A central feature of many deliberative processes, such as citizens' assemblies and deliberative polls, is the opportunity for participants to engage directly with experts. While participants are typically invited to propose questions for expert panels, only a limited number can be selected due to time constraints. This raises the challenge of how to choose a small set of questions that best represent the interests of all participants. We introduce an auditing framework for measuring the level of representation provided by a slate of questions, based on the social choice concept known as justified representation (JR). We present the first algorithms for auditing JR in the general utility setting, with our most efficient algorithm achieving a runtime of $O(mn\log n)$, where $n$ is the number of participants and $m$ is the number of proposed questions. We apply our auditing methods to historical deliberations, comparing the representativeness of (a) the actual questions posed to the expert panel (chosen by a moderator), (b) participants' questions chosen via integer linear programming, (c) summary questions generated by large language models (LLMs). Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs in supporting deliberative processes. By integrating our methods into an online deliberation platform that has been used for over hundreds of deliberations across more than 50 countries, we make it easy for practitioners to audit and improve representation in future deliberations.

The mathematical study of voting, social choice theory , has traditionally only been applicable to choices among predetermined alternatives, but not to open-ended decisions such as collectively selecting a textual statement. We introduce generative social choice , a design methodology for open-ended democratic processes that combines the rigor of social choice theory with the capability of large language models to generate text and extrapolate preferences. Our framework divides the design of AI-augmented democratic processes into two components: first, proving that the process satisfies representation guarantees when given access to oracle queries; second, empirically validating that these queries can be approximately implemented using a large language model. We apply this framework to the problem of summarizing free-form opinions into a proportionally representative set of opinion statements; specifically, we develop a democratic process with representation guarantees and use this process to portray the opinions of participants in a survey about abortion policy. In a trial with 100 representative US residents, we find that 84 out of 100 participants feel “excellently” or “exceptionally” represented by the set of five statements we extracted.

A *citizens' assembly* is a group of people who are randomly selected to represent a larger population in a deliberation. While this approach has successfully strengthened democracy, it has certain limitations that suggest the need for assemblies to form and associate more organically. In response, we propose *federated assemblies*, where assemblies are interconnected, and each parent assembly is selected from members of its child assemblies. The main technical challenge is to develop random selection algorithms that meet new representation constraints inherent in this hierarchical structure. We design and analyze several algorithms that provide different representation guarantees under various assumptions on the structure of the underlying graph.

Rent division is the well-studied problem of fairly assigning rooms and dividing rent among a set of roommates within a single apartment. A shortcoming of existing solutions is that renters are assumed to be considering apartments in isolation, whereas in reality, renters can choose among multiple apartments. In this paper, we generalize the rent division problem to the multi-apartment setting, where the goal is to both fairly choose an apartment among a set of alternatives and fairly assign rooms and rents within the chosen apartment. Our main contribution is a generalization of envy-freeness called *negotiated envy-freeness*. We show that a solution satisfying negotiated envy-freeness is guaranteed to exist and that it is possible to optimize over all negotiated envy-free solutions in polynomial time. We also define an even stronger fairness notion called *universal envy-freeness* and study its existence when values are drawn randomly.

We propose a new variant of the strategic classification problem: a principal reveals a classifier, and $n$ agents report their (possibly manipulated) features to be classified. Motivated by real-world applications, our model crucially allows the manipulation of one agent to affect another; that is, it explicitly captures inter-agent externalities. The principal-agent interactions are formally modeled as a Stackelberg game, with the resulting agent manipulation dynamics captured as a simultaneous game. We show that under certain assumptions, the pure Nash Equilibrium of this agent manipulation game is unique and can be efficiently computed. Leveraging this result, PAC learning guarantees are established for the learner: informally, we show that it is possible to learn classifiers that minimize loss on the distribution, even when a random number of agents are manipulating their way to a pure Nash Equilibrium. We also comment on the optimization of such classifiers through gradient-based approaches. This work sets the theoretical foundations for a more realistic analysis of classifiers that are robust against multiple strategic actors interacting in a common environment.

Algorithmic predictions are increasingly informing societal resource allocations by identifying individuals for targeting. Policymakers often build these systems with the assumption that by gathering more observations on individuals, they can improve predictive accuracy and, consequently, allocation efficiency. An overlooked yet consequential aspect of prediction-driven allocations is that of timing. The planner has to trade off relying on earlier and potentially noisier predictions to intervene before individuals experience undesirable outcomes, or they may wait to gather more observations to make more precise allocations. We examine this tension using a simple mathematical model, where the planner collects observations on individuals to improve predictions over time. We analyze both the ranking induced by these predictions and optimal resource allocation. We show that though individual prediction accuracy improves over time, counter-intuitively, the average ranking loss can worsen. As a result, the planner's ability to improve social welfare can decline. We identify inequality as a driving factor behind this phenomenon. Our findings provide a nuanced perspective and challenge the conventional wisdom that it is preferable to wait for more accurate predictions to ensure the most efficient allocations.

A key task in certain democratic processes is to produce a concise slate of statements that proportionally represents the full spectrum of user opinions. This task is similar to committee elections, but unlike traditional settings, the candidate set comprises all possible statements of varying lengths, and so it can only be accessed through specific queries. Combining social choice and large language models, prior work has approached this challenge through a framework of generative social choice. We extend the framework in two fundamental ways, providing theoretical guarantees even in the face of approximately optimal queries and a budget limit on the overall length of the slate. Using GPT-4o to implement queries, we showcase our approach on datasets related to city improvement measures and drug reviews, demonstrating its effectiveness in generating representative slates from unstructured user opinions.

A key challenge in training Large Language Models (LLMs) is properly aligning them with human preferences. Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) uses pairwise comparisons from human annotators to train reward functions and has emerged as a popular alignment method. However, input datasets in RLHF can be unbalanced due to adversarial manipulation or inadvertent repetition. Therefore, we want RLHF algorithms to perform well even when the set of alternatives is not uniformly distributed. Drawing on insights from social choice theory, we introduce robustness to approximate clones, a desirable property of RLHF algorithms which requires that adding near-duplicate alternatives does not significantly change the learned reward function. We first demonstrate that the standard RLHF algorithm based on regularized maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) fails to satisfy this property. We then propose the weighted MLE, a new RLHF algorithm that modifies the standard regularized MLE by weighting alternatives based on their similarity to other alternatives. This new algorithm guarantees robustness to approximate clones while preserving desirable theoretical properties.

The proportional veto principle, which captures the idea that a candidate vetoed by a large group of voters should not be chosen, has been studied for ranked ballots in single-winner voting. We introduce a version of this principle for approval ballots, which we call flexible-voter representation (FVR). We show that while the approval voting rule and other natural scoring rules provide the optimal FVR guarantee only for some flexibility threshold, there exists a scoring rule that is FVR-optimal for all thresholds simultaneously. We also extend our results to multi-winner voting.

Current alignment pipelines presume a single, universal notion of desirable behavior. However, human preferences often diverge across users, contexts, and cultures. As a result, disagreement collapses into the majority signal and minority perspectives are discounted. To address this, we propose reflecting diverse human preferences through a distribution over multiple reward functions, each inducing a distinct aligned policy. The distribution is learned directly from pairwise preference without annotator identifiers or predefined groups. Instead, annotator disagreements are treated as informative soft labels. Our central criterion is \emph{pairwise calibration}: for every pair of candidate responses, the proportion of reward functions preferring one response matches the fraction of annotators with that preference. We prove that even a small outlier-free ensemble can accurately represent diverse preference distributions. Empirically, we introduce and validate a practical training heuristic to learn such ensembles, and demonstrate its effectiveness through improved calibration, implying a more faithful representation of pluralistic values.

A common problem in LLM evaluation is how to choose a subset of metrics from a full suite of possible metrics. Subset selection is usually done for efficiency or interpretability reasons, and the goal is often to select a "representative" subset of metrics. However, "representative" is rarely clearly defined. In this work, we use ideas from social choice theory to formalize two notions of representation for the selection of a subset of evaluation metrics. We first introduce *positional representation*, which guarantees every alternative is sufficiently represented at every position cutoff. We then introduce *positional proportionality*, which guarantees no alternative is proportionally over- or under-represented by more than a small error at any position. We prove upper and lower bounds on the smallest number of metrics needed to guarantee either of these properties in the worst case. We also study a generalized form of each property that allows for additional input on groups of metrics that must be represented. Finally, we tie theory to practice through real-world case studies on both LLM evaluation and hospital quality evaluation.

A panel satisfies *descriptive representation* when its composition reflects the population. We examine the role of descriptive representation in collective decision making through an optimization lens, asking whether representative panels make decisions that maximize social welfare for the underlying population. Our main results suggest that, in general, representation with respect to *intersections* of two or more features guarantees higher social welfare than that achieved by the status quo of proportionally representing individual features. Moreover, an analysis of real data suggests that representation with respect to pairs of features is feasible in practice. These results have significant implications for the design of *citizens' assemblies*, which are gaining prominence in AI governance.

Alignment with human preferences is commonly framed using a universal reward function, even though human preferences are inherently heterogeneous. We formalize this heterogeneity by introducing user types and examine the limits of the homogeneity assumption. We show that aligning to heterogeneous preferences with a single policy is best achieved using the average reward across user types. However, this requires additional information about annotators. We examine improvements under different information settings, focusing on direct alignment methods. We find that minimal information can yield first-order improvements, while full feedback from each user type leads to consistent learning of the optimal policy. Surprisingly, however, no sample-efficient consistent direct loss exists in this latter setting. These results reveal a fundamental tension between consistency and sample efficiency in direct policy alignment.

Citizens' assemblies are an increasingly influential form of deliberative democracy, where randomly selected people discuss policy questions. The legitimacy of these assemblies hinges on their representation of the broader population, but participant dropout often leads to an unbalanced composition. In practice, dropouts are replaced by preselected alternates, but existing methods do not address how to choose these alternates. To address this gap, we introduce an optimization framework for alternate selection. Our algorithmic approach, which leverages learning-theoretic machinery, estimates dropout probabilities using historical data and selects alternates to minimize expected misrepresentation. Our theoretical bounds provide guarantees on sample complexity (with implications for computational efficiency) and on loss due to dropout probability mis-estimation. Empirical evaluation using real-world data demonstrates that, compared to the status quo, our method significantly improves representation while requiring fewer alternates.

Among the recent work on designing algorithms for selecting citizens' assembly participants, one key property of these algorithms has not yet been studied: their manipulability. Strategic manipulation is a concern because these algorithms must satisfy representation constraints according to volunteers' self-reported features; misreporting these features could thereby increase a volunteer's chance of being selected, decrease someone else's chance, and/or increase the expected number of seats given to their group. Strikingly, we show that Leximin — an algorithm that is widely used for its fairness — is highly manipulable in this way. We then introduce a new class of selection algorithms that use Lp norms as objective functions. We show that the manipulability of the Lp-based algorithm decreases in O(1/n^(1-1/p)) as the number of volunteers n grows, approaching the optimal rate of O(1/n) as p approaches infinity. These theoretical results are confirmed via experiments in eight real-world datasets.

