we perform experimental comparisons with the optimistic variant of the multiplicative weights update method, by Daskalakis and Panageas (2019) and show that our algorithm has significant practical potential since it offers substantial gains in terms of accelerated convergence.

Since the celebrated PPAD-completeness result for Nash equilibria in bimatrix games, a long line of research has focused on polynomial-time algorithms that compute $\varepsilon$-approximate Nash equilibria. Finding the best possible approximation guarantee that we can have in polynomial time has been a fundamental and non-trivial pursuit on settling the complexity of approximate equilibria. Despite a significant amount of effort, the algorithm of Tsaknakis and Spirakis, with an approximation guarantee of $(0.3393+δ)$, remains the state of the art over the last 15 years. In this paper, we propose a new refinement of the Tsaknakis-Spirakis algorithm, resulting in a polynomial-time algorithm that computes a $(\frac{1}{3}+δ)$-Nash equilibrium, for any constant $δ>0$. The main idea of our approach is to go beyond the use of convex combinations of primal and dual strategies, as defined in the optimization framework of Tsaknakis and Spirakis, and enrich the pool of strategies from which we build the strategy profiles that we output in certain bottleneck cases of the algorithm.

Our work focuses on a generalization of the classic Minisum approval voting rule, introduced by Barrot and Lang (2016), and referred to as Conditional Minisum (CMS), for multi-issue elections. Although the CMS rule provides much higher levels of expressiveness, this comes at the expense of increased computational complexity. In this work, we study further the issue of efficient algorithms for CMS, and we identify the condition of bounded treewidth (of an appropriate graph that emerges from the provided ballots), as the necessary and sufficient condition for polynomial algorithms, under common complexity assumptions. Additionally we investigate the complexity of problems related to the strategic control of such elections by the possibility of adding or deleting either voters or alternatives. We exhibit that in most variants of these problems, CMS is resistant against control.

We study a revenue maximization problem in the context of social networks. Namely, we generalize a model introduced by Alon, Mansour, and Tennenholtz [2] that captures inequity aversion, i.e., it captures the fact that prices offered to neighboring nodes should not differ significantly. We first provide approximation algorithms for a natural class of instances, where the total revenue is the sum of single-value revenue functions. Our results improve on the current state of the art, especially when the number of distinct prices is small. This applies, for instance, to settings where the seller will only consider a fixed number of discount types or special offers. To complement our positive results, we resolve one of the open questions posed in [2] by establishing APX-hardness for the problem. Surprisingly, we further show that the problem is NP-complete even when the price differences are allowed to be large, or even when the number of allowed distinct prices is as small as three. Finally, we study extensions of the model regarding the demand type of the clients.

Several relaxations of envy-freeness, tailored to fair division in settings with indivisible goods, have been introduced within the last decade. Due to the lack of general existence results for most of these concepts, great attention has been paid to establishing approximation guarantees. In this work, we propose a simple algorithm that is universally fair in the sense that it returns allocations that have good approximation guarantees with respect to four such fairness notions at once. In particular, this is the first algorithm achieving a (φ−1)-approximation of envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) and a 2/φ+2 -approximation of groupwise maximin share fairness (GMMS), where φ is the golden ratio. The best known approximation factor, in polynomial time, for either one of these fairness notions prior to this work was 1/2. Moreover, the returned allocation achieves envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and a 2/3-approximation of pairwise maximin share fairness (PMMS). While EFX is our primary focus, we also exhibit how to fine-tune our algorithm and improve further the guarantees for GMMS or PMMS.Finally, we show that GMMS—and thus PMMS and EFX—allocations always exist when the number of goods does not exceed the number of agents by more than two.

Approval voting provides a simple, practical framework for multi-issue elections, and the most representative example among such election rules is the classic Minisum approval voting rule. We consider a generalization of Minisum, introduced by the work of Barrot and Lang [2016], referred to as Conditional Minisum, where voters are also allowed to express dependencies between issues. The price we have to pay when we move to this higher level of expressiveness is that we end up with a computationally hard rule. Motivated by this, we focus on the computational aspects of Conditional Minisum, where progress has been rather scarce so far. We identify restrictions to every voter's dependencies, under which we provide the first multiplicative approximation algorithms for the problem. The restrictions involve upper bounds on the number of dependencies an issue can have on the others. At the same time, by additionally requiring certain structural properties for the union of dependencies cast by the whole electorate, we obtain optimal efficient algorithms for well-motivated special cases. Overall, our work provides a better understanding on the complexity implications introduced by conditional voting.