Previous work on fairness in federated learning introduced the notion of core stability, which provides utility-based fairness guarantees to any subset of participating agents. However, these guarantees require strong assumptions on agent utilities that render them impractical. To address this shortcoming, we measure the quality of output models in terms of their ordinal rank instead of their cardinal utility, and use this insight to adapt the classical notion of proportional veto core (PVC) from social choice theory to the federated learning setting. We prove that models that are PVC-stable exist in very general learning paradigms, even allowing non-convex model sets, as well as non-convex and non-concave loss functions. We also design Rank-Core-Fed, a distributed federated learning algorithm, to train a PVC-stable model. Finally, we demonstrate that Rank-Core-Fed outperforms baselines in terms of fairness on different datasets.

We consider the challenge of AI value alignment with multiple individuals that have different reward functions and optimal policies in an underlying Markov decision process. We formalize this problem as one of *policy aggregation*, where the goal is to identify a desirable collective policy. We argue that an approach informed by social choice theory is especially suitable. Our key insight is that social choice methods can be reinterpreted by identifying ordinal preferences with volumes of subsets of the *state-action occupancy polytope*. Building on this insight, we demonstrate that a variety of methods — including approval voting, Borda count, the proportional veto core, and quantile fairness — can be practically applied to policy aggregation.

We introduce and study the problem of detecting whether an agent is updating their prior beliefs given new evidence in an optimal way that is Bayesian, or whether they are biased towards their own prior. In our model, biased agents form posterior beliefs that are a convex combination of their prior and the Bayesian posterior, where the more biased an agent is, the closer their posterior is to the prior. Since we often cannot observe the agent's beliefs directly, we take an approach inspired by *information design*. Specifically, we measure an agent's bias by designing a *signaling scheme* and observing the actions they take in response to different signals, assuming that they are maximizing their own expected utility; our goal is to detect bias with a minimum number of signals. Our main results include a characterization of scenarios where a single signal suffices and a computationally efficient algorithm to compute optimal signaling schemes.

In the context of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the reward function is generally derived from maximum likelihood estimation of a random utility model based on pairwise comparisons made by humans. The problem of learning a reward function is one of preference aggregation that, we argue, largely falls within the scope of social choice theory. From this perspective, we can evaluate different aggregation methods via established axioms, examining whether these methods meet or fail well-known standards. We demonstrate that both the Bradley-Terry-Luce Model and its broad generalizations fail to meet basic axioms. In response, we develop novel rules for learning reward functions with strong axiomatic guarantees. A key innovation from the standpoint of social choice is that our problem has a *linear* structure, which greatly restricts the space of feasible rules and leads to a new paradigm that we call *linear social choice*.

Is it possible to understand or imitate a policy maker's rationale by looking at past decisions they made? We formalize this question as the problem of learning social welfare functions belonging to the well-studied family of power mean functions. We focus on two learning tasks; in the first, the input is vectors of utilities of an action (decision or policy) for individuals in a group and their associated social welfare as judged by a policy maker, whereas in the second, the input is pairwise comparisons between the welfares associated with a given pair of utility vectors. We show that power mean functions are learnable with polynomial sample complexity in both cases, even if the social welfare information is noisy. Finally, we design practical algorithms for these tasks and evaluate their performance.

We consider the problem of online fair division of indivisible goods to players when there are a finite number of types of goods and player values are drawn from distributions with unknown means. Our goal is to maximize social welfare subject to allocating the goods fairly in expectation. When a player's value for an item is unknown at the time of allocation, we show that this problem reduces to a variant of (stochastic) multi-armed bandits, where there exists an arm for each player's value for each type of good. At each time step, we choose a distribution over arms which determines how the next item is allocated. We consider two sets of fairness constraints for this problem: envy-freeness in expectation and proportionality in expectation. Our main result is the design of an explore-then-commit algorithm that achieves $\tilde{O}(T^{2/3})$ regret while maintaining either fairness constraint. This result relies on unique properties fundamental to fair-division constraints that allow faster rates of learning, despite the restricted action space.

The mathematical study of voting, social choice theory, has traditionally only been applicable to choices among a few predetermined alternatives, but not to open-ended decisions such as collectively selecting a textual statement. We introduce generative social choice, a design methodology for open-ended democratic processes that combines the rigor of social choice theory with the capability of large language models to generate text and extrapolate preferences. Our framework divides the design of AI-augmented democratic processes into two components: first, proving that the process satisfies representation guarantees when given access to oracle queries; second, empirically validating that these queries can be approximately implemented using a large language model. We apply this framework to the problem of summarizing free-form opinions into a proportionally representative slate of opinion statements; specifically, we develop a democratic process with representation guarantees and use this process to represent the opinions of participants in a survey about chatbot personalization. In a trial with 100 representative US residents, we find that 93 out of 100 participants feel "mostly" or "perfectly" represented by the slate of five statements we extracted. By providing rigorous guarantees through social choice, our work alleviates concerns about AI-driven democratic innovation and helps unlock its potential.

We introduce and study the problem of designing an equitable school redistricting map, which we formalize as that of assigning n students to school attendance zones in a way that is fair to various demographic groups. Drawing on methodology from fair division, we consider the demographic groups as players and seats in schools as homogeneous goods. Due to geographic constraints, not every school can be assigned to every student. This raises new obstacles, rendering some classic fairness criteria infeasible. Nevertheless, we show that it is always possible to find an almost proportional allocation among g demographic groups if we are allowed to add O(g log g) extra seats. For any fixed g, we show that such an allocation can be found in polynomial time, obtaining a runtime of O(n2 log n) in the special (but practical) case where g ≤ 3.

Social media platforms are known to optimize user engagement with the help of algorithms. It is widely understood that this practice gives rise to echo chambers - users are mainly exposed to opinions that are similar to their own. In this paper, we ask whether echo chambers are an inevitable result of high engagement; we address this question in a novel model. Our main theoretical results establish bounds on the maximum engagement achievable under a diversity constraint, for suitable measures of engagement and diversity; we can therefore quantify the worst-case tradeoff between these two objectives. Our empirical results, based on real data from Twitter, chart the Pareto frontier of the engagement-diversity tradeoff.

Platforms for online civic participation rely heavily on methods for condensing thousands of comments into a relevant handful, based on whether participants agree or disagree with them. These methods should guarantee fair representation of the participants, as their outcomes may affect the health of the conversation and inform impactful downstream decisions. To that end, we draw on the literature on approval-based committee elections. Our setting is novel in that the approval votes are incomplete since participants will typically not vote on all comments. We prove that this complication renders non-adaptive algorithms impractical in terms of the amount of information they must gather. Therefore, we develop an adaptive algorithm that uses information more efficiently by presenting incoming participants with statements that appear promising based on votes by previous participants. We prove that this method satisfies commonly used notions of fair representation, even when participants only vote on a small fraction of comments. Finally, an empirical evaluation using real data shows that the proposed algorithm provides representative outcomes in practice.

Citizens’ assemblies are groups of randomly selected constituents who are tasked with providing recommendations on policy questions. Assembly members form their recommendations through a sequence of discussions in small groups (deliberation), in which group members exchange arguments and experiences. We seek to support this process through optimization, by studying how to assign participants to discussion groups over multiple sessions, in a way that maximizes interaction between participants and satisfies diversity constraints within each group. Since repeated meetings between a given pair of participants have diminishing marginal returns, we capture interaction through a submodular function, which is approximately optimized by a greedy algorithm making calls to an ILP solver. This framework supports different submodular objective functions, and we identify sensible options, but we also show it is not necessary to commit to a particular choice: Our main theoretical result is a (practically efficient) algorithm that simultaneously approximates every possible objective function of the form we are interested in. Experiments with data from real citizens' assemblies demonstrate that our approach substantially outperforms the heuristic algorithm currently used by practitioners.

In voting theory, when voters have ranked preferences over candidates, the celebrated Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem essentially rules out the existence of reasonable strategyproof methods for picking a winner. What if we weaken strategyproofness to only hold for Bayesian voters with beliefs over others' preferences? When voters believe other participants' rankings are drawn independently from a fixed distribution, the impossibility persists. However, it is quite reasonable for a voter to believe that other votes are correlated, either to each other or to their own ranking. We consider such beliefs induced by classic probabilistic models in social choice such as the Mallows, Placket-Luce, and Thurstone-Mosteller models. We single out the plurality rule (choosing the candidate ranked first most often) as a particularly promising choice as it is strategyproof for a large class of beliefs containing the specific ones we introduce. Further, we show that plurality is unique among positional scoring rules in having this property: no other scoring rule is strategyproof for beliefs induced by the Mallows model when there are a sufficient number of voters. Finally, we give examples of prominent non-scoring voting rules failing to be strategyproof on beliefs in this class, further bolstering the case for plurality.

In computational social choice, the distortion of a voting rule quantifies the degree to which the rule overcomes limited preference information to select a socially desirable outcome. This concept has been investigated extensively, but only through a worst-case lens. Instead, we study the expected distortion of voting rules with respect to an underlying distribution over voter utilities. Our main contribution is the design and analysis of a novel and intuitive rule, binomial voting, which provides strong distribution-independent guarantees for both expected distortion and expected welfare.

Liquid democracy is a voting paradigm that is conceptually situated between direct democracy, in which voters have direct influence over decisions, and representative democracy, where voters choose delegates who represent them for a period of time. Under liquid democracy, voters have a choice: they can either vote directly on an issue like in direct democracy, or delegate their vote to another voter, entrusting them to vote on their behalf. The defining feature of liquid democracy is that these delegations are transitive: if voter 1 delegates to voter 2 and voter 2 delegates to voter 3, then voter 3 votes (or delegates) on behalf of all three voters.

Mutually Fair Redistricting Even When Parties Disagree Congressional redistricting is the process of partitioning a state into districts, each of which elects a representative to Congress. Several recent high-profile redistricting efforts aim to increase the political power of a party. This raises the question of whether “fair” redistricting plans exist. In “You Can Have Your Cake and Redistrict It Too,” Benadè, Procaccia, and Tucker-Foltz propose a new theoretical model for redistricting inspired by classical cake-cutting models. In this model, it shown that is always possible to find redistricting plans that satisfy a particular notion of fairness, called the geometric target, simultaneously for both parties, even when the parties disagree about voter preferences. On real-world data, they find that this fairness constraint can be satisfied in all instances evaluated; moreover, requiring fairness comes at little cost in terms of traditional redistricting objectives. This suggests it is possible and practical to guarantee mutual fairness even in a climate of extreme partisanship.

In an epidemic, how should an organization with limited testing resources safely return to in-person activities after a lockdown? We study this question in a setting where the population is heterogeneous in both utility for in-person activities and probability of infection. During a period of re-integration, tests can be used as a certificate of non-infection, whereby those in negative tests are permitted to return to in-person activities for a designated amount of time. Under the assumption that samples can be pooled, the question of how to allocate a limited testing budget in the population to maximize the aggregate utility (i.e. welfare) of negatively-tested individuals who return to in-person activities is non-trivial, with a large space of potential testing allocations.

A key promise of voting is that, by accounting for all constituents' preferences, it produces decisions that benefit society overall. It is alarming, then, that all deterministic voting rules have unbounded distortion (i.e., arbitrarily suboptimal social welfare). Existing work usually circumvents this stark impossibility by assuming restrictions on voters' possible latent utilities [Anshelevich et al. 2021]; however, it is not clear whether such assumptions reliably hold in practice, because voters' utilities are, to a large degree, inherent.

Sortition is a form of democracy built on random selection of representatives. Two of the key arguments in favor of sortition are that it provides representation (a random panel reflects the composition of the population) and fairness (everyone has a chance to participate). Uniformly random selection is perfectly fair, but is it representative? Towards answering this question, we introduce the notion of a representation metric on the space of individuals, and assume that the cost of an individual for a panel is determined by the $q$-th closest representative; the representation of a (random) panel is measured by the ratio between the (expected) sum of costs of the optimal panel for the individuals and that of the given panel. For $k/2 < q \le k-\Omega(k)$, where $k$ is the panel size, we show that uniform random selection is indeed representative by establishing a constant lower bound on this ratio. By contrast, for $q \leq k/2$, no random selection algorithm that is almost fair can give such a guarantee. We therefore consider relaxed fairness guarantees and develop a new random selection algorithm that sheds light on the tradeoff between representation and fairness.

In academic recruitment settings, including faculty hiring and PhD admissions, committees aim to maximize the overall quality of recruited candidates, but there is uncertainty about whether a candidate would accept an offer if given one. Previous work has considered algorithms that make offers sequentially and are subject to a hard budget constraint. We argue that these modeling choices may be inconsistent with the practice of academic recruitment. Instead, we restrict ourselves to a single batch of offers, and we treat the target number of positions as a soft constraint, so we risk overshooting or undershooting the target. Specifically, our objective is to select a subset of candidates that maximizes the overall expected value associated with candidates who accept, minus an expected penalty for deviating from the target. We first analyze the guarantees provided by natural greedy heuristics, showing their desirable properties despite the simplicity. Depending on the structure of the penalty function, we further develop algorithms that provide fully polynomial-time approximation schemes and constant-factor approximations to this objective. Empirical evaluation of our algorithms corroborates these theoretical results.

In fair rent division, the problem is to assign rooms to roommates and fairly split the rent based on roommates' reported valuations for the rooms. Envy-free rent division is the most popular application on the fair division website Spliddit. The standard model assumes that agents can correctly report their valuations for each room. In practice, agents may be unsure about their valuations, for example because they have had only limited time to inspect the rooms. Our goal is to find a robust rent division that remains fair even if agent valuations are slightly different from the reported ones. We introduce the lexislack solution, which selects a rent division that remains envy-free for valuations within as large a radius as possible of the reported valuations. We also consider robustness notions for valuations that come from a probability distribution, and use results from learning theory to show how we can find rent divisions that (almost) maximize the probability of being envy-free, or that minimize the expected envy. We show that an almost optimal allocation can be identified based on polynomially many samples from the valuation distribution. Finding the best allocation given these samples is NP-hard, but in practice such an allocation can be found using integer linear programming.

When allocating indivisible items across agents, it is desirable for the allocation to be envy-free, which means that each agent prefers their own bundle over every other bundle. Even though envy-free allocations are not guaranteed to exist for worst-case utilities, they frequently exist in practice. To explain this phenomenon, prior work has shown that, if utilities are drawn from certain probability distributions, then envy-free allocations exist with high probability (as long as the number of items is sufficiently large relative to the number of agents).

Apportionment is the problem of distributing h indivisible seats across states in proportion to the states' populations. In the context of the US House of Representatives, this problem has a rich history and is a prime example of interactions between mathematical analysis and political practice. Grimmett [2004] suggested to apportion seats in a randomized way such that each state receives exactly their proportional share qi of seats in expectation (ex ante proportionality) and receives either ↾qi↿ or ⇂qi⇃ many seats ex post (quota). However, there is a vast space of randomized apportionment methods satisfying these two axioms, and so we additionally consider prominent axioms from the apportionment literature. Our main result is a randomized method satisfying quota, ex ante proportionality and house monotonicity — a property that prevents paradoxes when the number of seats changes and which we require to hold ex post. This result is based on a generalization of dependent rounding on bipartite graphs, which we call cumulative rounding and which might be of independent interest, as we demonstrate via applications beyond apportionment.

In the design and analysis of political redistricting maps, it is often useful to be able to sample from the space of all partitions of the graph of census blocks into connected subgraphs of equal population. There are influential Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for doing so that are based on sampling and splitting random spanning trees. Empirical evidence suggests that the distributions such algorithms sample from place higher weight on more “compact” redistricting plans, which is a practically useful and desirable property. In this paper, we confirm these observations analytically, establishing an inverse exponential relationship between the total length of the boundaries separating districts and the probability that such a map will be sampled. This result provides theoretical underpinnings for algorithms that are already making a significant real-world impact.

Abstract Virtual rewards, such as badges, are commonly used in online platforms as incentives for promoting contributions from a userbase. It is widely accepted that such rewards “steer” people’s behaviour towards increasing their rate of contributions before obtaining the reward. This paper provides a new probabilistic model of user behaviour in the presence of threshold rewards, such a badges. We find, surprisingly, that while steering does affect a minority of the population, the majority of users do not change their behaviour around the achievement of these virtual rewards. In particular, we find that only approximately 5–30% of Stack Overflow users who achieve the rewards appear to respond to the incentives. This result is based on the analysis of thousands of users’ activity patterns before and after they achieve the reward. Our conclusion is that the phenomenon of steering is less common than has previously been claimed. We identify a statistical phenomenon, termed “Phantom Steering”, that can account for the interaction data of the users who do not respond to the reward. The presence of phantom steering may have contributed to some previous conclusions about the ubiquity of steering. We conduct a qualitative survey of the users on Stack Overflow which supports our results, suggesting that the motivating factors behind user behaviour are complex, and that some of the online incentives used in Stack Overflow may not be solely responsible for changes in users’ contribution rates.

Participatory budgeting is a method used by city governments to select public projects to fund based on residents' votes. Many cities use participatory budgeting at a district level. Typically, a budget is divided among districts proportionally to their population, and each district holds an election over local projects and then uses its budget to fund the projects most preferred by its voters. However, district-level participatory budgeting can yield poor social welfare because it does not necessarily fund projects supported across multiple districts. On the other hand, decision making that only takes global social welfare into account can be unfair to districts: A social-welfare-maximizing solution might not fund any of the projects preferred by a district, despite the fact that its constituents pay taxes to the city. Thus, we study how to fairly maximize social welfare in a participatory budgeting setting with a single city-wide election. We propose a notion of fairness that guarantees each district at least as much welfare as it would have received in a district-level election. We show that, although optimizing social welfare subject to this notion of fairness is NP-hard, we can efficiently construct a lottery over welfare-optimal outcomes that is fair in expectation. Moreover, we show that, when we are allowed to slightly relax fairness, we can efficiently compute a fair solution that is welfare-maximizing, but which may overspend the budget.

We study the problem of learning a policy in a Markov decision process (MDP) based on observations of the actions taken by multiple teachers. We assume that the teachers are like-minded in that their reward functions -- while different from each other -- are random perturbations of an underlying reward function. Under this assumption, we demonstrate that inverse reinforcement learning algorithms that satisfy a certain property -- that of matching feature expectations -- yield policies that are approximately optimal with respect to the underlying reward function, and that no algorithm can do better in the worst case. We also show how to efficiently recover the optimal policy when the MDP has one state -- a setting that is akin to multi-armed bandits.

The prevalent approach to problems of credit assignment in machine learning -- such as feature and data valuation -- is to model the problem at hand as a cooperative game and apply the Shapley value. But cooperative game theory offers a rich menu of alternative solution concepts, which famously includes the core and its variants. Our goal is to challenge the machine learning community's current consensus around the Shapley value, and make a case for the core as a viable alternative. To that end, we prove that arbitrarily good approximations to the least core -- a core relaxation that is always feasible -- can be computed efficiently (but prove an impossibility for a more refined solution concept, the nucleolus). We also perform experiments that corroborate these theoretical results and shed light on settings where the least core may be preferable to the Shapley value.

Sortition is an age-old democratic paradigm, widely manifested today through the random selection of citizens' assemblies. Recently-deployed algorithms select assemblies \textit{maximally fairly}, meaning that subject to demographic quotas, they give all potential participants as equal a chance as possible of being chosen. While these fairness gains can bolster the legitimacy of citizens' assemblies and facilitate their uptake, existing algorithms remain limited by their lack of transparency. To overcome this hurdle, in this work we focus on panel selection by uniform lottery, which is easy to realize in an observable way. By this approach, the final assembly is selected by uniformly sampling some pre-selected set of $m$ possible assemblies.We provide theoretical guarantees on the fairness attainable via this type of uniform lottery, as compared to the existing maximally fair but opaque algorithms, for two different fairness objectives. We complement these results with experiments on real-world instances that demonstrate the viability of the uniform lottery approach as a method of selecting assemblies both fairly and transparently.

Employment outcomes of resettled refugees depend strongly on where they are placed inside the host country. While the United States sets refugee capacities for communities on an annual basis, refugees arrive and must be placed over the course of the year. We introduce a dynamic allocation system based on two-stage stochastic programming to improve employment outcomes. Our algorithm is able to achieve over 98 percent of the hindsight-optimal employment compared to under 90 percent of current greedy-like approaches. This dramatic improvement persists even when we incorporate a vast array of practical features of the refugee resettlement process including indivisible families, batching, and uncertainty with respect to the number of future arrivals. Our algorithm is now part of the Annie™? MOORE optimization software used by a leading American refugee resettlement agency. The full version of this paper is available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.14388.pdf.

We study liquid democracy, a collective decision making paradigm that allows voters to transitively delegate their votes, through an algorithmic lens. In our model, there are two alternatives, one correct and one incorrect, and we are interested in the probability that the majority opinion is correct. Our main question is whether there exist delegation mechanisms that are guaranteed to outperform direct voting, in the sense of being always at least as likely, and sometimes more likely, to make a correct decision. Even though we assume that voters can only delegate their votes to better-informed voters, we show that local delegation mechanisms, which only take the local neighborhood of each voter as input (and, arguably, capture the spirit of liquid democracy), cannot provide the foregoing guarantee. By contrast, we design a non-local delegation mechanism that does provably outperform direct voting under mild assumptions about voters.

It is common to see a handful of reviewers reject a highly novel paper, because they view, say, extensive experiments as far more important than novelty, whereas the community as a whole would have embraced the paper. More generally, the disparate mapping of criteria scores to final recommendations by different reviewers is a major source of inconsistency in peer review. In this paper we present a framework inspired by empirical risk minimization (ERM) for learning the community's aggregate mapping. The key challenge that arises is the specification of a loss function for ERM. We consider the class of L(p,q) loss functions, which is a matrix-extension of the standard class of Lp losses on vectors; here the choice of the loss function amounts to choosing the hyperparameters p and q. To deal with the absence of ground truth in our problem, we instead draw on computational social choice to identify desirable values of the hyperparameters p and q. Specifically, we characterize p=q=1 as the only choice of these hyperparameters that satisfies three natural axiomatic properties. Finally, we implement and apply our approach to reviews from IJCAI 2017.