We study mechanism design for combinatorial cost sharing models. Imagine that multiple items or services are available to be shared among a set of interested agents. The outcome of a mechanism in this setting consists of an assignment, determining for each item the set of players who are granted service, together with respective payments. Although there are several works studying specialized versions of such problems, there has been almost no progress for general combinatorial cost sharing domains until recently [7]. Still, many questions about the interplay between strategyproofness, cost recovery and economic efficiency remain unanswered. The main goal of our work is to further understand this interplay in terms of budget balance and social cost approximation. Towards this, we provide a refinement of cross-monotonicity (which we term trace-monotonicity) that is applicable to iterative mechanisms. The trace here refers to the order in which players become finalized. On top of this, we also provide two parameterizations (complementary to a certain extent) of cost functions which capture the behavior of their average cost-shares. Based on our trace-monotonicity property, we design a scheme of ascending cost sharing mechanisms which is applicable to the combinatorial cost sharing setting with symmetric submodular valuations. Using our first cost function parameterization, we identify conditions under which our mechanism is weakly group-strategyproof, O(1)-budget-balanced and O(Hn)-approximate with respect to the social cost. Further, we show that our mechanism is budget-balanced and Hn-approximate if both the valuations and the cost functions are symmetric submodular; given existing impossibility results, this is best possible. Finally, we consider general valuation functions and exploit our second parameterization to derive a more fine-grained analysis of the Sequential Mechanism introduced by Moulin. This mechanism is budget balanced by construction, but in general only guarantees a poor social cost approximation of n. We identify conditions under which the mechanism achieves improved social cost approximation guarantees. In particular, we derive improved mechanisms for fundamental cost sharing problems, including Vertex Cover and Set Cover.

In fair division problems with indivisible goods it is well known that one cannot have any guarantees for the classic fairness notions of envy-freeness and proportionality. As a result, several relaxations have been introduced, most of which in quite recent works. We focus on four such notions, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), maximin share fairness (MMS), and pairwise maximin share fairness (PMMS). Since obtaining these relaxations also turns out to be problematic in several scenarios, approximate versions of them have also been considered. In this work, we investigate further the connections between the four notions mentioned above and their approximate versions. We establish several tight or almost tight results concerning the approximation quality that any of these notions guarantees for the others, providing an almost complete picture of this landscape. Some of our findings reveal interesting and surprising consequences regarding the power of these notions, e.g., PMMS and EFX provide the same worst-case guarantee for MMS, despite PMMS being a strictly stronger notion than EFX. We believe such implications provide further insight on the quality of approximately fair solutions.

We study the mechanism design problem of allocating a set of indivisible items without monetary transfers. Despite the vast literature on this very standard model, it still remains unclear how do truthful mechanisms look like. We focus on the case of two players with additive valuation functions and our purpose is twofold. First, our main result provides a complete characterization of truthful mechanisms that allocate all the items to the players. Our characterization reveals an interesting structure underlying all truthful mechanisms, showing that they can be decomposed into two components: a selection part where players pick their best subset among prespecified choices determined by the mechanism, and an exchange part where players are offered the chance to exchange certain subsets if it is favorable to do so. In the remaining paper, we apply our main result and derive several consequences on the design of mechanisms with fairness guarantees. We consider various notions of fairness, (indicatively, maximin share guarantees and envy-freeness up to one item) and provide tight bounds for their approximability. Our work settles some of the open problems in this agenda, and we conclude by discussing possible extensions to more players.