We investigate the query complexity of the fair allocation of indivisible goods. For two agents with arbitrary monotonic utilities, we design an algorithm that computes an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), a relaxation of envy-freeness, using a logarithmic number of queries. We show that the logarithmic query complexity bound also holds for three agents with additive utilities and that a polylogarithmic bound holds for three agents with monotonic utilities. These results suggest that it is possible to fairly allocate goods in practice even when the number of goods is extremely large. By contrast, we prove that computing an allocation satisfying envy-freeness and another of its relaxations, envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), requires a linear number of queries even when there are only two agents with identical additive utilities.

We consider settings where agents are evaluated based on observed features, and assume they seek to achieve feature values that bring about good evaluations. Our goal is to craft evaluation mechanisms that incentivize the agents to invest effort in desirable actions; a notable application is the design of course grading schemes. Previous work has studied this problem in the case of a single agent. By contrast, we investigate the general, multi-agent model, and provide a complete characterization of its computational complexity.

Expert crowdsourcing (e.g., Upwork.com) provides promising benefits such as productivity improvements for employers, and flexible working arrangements for workers. Yet to realize these benefits, a key persistent challenge is effective hiring at scale. Current approaches, such as reputation systems and standardized competency tests, develop weaknesses such as score inflation over time, thus degrading market quality. This paper presents HirePeer, a novel alternative approach to hiring at scale that leverages peer assessment to elicit honest assessments of fellow workers' job application materials, which it then aggregates using an impartial ranking algorithm. This paper reports on three studies that investigate both the costs and the benefits to workers and employers of impartial peer-assessed hiring. We find, to solicit honest assessments, algorithms must be communicated in terms of their impartial effects. Second, in practice, peer assessment is highly accurate, and impartial rank aggregation algorithms incur a small accuracy cost for their impartiality guarantee. Third, workers report finding peer-assessed hiring useful for receiving targeted feedback on their job materials.

Badges are commonly used in online platforms as incentives for promoting contributions. It is widely accepted that badges “steer” people's behavior toward increasing their rate of contributions before obtaining the badge. This paper provides a new probabilistic model of user behavior in the presence of badges. By applying the model to data from thousands of users on the Q&A site Stack Overflow, we find that steering is not as widely applicable as was previously understood. Rather, the majority of users remain apathetic toward badges, while still providing a substantial number of contributions to the site. An interesting statistical phenomenon, termed “Phantom Steering,” accounts for the interaction data of these users and this may have contributed to some previous conclusions about steering. Our results suggest that a small population, approximately 20%, of users respond to the badge incentives. Moreover, we conduct a qualitative survey of the users on Stack Overflow which provides further evidence that the insights from the model reflect the true behavior of the community. We argue that while badges might contribute toward a suite of effective rewards in an online system, research into other aspects of reward systems, such as Stack Overflow's reputation points, should become a focus of the community.

Given n values possessed by n agents, we study the problem of estimating the mean by truthfully eliciting agents’ answers to multiple-choice questions about their values. We consider two natural candidates for estimation error: mean squared error (MSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). We design a randomized estimator which is asymptotically optimal for both measures in the worst case. In the case where prior distributions over the agents’ values are known, we give an optimal, polynomial-time algorithm for MSE, and show that the task of computing an optimal estimate for MAE is #P-hard. Finally, we demonstrate empirically that knowledge of prior distributions gives a significant edge.

Data aggregation is a fundamental primitive in distributed computing wherein a network computes a function of every nodes' input. However, while compute time is non-negligible in modern systems, standard models of distributed computing do not take compute time into account. Rather, most distributed models of computation only explicitly consider communication time. In this paper, we introduce a model of distributed computation that considers both computation and communication so as to give a theoretical treatment of data aggregation. We study both the structure of and how to compute the fastest data aggregation schedule in this model. As our first result, we give a polynomial-time algorithm that computes the optimal schedule when the input network is a complete graph. Moreover, since one may want to aggregate data over a pre-existing network, we also study data aggregation scheduling on arbitrary graphs. We demonstrate that this problem on arbitrary graphs is hard to approximate within a multiplicative 1.5 factor. Finally, we give an O(log n ⋅ log(OPT/t_m))-approximation algorithm for this problem on arbitrary graphs, where n is the number of nodes and OPT is the length of the optimal schedule.

Sortition is a political system in which decisions are made by panels of randomly selected citizens. The process for selecting a sortition panel is traditionally thought of as uniform sampling without replacement, which has strong fairness properties. In practice, however, sampling without replacement is not possible since only a fraction of agents is willing to participate in a panel when invited, and different demographic groups participate at different rates. In order to still produce panels whose composition resembles that of the population, we develop a sampling algorithm that restores close-to-equal representation probabilities for all agents while satisfying meaningful demographic quotas. As part of its input, our algorithm requires probabilities indicating how likely each volunteer in the pool was to participate. Since these participation probabilities are not directly observable, we show how to learn them, and demonstrate our approach using data on a real sortition panel combined with information on the general population in the form of publicly available survey data.

To be well-behaved, systems that process preference data must satisfy certain conditions identified by economic decision theory and by social choice theory. In ML, preferences and rankings are commonly learned by fitting a probabilistic model to noisy preference data. The behavior of this learning process from the view of economic theory has previously been studied for the case where the data consists of rankings. In practice, it is more common to have only pairwise comparison data, and the formal properties of the associated learning problem are more challenging to analyze. We show that a large class of random utility models (including the Thurstone–Mosteller Model), when estimated using the MLE, satisfy a Pareto efficiency condition. These models also satisfy a strong monotonicity property, which implies that the learning process is responsive to input data. On the other hand, we show that these models fail certain other consistency conditions from social choice theory, and in particular do not always follow the majority opinion. Our results inform existing and future applications of random utility models for societal decision making.

The design of voting rules is traditionally guided by desirable axioms. Recent work shows that, surprisingly, the axiomatic approach can also support the generation of explanations for voting outcomes. However, no bounds on the size of these explanations is given; for all we know, they may be unbearably tedious. We prove, however, that outcomes of the important Borda rule can be explained using $O(m^2)$ steps, where $m$ is the number of alternatives. Our main technical result is a general lower bound that, in particular, implies that the foregoing bound is asymptotically tight. We discuss the significance of our results for AI and machine learning, including their potential to bolster an emerging paradigm of automated decision making called virtual democracy.

Work on implicit utilitarian voting advocates the design of preference aggregation methods that maximize utilitarian social welfare with respect to latent utility functions, based only on observed rankings of the alternatives. This approach has been successfully deployed in order to help people choose a single alternative or a subset of alternatives, but it has previously been unclear how to apply the same approach to the design of social welfare functions, where the desired output is a ranking. We propose to address this problem by assuming that voters’ utilities for rankings are induced by unknown weights and unknown utility functions, which, moreover, have a combinatorial (subadditive) structure. Despite the extreme lack of information about voters’ preferences, we show that it is possible to choose rankings such that the worst-case gap between their social welfare and that of the optimal ranking, called distortion, is no larger (up to polylogarithmic factors) than the distortion associated with much simpler problems. Through experiments, we identify practical methods that achieve nearoptimal social welfare on average.

Migration presents sweeping societal challenges that have recently attracted significant attention from the scientific community. One of the prominent approaches that have been suggested employs optimization and machine learning to match migrants to localities in a way that maximizes the expected number of migrants who find employment. However, it relies on a strong additivity assumption that, we argue, does not hold in practice, due to competition effects; we propose to enhance the data-driven approach by explicitly optimizing for these effects. Specifically, we cast our problem as the maximization of an approximately submodular function subject to matroid constraints, and prove that the worst-case guarantees given by the classic greedy algorithm extend to this setting. We then present three different models for competition effects, and show that they all give rise to submodular objectives. Finally, we demonstrate via simulations that our approach leads to significant gains across the board.

We investigate the query complexity of the fair allocation of indivisible goods. For two agents with arbitrary monotonic valuations, we design an algorithm that computes an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), a relaxation of envy-freeness, using a logarithmic number of queries. We show that the logarithmic query complexity bound also holds for three agents with additive valuations. These results suggest that it is possible to fairly allocate goods in practice even when the number of goods is extremely large. By contrast, we prove that computing an allocation satisfying envyfreeness and another of its relaxations, envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), requires a linear number of queries even when there are only two agents with identical additive valuations.

Virtual democracy is an approach to automating decisions, by learning models of the preferences of individual people, and, at runtime, aggregating the predicted preferences of those people on the dilemma at hand. One of the key questions is which aggregation method – or voting rule – to use; we offer a novel statistical viewpoint that provides guidance. Specifically, we seek voting rules that are robust to prediction errors, in that their output on people’s true preferences is likely to coincide with their output on noisy estimates thereof. We prove that the classic Borda count rule is robust in this sense, whereas any voting rule belonging to the wide family of pairwise-majority consistent rules is not. Our empirical results further support, and more precisely measure, the robustness of Borda count.

The Lazy Shortest Path (LazySP) class consists of motion-planning algorithms that only evaluate edges along candidate shortest paths between the source and target. These algorithms were designed to minimize the number of edge evaluations in settings where edge evaluation dominates the running time of the algorithm such as manipulation in cluttered environments and planning for robots in surgical settings; but how close to optimal are LazySP algorithms in terms of this objective? Our main result is an analytical upper bound, in a probabilistic model, on the number of edge evaluations required by LazySP algorithms; a matching lower bound shows that these algorithms are asymptotically optimal in the worst case.

We study the problem of allocating T indivisible items that arrive online to agents with additive valuations. The allocation must satisfy a prominent fairness notion, envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), at each round. To make this possible, we allow the reallocation of previously allocated items, but aim to minimize these so-called adjustments. For the case of two agents, we show that algorithms that are informed about the values of future items can get by without any adjustments, whereas uninformed algorithms require Theta(T) adjustments. For the general case of three or more agents, we prove that even informed algorithms must use Omega(T) adjustments, and design an uninformed algorithm that requires only O(T^(3/2)).

In classic fair division problems such as cake cutting and rent division, envy-freeness requires that each individual (weakly) prefer his allocation to anyone else's. On a conceptual level, we argue that envy-freeness also provides a compelling notion of fairness for classification tasks, especially when individuals have heterogeneous preferences. Our technical focus is the generalizability of envy-free classification, i.e., understanding whether a classifier that is envy free on a sample would be almost envy free with respect to the underlying distribution with high probability. Our main result establishes that a small sample is sufficient to achieve such guarantees, when the classifier in question is a mixture of deterministic classifiers that belong to a family of low Natarajan dimension.

Equalized odds is a statistical notion of fairness in machine learning that ensures that classification algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups. We extend equalized odds to the setting of cardinality-constrained fair classification, where we have a bounded amount of a resource to distribute. This setting coincides with classic fair division problems, which allows us to apply concepts from that literature in parallel to equalized odds. In particular, we consider the axioms of resource monotonicity, consistency, and population monotonicity, all three of which relate different allocation instances to prevent paradoxes. Using a geometric characterization of equalized odds, we examine the compatibility of equalized odds with these axioms. We empirically evaluate the cost of allocation rules that satisfy both equalized odds and axioms of fair division on a dataset of FICO credit scores.

We take an unorthodox view of voting by expanding the design space to include both the elicitation rule, whereby voters map their (cardinal) preferences to votes, and the aggregation rule, which transforms the reported votes into collective decisions. Intuitively, there is a tradeoff between the communication requirements of the elicitation rule (i.e., the number of bits of information that voters need to provide about their preferences) and the efficiency of the outcome of the aggregation rule, which we measure through distortion (i.e., how well the utilitarian social welfare of the outcome approximates the maximum social welfare in the worst case). Our results chart the Pareto frontier of the communication-distortion tradeoff.

Algorithms increasingly govern societal functions, impacting multiple stakeholders and social groups. How can we design these algorithms to balance varying interests in a moral, legitimate way? As one answer to this question, we present WeBuildAI, a collective participatory framework that enables people to build algorithmic policy for their communities. The key idea of the framework is to enable stakeholders to construct a computational model that represents their views and to have those models vote on their behalf to create algorithmic policy. As a case study, we applied this framework to a matching algorithm that operates an on-demand food donation transportation service in order to adjudicate equity and efficiency trade-offs. The service's stakeholders--donors, volunteers, recipient organizations, and nonprofit employees--used the framework to design the algorithm through a series of studies in which we researched their experiences. Our findings suggest that the framework successfully enabled participants to build models that they felt confident represented their own beliefs. Participatory algorithm design also improved both procedural fairness and the distributive outcomes of the algorithm, raised participants' algorithmic awareness, and helped identify inconsistencies in human decision-making in the governing organization. Our work demonstrates the feasibility, potential and challenges of community involvement in algorithm design.

Voting systems typically treat all voters equally. We argue that perhaps they should not: Voters who have supported good choices in the past should be given higher weight than voters who have supported bad ones. To develop a formal framework for desirable weighting schemes, we draw on no-regret learning. Specifically, given a voting rule, we wish to design a weighting scheme such that applying the voting rule, with voters weighted by the scheme, leads to choices that are almost as good as those endorsed by the best voter in hindsight. We derive possibility and impossibility results for the existence of such weighting schemes, depending on whether the voting rule and the weighting scheme are deterministic or randomized, as well as on the social choice axioms satisfied by the voting rule.

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 study liquid democracy, a collective decision making paradigm that allows voters to transitively delegate their votes, through an algorithmic lens. In our model, there are two alternatives, one correct and one incorrect, and we are interested in the probability that the majority opinion is correct. Our main question is whether there exist delegation mechanisms that are guaranteed to outperform direct voting, in the sense of being always at least as likely, and sometimes more likely, to make a correct decision. Even though we assume that voters can only delegate their votes to better-informed voters, we show that local delegation mechanisms, which only take the local neighborhood of each voter as input (and, arguably, capture the spirit of liquid democracy), cannot provide the foregoing guarantee. By contrast, we design a non-local delegation mechanism that does provably outperform direct voting under mild assumptions about voters.

We present a general approach to automating ethical decisions, drawing on machine learning and computational social choice. In a nutshell, we propose to learn a model of societal preferences, and, when faced with a specific ethical dilemma at runtime, efficiently aggregate those preferences to identify a desirable choice. We provide a concrete algorithm that instantiates our approach; some of its crucial steps are informed by a new theory of swap-dominance efficient voting rules. Finally, we implement and evaluate a system for ethical decision making in the autonomous vehicle domain, using preference data collected from 1.3 million people through the Moral Machine website.

The standard approach to fair rent division assumes that agents have quasi-linear utilities, and seeks allocations that are envy free; it underlies an algorithm that is widely used in practice. However, this approach does not take budget constraints into account, and, therefore, may assign agents to rooms they cannot afford. By contrast, we design a polynomial-time algorithm that takes budget constraints as part of its input; it determines whether there exist envy-free allocations that satisfy the budget constraints, and, if so, computes one that optimizes an additional criterion of justice. In particular, this gives a polynomial-time implementation of the budget-constrained maximin solution, where the maximization objective is the minimum utility of any agent. We show that, like its non-budget-constrained counterpart, this solution is unique in terms of utilities (when it exists), and satisfies additional desirable properties.

We revisit the well-studied problem of constructing strategyproof approximation mechanisms for facility location games, but offer a fundamentally new perspective by considering risk averse designers. Specifically, we are interested in the tradeoff between a randomized strategyproof mechanism's approximation ratio, and its variance (which has long served as a proxy for risk). When there is just one facility, we observe that the social cost objective is trivial, and derive the optimal tradeoff with respect to the maximum cost objective. When there are multiple facilities, the main challenge is the social cost objective, and we establish a surprising impossibility result: under mild assumptions, no smooth approximation-variance tradeoff exists. We also discuss the implications of our work for computational mechanism design at large.

We study the dynamic fair division of indivisible goods. Suppose T items arrive online and must be allocated upon arrival to one of n agents, each of whom has a value in [0,1] for the current item. Our goal is to design allocation algorithms that minimize the maximum envy at time T , ENVYT, defined as the maximum difference between any agent's overall value for items allocated to another agent and to herself. We say that an algorithm has vanishing envy if the ratio of envy over time, ENVYT/T, goes to zero as T goes to infinity. We design a polynomial-time, deterministic algorithm that achieves ENVYT ın ~O ( √T/n ), and show that this guarantee is asymptotically optimal. We also derive tight (in T ) bounds for a more general setting where items arrive in batches.

This paper is part of an emerging line of work at the intersection of machine learning and mechanism design, which aims to avoid noise in training data by correctly aligning the incentives of data sources. Specifically, we focus on the ubiquitous problem of linear regression, where strategyproof mechanisms have previously been identified in two dimensions. In our setting, agents have single-peaked preferences and can manipulate only their response variables. Our main contribution is the discovery of a family of group strategyproof linear regression mechanisms in any number of dimensions, which we call generalized resistant hyperplane mechanisms. The game-theoretic properties of these mechanisms --- and, in fact, their very existence --- are established through a connection to a discrete version of the Ham Sandwich Theorem.

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.

Participatory budgeting enables the allocation of public funds by collecting and aggregating individual preferences; it has already had a sizable real-world impact. But making the most of this new paradigm requires a rethinking of some of the basics of computational social choice, including the very way in which individuals express their preferences. We analytically compare four preference elicitation methods -- knapsack votes, rankings by value or value for money, and threshold approval votes -- through the lens of implicit utilitarian voting, and find that threshold approval votes are qualitatively superior. This conclusion is supported by experiments using data from real participatory budgeting elections.

Kidney exchanges are organized markets where patients swap willing but incompatible donors. In the last decade, kidney exchanges grew from small and regional to large and national — and soon, international. This growth results in more lives saved, but exacerbates the empirical hardness of the NP-complete problem of optimally matching patients to donors. State-of-the-art matching engines use integer programming techniques to clear fielded kidney exchanges, but these methods must be tailored to specific models and objective functions, and may fail to scale to larger exchanges. In this paper, we observe that if the kidney exchange compatibility graph can be encoded by a constant number of patient and donor attributes, the clearing problem is solvable in polynomial time. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for losslessly shrinking the representation of an arbitrary compatibility graph. Then, using real compatibility graphs from the UNOS US-wide kidney exchange, we show how many attributes are needed to encode real graphs. The experiments show that, indeed, small numbers of attributes suffice.

In human-robot teams, humans often start with an inaccurate model of the robot capabilities. As they interact with the robot, they infer the robot's capabilities and partially adapt to the robot, i.e., they might change their actions based on the observed outcomes and the robot's actions, without replicating the robot's policy. We present a game-theoretic model of human partial adaptation to the robot, where the human responds to the robot's actions by maximizing a reward function that changes stochastically over time, capturing the evolution of their expectations of the robot's capabilities. The robot can then use this model to decide optimally between taking actions that reveal its capabilities to the human and taking the best action given the information that the human currently has. We prove that under certain observability assumptions, the optimal policy can be computed efficiently. We demonstrate through a human subject experiment that the proposed model significantly improves human-robot team performance, compared to policies that assume complete adaptation of the human to the robot.

What is a fair way to assign rooms to several housemates, and divide the rent between them? This is not just a theoretical question: many people have used the Spliddit website to obtain envy-free solutions to rent division instances. But envy freeness, in and of itself, is insufficient to guarantee outcomes that people view as intuitive and acceptable. We therefore focus on solutions that optimize a criterion of social justice, subject to the envy freeness constraint, in order to pinpoint the “fairest” solutions. We develop a general algorithmic framework that enables the computation of such solutions in polynomial time. We then study the relations between natural optimization objectives, and identify the maximin solution, which maximizes the minimum utility subject to envy freeness, as the most attractive. We demonstrate, in theory and using experiments on real data from Spliddit, that the maximin solution gives rise to significant gains in terms of our optimization objectives. Finally, a user study with Spliddit users as subjects demonstrates that people find the maximin solution to be significantly fairer than arbitrary envy-free solutions; this user study is unprecedented in that it asks people about their real-world rent division instances. Based on these results, the maximin solution has been deployed on Spliddit since April 2015.

We consider goods that can be shared with k-hop neighbors (i.e., the set of nodes within k hops from an owner) on a social network. We examine incentives to buy such a good by devising game-theoretic models where each node decides whether to buy the good or free ride. First, we find that social inefficiency, specifically excessive purchase of the good, occurs in Nash equilibria. Second, the social inefficiency decreases as k increases and thus a good can be shared with more nodes. Third, and most importantly, the social inefficiency can also be significantly reduced by charging free riders an access cost and paying it to owners, leading to the conclusion that organizations and system designers should impose such a cost. These findings are supported by our theoretical analysis in terms of the price of anarchy and the price of stability; and by simulations based on synthetic and real social networks.

We introduce a collaborative PAC learning model, in which k players attempt to learn the same underlying concept. We ask how much more information is required to learn an accurate classifier for all players simultaneously. We refer to the ratio between the sample complexity of collaborative PAC learning and its non-collaborative (single-player) counterpart as the overhead. We design learning algorithms with O(ln(k)) and O(ln^2(k)) overhead in the personalized and centralized variants our model. This gives an exponential improvement upon the naive algorithm that does not share information among players. We complement our upper bounds with an Omega(ln(k)) overhead lower bound, showing that our results are tight up to a logarithmic factor.