Deferred-acceptance (DA) auctions} are mechanisms that are based on backward-greedy algorithms and possess a number of remarkable incentive properties, including implementation as an obviously-strategyproof ascending auction. All existing work on DA auctions considers only binary single-parameter problems, where each bidder either ``wins'' or ``loses.'' This paper generalizes the DA auction framework to non-binary settings, and applies this generalized framework to obtain approximately welfare-maximizing DA auctions for a number of basic mechanism design problems: multiunit auctions, problems with polymatroid constraints or multiple knapsack constraints, and the problem of scheduling jobs to minimize their total weighted completion time. Our results require the design of novel backward-greedy algorithms with good approximation guarantees.

We study the problem of computing maximin share allocations, a recently introduced fairness notion. Given a set of n agents and a set of goods, the maximin share of an agent is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she is allowed to partition the goods in any way she prefers, into n bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find a partition, where each agent is guaranteed her maximin share. Such allocations do not always exist, hence we resort to approximation algorithms. Our main result is a 2/3-approximation that runs in polynomial time for any number of agents and goods. This improves upon the algorithm of Procaccia and Wang (2014), which is also a 2/3-approximation but runs in polynomial time only for a constant number of agents. To achieve this, we redesign certain parts of the algorithm in Procaccia and Wang (2014), exploiting the construction of carefully selected matchings in a bipartite graph representation of the problem. Furthermore, motivated by the apparent difficulty in establishing lower bounds, we undertake a probabilistic analysis. We prove that in randomly generated instances, maximin share allocations exist with high probability. This can be seen as a justification of previously reported experimental evidence. Finally, we provide further positive results for two special cases arising from previous works. The first is the intriguing case of three agents, where we provide an improved 7/8-approximation. The second case is when all item values belong to {0, 1, 2}, where we obtain an exact algorithm.

We study convergence properties of iterative voting procedures. Such procedures are defined by a voting rule and a (restricted) iterative process, where at each step one agent can modify his vote towards a better outcome for himself. It is already known that if the iteration dynamics (the manner in which voters are allowed to modify their votes) are unrestricted, then the voting process may not converge. For most common voting rules this may be observed even under the best response dynamics limitation. It is therefore important to investigate whether and which natural restrictions on the dynamics of iterative voting procedures can guarantee convergence. To this end, we provide two general conditions on the dynamics based on iterative myopic improvements, each of which is sufficient for convergence. We then identify several classes of voting rules (including Positional Scoring Rules, Maximin, Copeland and Bucklin), along with their corresponding iterative processes, for which at least one of these conditions hold.

Following recent studies of iterative voting and its effects on plurality vote outcomes, we provide characterisations and complexity results for three models of iterative voting under the plurality rule. Our focus is on providing a better understanding regarding the set of equilibria attainable by iterative voting processes. We start with the basic model of plurality voting. We first establish some useful properties of equilibria, reachable by iterative voting, which enable us to show that deciding whether a given profile is an iteratively reachable equilibrium is NP-complete. We then proceed to combine iterative voting with the concept of truth bias, a model where voters prefer to be truthful when they cannot affect the outcome. We fully characterise the set of attainable truth-biased equilibria, and show that it is possible to determine all such equilibria in polynomial time. Finally, we also examine the model of lazy voters, in which a voter may choose to abstain from the election. We establish convergence of the iterative process, albeit not necessarily to a Nash equilibrium. As in the case with truth bias, we also provide a polynomial time algorithm to find all the attainable equilibria.

We present and analyze a mechanism for the Combinatorial Public Project Problem (CPPP). The problem asks to select k out of m available items, so as to maximize the social welfare for autonomous agents with combinatorial preferences (valuation functions) over subsets of items. The CPPP constitutes an abstract model for decision making by autonomous agents and has been shown to present severe computational hardness, in the design of truthful approximation mechanisms. We study a non-truthful mechanism that is, however, practically relevant to multi-agent environments, by virtue of its natural simplicity. It employs an Item Bidding interface, wherein every agent issues a separate bid for the inclusion of each distinct item in the outcome; the k items with the highest sums of bids are chosen and agents are charged according to a VCG-based payment rule. For fairly expressive classes of the agents' valuation functions, we establish existence of socially optimal pure Nash and strong equilibria, that are resilient to coordinated deviations of subsets of agents. Subsequently we derive tight worst-case bounds on the approximation of the optimum social welfare achieved in equilibrium. We show that the mechanism's performance improves with the number of agents that can coordinate, and reaches half of the optimum welfare at strong equilibrium.

We introduce a new threshold model of social networks, in which the nodes influenced by their neighbours can adopt one out of several alternatives. We characterize social networks for which adoption of a product by the whole network is possible (respectively necessary) and the ones for which a unique outcome is guaranteed. These characterizations directly yield polynomial time algorithms that allow us to determine whether a given social network satisfies one of the above properties. We also study algorithmic questions for networks without unique outcomes. We show that the problem of determining whether a final network exists in which all nodes adopted some product is NP-complete. In turn, we also resolve the complexity of the problems of determining whether a given node adopts some (respectively, a given) product in some (respectively, all) network(s). Further, we show that the problem of computing the minimum possible spread of a product is NP-hard to approximate with an approximation ratio better than Ω(n), in contrast to the maximum spread, which is efficiently computable. Finally, we clarify that some of the above problems can be solved in polynomial time when there are only two products.

Overlapping Coalition Formation (OCF) games, introduced by Chalkiadakis, Elkind, Markakis, Polukarov and Jennings in 2010, are cooperative games where players can simultaneously participate in several coalitions. Capturing the notion of stability in OCF games is a difficult task:deviating players may continue to contribute resources to joint projects with non-deviators, and the crucial question is what payoffs the deviators expect to receive from such projects. Chalkiadakis et al. introduce three stability concepts for OCF games---the conservative core, the refined core, and the optimistic core---that are based on different answers to this question. In this paper, we propose a unified framework for the study of stability in the OCF setting, which encompasses the stability concepts considered by Chalkiadakis et al. as well as a wide variety of alternative stability concepts. Our approach is based on the notion of arbitration functions, which determine the payoff obtained by the deviators, given their deviation and the current allocation of resources. We provide a characterization of stable outcomes under arbitration. We then conduct an in-depth study of four types of arbitration functions, which correspond to four notions of the core; these include the three notions of the core considered by Chalkiadakis et al. Our results complement those of Chalkiadakis et al. and answer questions left open by their work. In particular, we show that OCF games with the conservative arbitration function are essentially equivalent to non-OCF games, by relating the conservative core of an OCF game to the core of a non-overlapping cooperative game, and use this result to obtain a strictly weaker sufficient condition for conservative core non-emptiness than the one given by Chalkiadakis et al.

The family of Groves mechanisms, which includes the well-known VCG mechanism (also known as the Clarke mechanism), is a family of efficient and strategy-proof mechanisms. Unfortunately, the Groves mechanisms are generally not budget balanced. That is, under such mechanisms, payments may flow into or out of the system of the agents, resulting in deficits or reduced utilities for the agents. We consider the following problem: within the family of Groves mechanisms, we want to identify mechanisms that give the agents the highest utilities, under the constraint that these mechanisms must never incur deficits. We adopt a prior-free approach. We introduce two general measures for comparing mechanisms in prior-free settings. We say that a non-deficit Groves mechanism M individually dominates another non-deficit Groves mechanism M' if for every type profile, every agent's utility under M is no less than that under M', and this holds with strict inequality for at least one type profile and one agent. We say that a non-deficit Groves mechanism M collectively dominates another non-deficit Groves mechanism M' if for every type profile, the agents' total utility under M is no less than that under M', and this holds with strict inequality for at least one type profile. The above definitions induce two partial orders on non-deficit Groves mechanisms. We study the maximal elements corresponding to these two partial orders, which we call the individually undominated mechanisms and the collectively undominated mechanisms, respectively.