We revisit the classic problem of designing voting rules that aggregate objective opinions, in a setting where voters have noisy estimates of a true ranking of the alternatives. Previous work has replaced structural assumptions on the noise with a worst-case approach that aims to choose an outcome that minimizes the maximum error with respect to any feasible true ranking. This approach underlies algorithms that have recently been deployed on the social choice website RoboVote.org. We take a less conservative viewpoint by minimizing the average error with respect to the set of feasible ground truth rankings. We derive (mostly sharp) analytical bounds on the expected error and establish the practical benefits of our approach through experiments.

We are interested in the problem of dividing a cake -- a heterogeneous divisible good -- among n players, in a way that is ε-equitable: every pair of players must have the same value for their own allocated pieces, up to a difference of at most ε. It is known that such allocations can be computed using O(n ln(1/ε)) operations in the standard Robertson-Webb Model. We establish a lower bound of Ω(ln(1/ε)/lnln(1/ε)) on the complexity of this problem, which is almost tight for a constant number of players. Importantly, our result implies that allocations that are exactly equitable cannot be computed.

We revisit the problem of designing optimal, individually rational matching mechanisms (in a general sense, allowing for cycles in directed graphs), where each player—who is associated with a subset of vertices—matches as many of his own vertices when he opts into the matching mechanism as when he opts out. We offer a new perspective on this problem by considering an arbitrary graph, but assuming that vertices are associated with players at random. Our main result asserts that, under certain conditions, any fixed optimal matching is likely to be individually rational up to lower-order terms. We also show that a simple and practical mechanism is (fully) individually rational, and likely to be optimal up to lower-order terms. We discuss the implications of our results for market design in general, and kidney exchange in particular.

“Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?” The Evil Queen What is a fair way to assign rooms to several housemates and divide the rent between them? This is not just a theoretical question: many people have used the Spliddit website to obtain envy-free solutions to rent division instances. But envy freeness, in and of itself, is insufficient to guarantee outcomes that people view as intuitive and acceptable. We therefore focus on solutions that optimize a criterion of social justice, subject to the envy-freeness constraint, in order to pinpoint the “fairest” solutions. We develop a general algorithmic framework that enables the computation of such solutions in polynomial time. We then study the relations between natural optimization objectives and identify the maximin solution, which maximizes the minimum utility subject to envy freeness, as the most attractive. We demonstrate, in theory and using experiments on real data from Spliddit, that the maximin solution gives rise to significant gains in terms of our optimization objectives. Finally, a user study with Spliddit users as subjects demonstrates that people find the maximin solution to be significantly fairer than arbitrary envy-free solutions; this user study is unprecedented in that it asks people about their real-world rent division instances. Based on these results, the maximin solution has been deployed on Spliddit since April 2015.

How should one aggregate ordinal preferences expressed by voters into a measurably superior social choice? A well-established approach -- which we refer to as implicit utilitarian voting -- assumes that voters have latent utility functions that induce the reported rankings, and seeks voting rules that approximately maximize utilitarian social welfare. We extend this approach to the design of rules that select a subset of alternatives. We derive analytical bounds on the performance of optimal (deterministic as well as randomized) rules in terms of two measures, distortion and regret. Empirical results show that regret-based rules are more compelling than distortion-based rules, leading us to focus on developing a scalable implementation for the optimal (deterministic) regret-based rule. Our methods underlie the design and implementation of RoboVote.org, a not-for-profit website that helps users make group decisions via AI-driven voting methods.

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.

A paradigmatic problem in social choice theory deals with the aggregation of subjective preferences of individuals --- represented as rankings of alternatives --- into a social ranking. We are interested in settings where individuals are uncertain about their own preferences, and represent their uncertainty as distributions over rankings. Under the classic objective of minimizing the (expected) sum of Kendall tau distances between the input rankings and the output ranking, we establish that preference elicitation is surprisingly straightforward and near-optimal solutions can be obtained in polynomial time. We show, both in theory and using real data, that ignoring uncertainty altogether can lead to suboptimal outcomes.

We revisit the classic problem of estimating the population mean of an unknown single-dimensional distribution from samples, taking a game-theoretic viewpoint. In our setting, samples are supplied by strategic agents, who wish to pull the estimate as close as possible to their own value. In this setting, the sample mean gives rise to manipulation opportunities, whereas the sample median does not. Our key question is whether the sample median is the best (in terms of mean squared error) truthful estimator of the population mean. We show that when the underlying distribution is symmetric, there are truthful estimators that dominate the median. Our main result is a characterization of worst-case optimal truthful estimators, which provably outperform the median, for possibly asymmetric distributions with bounded support.

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.

What is a fair way to assign rooms to several housemates, and divide the rent between them? This is not just a theoretical question: many people have used the Spliddit website to obtain envy-free solutions to rent division instances. But envy freeness, in and of itself, is insufficient to guarantee outcomes that people view as intuitive and acceptable. We therefore focus on solutions that optimize a criterion of social justice, subject to the envy freeness constraint, in order to pinpoint the ``fairest'' solutions. We develop a general algorithmic framework that enables the computation of such solutions in polynomial time. We then study the relations between natural optimization objectives, and identify the maximin solution, which maximizes the minimum utility subject to envy freeness, as the most attractive. We demonstrate, in theory and using experiments on real data from Spliddit, that the maximin solution gives rise to significant gains in terms of our optimization objectives. Finally, a user study with Spliddit users as subjects demonstrates that people find the maximin solution to be significantly fairer than arbitrary envy-free solutions; this user study is unprecedented in that it asks people about their real-world rent division instances. Based on these results, the maximin solution has been deployed on Spliddit since April 2015.

Modern organizations (e.g., hospitals, social networks, government agencies) rely heavily on audit to detect and punish insiders who inappropriately access and disclose confidential information. Recent work on audit games models the strategic interaction between an auditor with a single audit resource and auditees as a Stackelberg game, augmenting associated well-studied security games with a configurable punishment parameter. We significantly generalize this audit game model to account for multiple audit resources where each resource is restricted to audit a subset of all potential violations, thus enabling application to practical auditing scenarios. We provide an FPTAS that computes an approximately optimal solution to the resulting non-convex optimization problem. The main technical novelty is in the design and correctness proof of an optimization transformation that enables the construction of this FPTAS. In addition, we experimentally demonstrate that this transformation significantly speeds up computation of solutions for a class of audit games and security games.

We present the first model of optimal voting under adversarial noise. From this viewpoint, voting rules are seen as error-correcting codes: their goal is to correct errors in the input rankings and recover a ranking that is close to the ground truth. We derive worst-case bounds on the relation between the average accuracy of the input votes, and the accuracy of the output ranking. Empirical results from real data show that our approach produces significantly more accurate rankings than alternative approaches.

Starting with the seminal work by Kempe et al., a broad variety of problems, such as targeted marketing and the spread of viruses and malware, have been modeled as selecting a subset of nodes to maximize diffusion through a network. In cyber-security applications, however, a key consideration largely ignored in this literature is stealth. In particular, an attacker often has a specific target in mind, but succeeds only if the target is reached (e.g., by malware) before the malicious payload is detected and corresponding countermeasures deployed. The dual side of this problem is deployment of a limited number of monitoring units, such as cyber-forensics specialists, so as to limit the likelihood of such targeted and stealthy diffusion processes reaching their intended targets. We investigate the problem of optimal monitoring of targeted stealthy diffusion processes, and show that a number of natural variants of this problem are NP-hard to approximate. On the positive side, we show that if stealthy diffusion starts from randomly selected nodes, the defender's objective is submodular, and a fast greedy algorithm has provable approximation guarantees. In addition, we present approximation algorithms for the setting in which an attacker optimally responds to the placement of monitoring nodes by adaptively selecting the starting nodes for the diffusion process. Our experimental results show that the proposed algorithms are highly effective and scalable.

It is typically expected that if a mechanism is truthful, then the agents would, indeed, truthfully report their private information. But why would an agent believe that the mechanism is truthful? We wish to design truthful mechanisms that are simple, that is whose truthfulness can be verified efficiently (in the computational sense). Our approach involves three steps: (i) specifying the structure of mechanisms, (ii) constructing a verification algorithm, and (iii) measuring the quality of verifiably truthful mechanisms. We demonstrate this approach using a case study: approximate mechanism design without money for facility location.

Some crowdsourcing platforms ask workers to express their opinions by approving a set of k good alternatives. It seems that the only reasonable way to aggregate these k-approval votes is the approval voting rule, which simply counts the number of times each alternative was approved. We challenge this assertion by proposing a probabilistic framework of noisy voting, and asking whether approval voting yields an alternative that is most likely to be the best alternative, given k-approval votes. While the answer is generally positive, our theoretical and empirical results call attention to situations where approval voting is suboptimal.

In a Stackelberg Security Game, a defender commits to a randomized deployment of security resources, and an attacker best-responds by attacking a target that maximizes his utility. While algorithms for computing an optimal strategy for the defender to commit to have had a striking real-world impact, deployed applications require significant information about potential attackers, leading to inefficiencies. We address this problem via an online learning approach. We are interested in algorithms that prescribe a randomized strategy for the defender at each step against an adversarially chosen sequence of attackers, and obtain feedback on their choices (observing either the current attacker type or merely which target was attacked). We design no-regret algorithms whose regret (when compared to the best fixed strategy in hindsight) is polynomial in the parameters of the game, and sublinear in the number of times steps.

The stochastic matching problem deals with finding a maximum matching in a graph whose edges are unknown but can be accessed via queries. This is a special case of stochastic k-set packing, where the problem is to find a maximum packing of sets, each of which exists with some probability. In this paper, we provide edge and set query algorithms for these two problems, respectively, that provably achieve some fraction of the omniscient optimal solution. Our main theoretical result for the stochastic matching (i.e., 2-set packing) problem is the design of an adaptive algorithm that queries only a constant number of edges per vertex and achieves a (1-ε) fraction of the omniscient optimal solution, for an arbitrarily small ε > 0. Moreover, this adaptive algorithm performs the queries in only a constant number of rounds. We complement this result with a non-adaptive (i.e., one round of queries) algorithm that achieves a (0.5 - ε) fraction of the omniscient optimum. We also extend both our results to stochastic k-set packing by designing an adaptive algorithm that achieves a (2/k - ε) fraction of the omniscient optimal solution, again with only O(1) queries per element. This guarantee is close to the best known polynomial-time approximation ratio of 3/k+1 -ε for the deterministic k-set packing problem [Furer 2013].

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.

Most work building on the Stackelberg security games model assumes that the attacker can perfectly observe the defender's randomized assignment of resources to targets. This assumption has been challenged by recent papers, which designed tailor-made algorithms that compute optimal defender strategies for security games with limited surveillance. We analytically demonstrate that in zero-sum security games, lazy defenders, who simply keep optimizing against perfectly informed attackers, are almost optimal against diligent attackers, who go to the effort of gathering a reasonable number of observations. This result implies that, in some realistic situations, limited surveillance may not need to be explicitly addressed.

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.

Motivated by applications to crowdsourcing, we study voting rules that output a correct ranking of alternatives by quality from a large collection of noisy input rankings. We seek voting rules that are supremely robust to noise, in the sense of being correct in the face of any "reasonable" type of noise. We show that there is such a voting rule, which we call the modal ranking rule. Moreover, we establish that the modal ranking rule is the unique rule with the preceding robustness property within a large family of voting rules, which includes a slew of well-studied rules.