The core is a central solution concept in cooperative game theory, and therefore it is important to know under what conditions the core of a game is guaranteed to be non-empty. Two notions that prove to be very useful in this context are Linear Programming (LP) duality and convexity. In this work, we apply these tools to identify games with overlapping coalitions (OCF games) that admit stable outcomes. We focus on three notions of the core defined in (Chalkiadakis et al. 2010) for such games, namely, the conservative core, the refined core and the optimistic core. First, we show that the conservative core of an OCF game is non-empty if and only if the core of a related classic coalitional game is non-empty. This enables us to improve the result of (Chalkiadakis et al. 2010) by giving a strictly weaker sufficient condition for the non-emptiness of the conservative core. We then use LP duality to characterize OCF games with non-empty refined core; as a corollary, we show that the refined core of a game is non-empty as long as the superadditive cover of its characteristic function is convex. Finally, we identify a large class of OCF games that can be shown to have a non-empty optimistic core using an LP based argument.

We consider approval voting elections in which each voter votes for a (possibly empty) set of candidates and the outcome consists of a set of k candidates for some parameter k, e.g., committee elections. We are interested in the minimax approval voting rule in which the outcome represents a compromise among the voters, in the sense that the maximum distance between the preference of any voter and the outcome is as small as possible. This voting rule has two main drawbacks. First, computing an outcome that minimizes the maximum distance is computationally hard. Furthermore, any algorithm that always returns such an outcome provides incentives to voters to misreport their true preferences. In order to circumvent these drawbacks, we consider approximation algorithms, i.e., algorithms that produce an outcome that approximates the minimax distance for any given instance. Such algorithms can be considered as alternative voting rules. We present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm that uses a natural linear programming relaxation for the underlying optimization problem and deterministically rounds the fractional solution in order to compute the outcome; this result improves upon the previously best known algorithm that has an approximation ratio of 3. We are furthermore interested in approximation algorithms that are resistant to manipulation by (coalitions of) voters, i.e., algorithms that do not motivate voters to misreport their true preferences in order to improve their distance from the outcome. We complement previous results in the literature with new upper and lower bounds on strategyproof and group-strategyproof algorithms.

In the usual models of cooperative game theory, the outcome of a coalition formation process is either the grand coalition or a coalition structure that consists of disjoint coalitions. However, in many domains where coalitions are associated with tasks, an agent may be involved in executing more than one task, and thus may distribute his resources among several coalitions. To tackle such scenarios, we introduce a model for cooperative games with overlapping coalitions—or overlapping coalition formation (OCF) games. We then explore the issue of stability in this setting. In particular, we introduce a notion of the core, which generalizes the corresponding notion in the traditional (non-overlapping) scenario. Then, under some quite general conditions, we characterize the elements of the core, and show that any element of the core maximizes the social welfare. We also introduce a concept of balancedness for overlapping coalitional games, and use it to characterize coalition structures that can be extended to elements of the core. Finally, we generalize the notion of convexity to our setting, and show that under some natural assumptions convex games have a non-empty core. Moreover, we introduce two alternative notions of stability in OCF that allow a wider range of deviations, and explore the relationships among the corresponding definitions of the core, as well as the classic (non-overlapping) core and the Aubin core. We illustrate the general properties of the three cores, and also study them from a computational perspective, thus obtaining additional insights into their fundamental structure.

We study various semidefinite programming (SDP) formulations for Vertex Cover by adding different constraints to the standard formulation. We show that Vertex Cover cannot be approximated better than $2-O(\sqrt{\log\log n/\log n})$ even when we add the so-called pentagonal inequality constraints to the standard SDP formulation, and thus almost meet the best upper bound known due to Karakostas [Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 2005], of $2-\Omega(\sqrt{1/\log n})$. We further show the surprising fact that by strengthening the SDP with the (intractable) requirement that the metric interpretation of the solution embeds into $\ell_1$ with no distortion, we get an exact relaxation (integrality gap is 1), and on the other hand, if the solution is arbitrarily close to being $\ell_1$ embeddable, the integrality gap is $2-o(1)$. Finally, inspired by the above findings, we use ideas from the integrality gap construction of Charikar [SODA '02: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2002, pp. 616–620] to provide a family of simple examples for negative type metrics that cannot be embedded into $\ell_1$ with distortion better than $8/7-\epsilon$. To this end we prove a new isoperimetric inequality for the hypercube.