The fair division of indivisible goods has long been an important topic in economics and, more recently, computer science. We investigate the existence of envy-free allocations of indivisible goods, that is, allocations where each player values her own allocated set of goods at least as highly as any other player's allocated set of goods. Under additive valuations, we show that even when the number of goods is larger than the number of agents by a linear fraction, envy-free allocations are unlikely to exist. We then show that when the number of goods is larger by a logarithmic factor, such allocations exist with high probability. We support these results experimentally and show that the asymptotic behavior of the theory holds even when the number of goods and agents is quite small. We demonstrate that there is a sharp phase transition from nonexistence to existence of envy-free allocations, and that on average the computational problem is hardest at that transition.

We study the envy-free allocation of indivisible goods between two players. Our novel setting includes an option to sell each good for a fraction of the minimum value any player has for the good. To rigorously quantify the efficiency gain from selling, we reason about the price of envy-freeness of allocations of sellable goods — the ratio between the maximum social welfare and the social welfare of the best envy-free allocation. We show that envy-free allocations of sellable goods are significantly more efficient than their unsellable counterparts.

We investigate synergy, or lack thereof, between agents in cooperative games, building on the popular notion of Shapley value. We think of a pair of agents as synergistic (resp., antagonistic) if the Shapley value of one agent when the other agent participates in a joint effort is higher (resp. lower) than when the other agent does not participate. Our main theoretical result is that any graph specifying synergistic and antagonistic pairs can arise even from a restricted class of cooperative games. We also study the computational complexity of determining whether a given pair of agents is synergistic. Finally, we use the concepts developed in the paper to uncover the structure of synergies in two real-world organizations, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

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, and can be computed in polynomial time when the number of players is constant. These theoretical results have direct practical implications.

Recently fair division theory has emerged as a promising approach for allocation of multiple computational resources among agents. While in reality agents are not all present in the system simultaneously, previous work has studied static settings where all relevant information is known upfront. Our goal is to better understand the dynamic setting. On the conceptual level, we develop a dynamic model of fair division, and propose desirable axiomatic properties for dynamic resource allocation mechanisms. On the technical level, we construct two novel mechanisms that provably satisfy some of these properties, and analyze their performance using real data. We believe that our work informs the design of superior multiagent systems, and at the same time expands the scope of fair division theory by initiating the study of dynamic and fair resource allocation mechanisms.

In 1876, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson suggested the intriguing voting rule that today bears his name. Although Dodgson’s rule is one of the most well-studied voting rules, it suffers from serious deficiencies, both from the computational point of view—it is NP-hard even to approximate the Dodgson score within sublogarithmic factors—and from the social choice point of view—it fails basic social choice desiderata such as monotonicity and homogeneity. However, this does not preclude the existence of approximation algorithms for Dodgson that are monotonic or homogeneous, and indeed it is natural to ask whether such algorithms exist. In this article, we give definitive answers to these questions. We design a monotonic exponential-time algorithm that yields a 2-approximation to the Dodgson score, while matching this result with a tight lower bound. We also present a monotonic polynomial-time O(log m )-approximation algorithm (where m is the number of alternatives); this result is tight as well due to a complexity-theoretic lower bound. Furthermore, we show that a slight variation on a known voting rule yields a monotonic, homogeneous, polynomial-time O( m log m )-approximation algorithm and establish that it is impossible to achieve a better approximation ratio even if one just asks for homogeneity. We complete the picture by studying several additional social choice properties; for these properties, we prove that algorithms with an approximation ratio that depends only on m do not exist.

It is well known that strategic behavior in elections is essentially unavoidable; we therefore ask: how bad can the rational outcome be? We answer this question via the notion of the price of anarchy, using the scores of alternatives as a proxy for their quality and bounding the ratio between the score of the optimal alternative and the score of the winning alternative in Nash equilibrium. Specifically, we are interested in Nash equilibria that are obtained via sequences of rational strategic moves. Focusing on three common voting rules — plurality, veto, and Borda — we provide very positive results for plurality and very negative results for Borda, and place veto in the middle of this spectrum.

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.

Designers of human computation systms often face the need to aggregate noisy information provided by multiple people. While voting is often used for this purpose, the choice of voting method is typically not principled. We conduct extensive experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk to better understand how different voting rules perform in practice. Our empirical conclusions show that noisy human voting can differ from what popular theoretical models would predict. Our short-term goal is to motivate the design of better human computation systems; our long-term goal is to spark an interaction between researchers in (computational) social choice and human computation.

Social choice theory provides insights into a variety of collective decision making settings, but nowadays some of its tenets are challenged by internet environments, which call for dynamic decision making under constantly changing preferences. In this paper we model the problem via Markov decision processes (MDP), where the states of the MDP coincide with preference profiles and a (deterministic, stationary) policy corresponds to a social choice function. We can therefore employ the axioms studied in the social choice literature as guidelines in the design of socially desirable policies. We present tractable algorithms that compute optimal policies under different prominent social choice constraints. Our machinery relies on techniques for exploiting symmetries and isomorphisms between MDPs.

A password composition policy restricts the space of allowable passwords to eliminate weak passwords that are vulnerable to statistical guessing attacks. Usability studies have demonstrated that existing password composition policies can sometimes result in weaker password distributions; hence a more principled approach is needed. We introduce the first theoretical model for optimizing password composition policies. We study the computational and sample complexity of this problem under different assumptions on the structure of policies and on users' preferences over passwords. Our main positive result is an algorithm that -- with high probability --- constructs almost optimal policies (which are specified as a union of subsets of allowed passwords), and requires only a small number of samples of users' preferred passwords. We complement our theoretical results with simulations using a real-world dataset of 32 million passwords.

Kidney exchanges allow incompatible donor-patient pairs to swap kidneys, but each donation must pass three tests: blood, tissue, and crossmatch. In practice a matching is computed based on the first two tests, and then a single crossmatch test is performed for each matched patient. However, if two crossmatches could be performed per patient, in principle significantly more successful exchanges could take place. In this paper, we ask: If we were allowed to perform two crossmatches per patient, could we harness this additional power optimally and efficiently? Our main result is a polynomial time algorithm for this problem that almost surely computes optimal --- up to lower order terms --- solutions on random large kidney exchange instances.

A well-studied approach to the design of voting rules views them as maximum likelihood estimators; given votes that are seen as noisy estimates of a true ranking of the alternatives, the rule must reconstruct the most likely true ranking. We argue that this is too stringent a requirement, and instead ask: How many votes does a voting rule need to reconstruct the true ranking? We define the family of pairwise-majority consistent rules, and show that for all rules in this family the number of samples required from the Mallows noise model is logarithmic in the number of alternatives, and that no rule can do asymptotically better (while some rules like plurality do much worse). Taking a more normative point of view, we consider voting rules that surely return the true ranking as the number of samples tends to infinity (we call this property accuracy in the limit); this allows us to move to a higher level of abstraction. We study families of noise models that are parametrized by distance functions, and find voting rules that are accurate in the limit for all noise models in such general families. We characterize the distance functions that induce noise models for which pairwise-majority consistent rules are accurate in the limit, and provide a similar result for another novel family of position-dominance consistent rules. These characterizations capture three well-known distance functions.

Most algorithmic matches in fielded kidney exchanges do not result in an actual transplant. In this paper, we address the problem of cycles and chains in a proposed match failing after the matching algorithm has committed to them. We show that failure-aware kidney exchange can significantly increase the expected number of lives saved (i) in theory, on random graph models; (ii) on real data from kidney exchange match runs between 2010 and 2012; (iii) on synthetic data generated via a model of dynamic kidney exchange. From the computational viewpoint, we design a branch-and-price-based optimal clearing algorithm specifically for the probabilistic exchange clearing problem and show that this new solver scales well on large simulated data, unlike prior clearing algorithms.

We study the phase transition of the coalitional manipulation problem for generalized scoring rules. Previously it has been shown that, under some conditions on the distribution of votes, if the number of manipulators is o(sqrt{n}), where n is the number of voters, then the probability that a random profile is manipulable by the coalition goes to zero as the number of voters goes to infinity, whereas if the number of manipulators is omega(sqrt{n}), then the probability that a random profile is manipulable goes to one. Here we consider the critical window, where a coalition has size c*sqrt{n}, and we show that as c goes from zero to infinity, the limiting probability that a random profile is manipulable goes from zero to one in a smooth fashion, i.e., there is a smooth phase transition between the two regimes. This result analytically validates recent empirical results, and suggests that deciding the coalitional manipulation problem may be of limited computational hardness in practice.

Distance rationalizability is an intuitive paradigm for developing and studying voting rules: given a notion of consensus and a distance function on preference profiles, a rationalizable voting rule selects an alternative that is closest to being a consensus winner. Despite its appeal, distance rationalizability faces the challenge of connecting the chosen distance measure and consensus notion to an operational measure of social desirability. We tackle this issue via the decision-theoretic framework of dynamic social choice, in which a social choice Markov decision process (MDP) models the dynamics of voter preferences in response to winner selection. We show that, for a prominent class of distance functions, one can construct a social choice MDP, with natural preference dynamics and rewards, such that a voting rule is (votewise) rationalizable with respect to the unanimity consensus for a given distance function iff it is a (deterministic) optimal policy in the MDP. This provides an alternative rationale for distance rationalizability, demonstrating the equivalence of rationalizable voting rules in a static sense and winner selection to maximize societal utility in a dynamic process.

We consider the problem of selecting fair divisions of a heterogeneous divisible good among a set of agents. Recent work (Cohler et al., AAAI 2011) focused on designing algorithms for computing maxsum—social welfare maximizing—allocations under the fairness notion of envy-freeness. Maxsum allocations can also be found under alternative notions such as equitability. In this paper, we examine the properties of these allocations. In particular, We provide conditions for when maxsum envy-free or equitable allocations are Pareto optimal and give examples where fairness with Pareto optimality is not possible. We also prove that maxsum envy-free allocations have weakly greater welfare than maxsum equitable allocations when agents have structured valuations, and we derive an approximate version of this inequality for general valuations.

In many dynamic matching applications — especially high-stakes ones — the competitive ratios of prior-free online algorithms are unacceptably poor. The algorithm should take distributional information about possible futures into account in deciding what action to take now. This is typically done by drawing sample trajectories of possible futures at each time period, but may require a prohibitively large number of trajectories or prohibitive memory and/or computation to decide what action to take. Instead, we propose to learn potentials of elements (e.g., vertices) of the current problem. Then, at run time, we simply run an offline matching algorithm at each time period, but subtracting out in the objective the potentials of the elements used up in the matching. We apply the approach to kidney exchange. Kidney exchanges enable willing but incompatible patient-donor pairs (vertices) to swap donors. These swaps typically include cycles longer than two pairs and chains triggered by altruistic donors. Fielded exchanges currently match myopically, maximizing the number of patients who get kidneys in an offline fashion at each time period. Myopic matching is sub-optimal; the clearing problem is dynamic since patients, donors, and altruists appear and expire over time. We theoretically compare the power of using potentials on increasingly large elements: vertices, edges, cycles, and the entire graph (optimum). Then, experiments show that by learning vertex potentials, our algorithm matches more patients than the current practice of clearing myopically. It scales to exchanges orders of magnitude beyond those handled by the prior dynamic algorithm.