We study the following question: What is the smallest t such that every symmetric boolean function on k variables (which is not a constant or a parity function), has a non-zero Fourier coefficient of order at least 1 and at most t? We exclude the constant functions for which there is no such t and the parity functions for which t has to be k. Let τ(k) be the smallest such t. The main contribution of this paper is a proof of the following self similar nature of this question: If τ(l) ≤ s, then for any ɛ> 0 and � for k ≥ k0(l, ɛ), τ(k) ≤ k s+1 l+1 + ɛ Coupling this result with a computer based search which establishes τ(30) = 2, one obtains that for large enough k, τ(k) ≤ 3k/31. The motivation for our work is to understand the complexity of learning symmetric juntas. A k-junta is a boolean function of n variables that depends only on an unknown subset of k variables. If f is symmetric in the variables it depends on, it is called a symmetric k-junta. Our results imply an algorithm to learn the class of symmetric k-juntas, in the uniform PAC learning model, in time approximately n 3k 31. This improves on a result of Mossel, O’Donnell and Servedio in [11], who show that symmetric k-juntas can be ∗ Research supported by NSF grants CCR-0002299 and CCF-0431023.

We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of people from an algorithmic perspective. fair division has been a central topic in the economic literature and several concepts of fairness have been suggested. The criterion that we focus on is envy-freeness. In our model, a monotone utility function is associated with every player specifying the value of each subset of the goods for the player. An allocation is envy-free if every player prefers her own share than the share of any other player. When the goods are divisible, envy-free allocations always exist. In the presence of indivisibilities, we show that there exist allocations in which the envy is bounded by the maximum marginal utility, and present a simple algorithm for computing such allocations. We then look at the optimization problem of finding an allocation with minimum possible envy. In the general case the problem is not solvable or approximable in polynomial time unless P = NP. We consider natural special cases (e.g.additive utilities) which are closely related to a class of job scheduling problems. Approximation algorithms as well as inapproximability results are obtained. Finally we investigate the problem of designing truthful mechanisms for producing allocations with bounded envy.

We prove the existence of ε-Nash equilibrium strategies with support logarithmic in the number of pure strategies. We also show that the payoffs to all players in any (exact) Nash equilibrium can be ε-approximated by the payoffs to the players in some such logarithmic support ε-Nash equilibrium. These strategies are also uniform on a multiset of logarithmic size and therefore this leads to a quasi-polynomial algorithm for computing an ε-Nash equilibrium. To our knowledge this is the first subexponential algorithm for finding an ε-Nash equilibrium. Our results hold for any multiple-player game as long as the number of players is a constant (i.e., it is independent of the number of pure strategies). A similar argument also proves that for a fixed number of players m, the payoffs to all players in any m-tuple of mixed strategies can be ε-approximated by the payoffs in some m-tuple of constant support strategies.We also prove that if the payoff matrices of a two person game have low rank then the game has an exact Nash equilibrium with small support. This implies that if the payoff matrices can be well approximated by low rank matrices, the game has an ε-equilibrium with small support. It also implies that if the payoff matrices have constant rank we can compute an exact Nash equilibrium in polynomial time.

In citepapa, Papadimitriou formalized the notion of routing stability in BGP as the following coalitional game theoretic problem: Given a network with a multicommodity flow satisfying node capacity and demand constraints, the payoff of a node is the total flow originated or terminated at it. A payoff allocation is in the core if and only if there is no subset of nodes that can increase their payoff by seceding from the network. We answer one of the open problems in citepapa by proving that for any network, the core is non-empty in both the transferable (where the nodes can compensate each other with side payments) and the non-transferable case. In the transferable case we show that such an allocation can be computed in polynomial time. We also generalize this result to the case where a strictly concave utility function is associated with each commodity.

In this article, we will formalize the method of dual fitting and the idea of factor-revealing LP. This combination is used to design and analyze two greedy algorithms for the metric uncapacitated facility location problem. Their approximation factors are 1.861 and 1.61, with running times of O ( m log m ) and O ( n 3 ), respectively, where n is the total number of vertices and m is the number of edges in the underlying complete bipartite graph between cities and facilities. The algorithms are used to improve recent results for several variants of the problem.