We adopt a utilitarian perspective on social choice, assuming that agents have (possibly latent) utility functions over some space of alternatives. For many reasons one might consider mechanisms, or social choice functions, that only have access to the ordinal rankings of alternatives by the individual agents rather than their utility functions. In this context, one possible objective for a social choice function is the maximization of (expected) social welfare relative to the information contained in these rankings. We study such optimal social choice functions under three different models, and underscore the important role played by scoring functions. In our worst-case model, no assumptions are made about the underlying distribution and we analyze the worst-case distortion---or degree to which the selected alternative does not maximize social welfare---of optimal social choice functions. In our average-case model, we derive optimal functions under neutral (or impartial culture) distributional models. Finally, a very general learning-theoretic model allows for the computation of optimal social choice functions (i.e., that maximize expected social welfare) under arbitrary, sampleable distributions. In the latter case, we provide both algorithms and sample complexity results for the class of scoring functions, and further validate the approach empirically.

We study the problem of allocating multiple resources to agents with heterogeneous demands. Technological advances such as cloud computing and data centers provide a new impetus for investigating this problem under the assumption that agents demand the resources in fixed proportions, known in economics as Leontief preferences. In a recent paper, Ghodsi et al. [2011] introduced the dominant resource fairness (DRF) mechanism, which was shown to possess highly desirable theoretical properties under Leontief preferences. We extend their results in three directions. First, we show that DRF generalizes to more expressive settings, and leverage a new technical framework to formally extend its guarantees. Second, we study the relation between social welfare and properties such as truthfulness; DRF performs poorly in terms of social welfare, but we show that this is an unavoidable shortcoming that is shared by every mechanism that satisfies one of three basic properties. Third, and most importantly, we study a realistic setting that involves indivisibilities. We chart the boundaries of the possible in this setting, contributing a new relaxed notion of fairness and providing both possibility and impossibility results.

We consider the problem of fairly dividing a heterogeneous divisible good among agents with different preferences. Previous work has shown that envy-free allocations, i.e., where each agent prefers its own allocation to any other, may not be efficient, in the sense of maximizing the total value of the agents. Our goal is to pinpoint the most efficient allocations among all envy-free allocations. We provide tractable algorithms for doing so under different assumptions regarding the preferences of the agents.

We consider the special case of approval voting when the set of agents and the set of alternatives coincide. This captures situations in which the members of an organization want to elect a president or a committee from their ranks, as well as a variety of problems in networked environments, for example in internet search, social networks like Twitter, or reputation systems like Epinions. More precisely, we look at a setting where each member of a set of n agents approves or disapproves of any other member of the set and we want to select a subset of k agents, for a given value of k, in a strategyproof and approximately efficient way. Here, strategyproofness means that no agent can improve its own chances of being selected by changing the set of other agents it approves. A mechanism is said to provide an approximation ratio of α for some α ≥ 1 if the ratio between the sum of approval scores of any set of size k and that of the set selected by the mechanism is always at most α. We show that for k ∈ {1, 2,..., n − 1}, no deterministic strategyproof mechanism can provide a finite approximation ratio. We then present a randomized strategyproof mechanism that provides an approximation ratio that is bounded from above by four for any value of k, and approaches one as k grows.

In cooperative multiagent systems an alternative that maximizes the social welfare — the sum of utilities — can only be selected if each agent reports its full utility function. This may be infeasible in environments where communication is restricted. Employing a voting rule to choose an alternative greatly reduces the communication burden, but leads to a possible gap between the social welfare of the optimal alternative and the social welfare of the one that is ultimately elected. Procaccia and Rosenschein have introduced the concept of distortion to quantify this gap. In this paper, we present the notion of embeddings into voting rules: functions that receive an agent's utility function and return the agent's vote. We establish that very low distortion can be obtained using randomized embeddings, especially when the number of agents is large compared to the number of alternatives. We investigate our ideas in the context of three prominent voting rules with low communication costs: Plurality, Approval, and Veto. Our results arguably provide a compelling reason for employing voting in cooperative multiagent systems.

Cake cutting is a common metaphor for the division of a heterogeneous divisible good. There are numerous papers that study the problem of fairly dividing a cake; a small number of them also take into account self-interested agents and consequent strategic issues, but these papers focus on fairness and consider a strikingly weak notion of truthfulness. In this paper we investigate the problem of cutting a cake in a way that is truthful and fair, where for the first time our notion of dominant strategy truthfulness is the ubiquitous one in social choice and computer science. We design both deterministic and randomized cake cutting algorithms that are truthful and fair under different assumptions with respect to the valuation functions of the agents.

The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem asserts that any reasonable voting rule cannot be strategyproof. A large body of research in AI deals with circumventing this theorem via computational considerations; the goal is to design voting rules that are computationally hard, in the worst-case, to manipulate. However, recent work indicates that the prominent voting rules are usually easy to manipulate. In this paper, we suggest a new CS-oriented approach to circumventing Gibbard-Satterthwaite, using randomization and approximation. Specifically, we wish to design strategyproof randomized voting rules that are close, in a standard approximation sense, to prominent score-based (deterministic) voting rules. We give tight lower and upper bounds on the approximation ratio achievable via strategyproof randomized rules with respect to positional scoring rules, Copeland, and Maximin.

As information security shifts from the realm of computer science to national security, the priority for safe and secure systems will be balanced against the appeal of using information insecurity as a strategic asset. In war, those tasked with defending friendly computer networks are also expected to exploit enemy networks. This paper presents two game-theoretic models of vulnerability discovery and exploitation, where nations must choose between protecting themselves by sharing vulnerability information with vendors or pursuing an offensive advantage while remaining at risk. One game describes a cold war of stockpiling, the other allows for actual attack. In both models, we predict that at least one state will have an incentive to pursue an aggressive cyber war posture, rather than secure its own systems. This finding -- that a mutually defensive approach to security is not a stable equilibrium -- holds up under a range of assumptions about social risk of cybercrime, technical sophistication, military aggressiveness and the likelihood of vulnerability rediscovery. We conclude with a discussion of the security policy implications of a militarized cyberspace

Consider a matching problem on a graph where disjoint sets of vertices are privately owned by self-interested agents. An edge between a pair of vertices indicates compatibility and allows the vertices to match. We seek a mechanism to maximize the number of matches despite self-interest, with agents that each want to maximize the number of their own vertices that match. Each agent can choose to hide some of its vertices, and then privately match the hidden vertices with any of its own vertices that go unmatched by the mechanism. A prominent application of this model is to kidney exchange, where agents correspond to hospitals and vertices to donor-patient pairs. Here hospitals may game an exchange by holding back pairs and harm social welfare.

In 1876 Charles Lutwidge Dodgson suggested the intriguing voting rule that today bears his name. Although Dodgson's rule is one of the most well-studied voting rules, it suffers from serious deficiencies, both from the computational point of view - it is NP-hard even to approximate the Dodgson score within sublogarithmic factors - and from the social choice point of view - it fails basic social choice desiderata such as monotonicity and homogeneity.

The coalitional manipulation problem is one of the central problems in computational social choice. In this paper, we focus on solving the problem under the important family of positional scoring rules, in an approximate sense that was advocated by Zuckerman et al. [SODA 2008, AIJ 2009]. Our main result is a polynomial-time algorithm with (roughly speaking) the following theoretical guarantee: given a manipulable instance with m alternatives, the algorithm finds a successful manipulation with at most m - 2 additional manipulators. Our technique is based on a reduction to the scheduling problem known as Q|pmtn|Cmax, along with a novel rounding procedure. We demonstrate that our analysis is tight by establishing a new type of integrality gap. We also resolve a known open question in computational social choice by showing that the coalitional manipulation problem remains (strongly) NP-complete for positional scoring rules even when votes are unweighted. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results with respect to the question: "Is there a prominent voting rule that is usually hard to manipulate?"

Voting trees provide an abstract model of decision-making among a group of individuals in terms of an iterative procedure for selecting a single vertex from a tournament. A family of voting trees is said to implement a given voting rule if for every tournament it chooses according to the rule. While partial results concerning implementable rules and necessary conditions for implementability have been obtained, a complete characterization of voting rules implementable by trees has proven surprisingly hard to find. A prominent rule that cannot be implemented by trees is the Copeland rule, which singles out vertices with maximum degree. In this paper, we suggest a new angle of attack and re-examine the implementability of the Copeland solution using paradigms and techniques at the core of theoretical computer science. We study the extent to which voting trees can approximate the maximum degree, and give upper and lower bounds on the worst-case ratio between the degree of the vertex chosen by a tree and the maximum degree, both for the deterministic model concerned with a single fixed tree, and for randomizations over arbitrary sets of trees. Our main positive result is a randomization over surjective trees of polynomial size that provides an approximation ratio of at least 1/2. The proof is based on a connection between a randomization over caterpillar trees and a rapidly mixing Markov chain.

The literature on algorithmic mechanism design is mostly concerned with game-theoretic versions of optimization problems to which standard economic money-based mechanisms cannot be applied efficiently. Recent years have seen the design of various truthful approximation mechanisms that rely on enforcing payments. In this paper, we advocate the reconsideration of highly structured optimization problems in the context of mechanism design. We argue that, in such domains, approximation can be leveraged to obtain truthfulness without resorting to payments. This stands in contrast to previous work where payments are ubiquitous, and (more often than not) approximation is a necessary evil that is required to circumvent computational complexity.

The voting rules proposed by Dodgson and Young are both designed to find the alternative closest to being a Condorcet winner, according to two different notions of proximity; the score of a given alternative is known to be hard to compute under either rule. In this paper, we put forward two algorithms for approximating the Dodgson score: an LP-based randomized rounding algorithm and a deterministic greedy algorithm, both of which yield an approximation ratio, where m is the number of alternatives; we observe that this result is asymptotically optimal, and further prove that our greedy algorithm is optimal up to a factor of 2, unless problems in have quasi-polynomial time algorithms. Although the greedy algorithm is computationally superior, we argue that the randomized rounding algorithm has an advantage from a social choice point of view. Further, we demonstrate that computing any reasonable approximation of the ranking produced by Dodgson's rule is -hard. This result provides a complexity-theoretic explanation of sharp discrepancies that have been observed in the Social Choice Theory literature when comparing Dodgson elections with simpler voting rules. Finally, we show that the problem of calculating the Young score is -hard to approximate by any factor. This leads to an inapproximability result for the Young ranking.

Although recent years have seen a surge of interest in the computational aspects of social choice, no specific attention has previously been devoted to elections with multiple winners, e.g., elections of an assembly or committee. In this paper, we characterize the worst-case complexity of manipulation and control in the context of four prominent multi-winner voting systems, under different formulations of the strategic agent’s goal.

Encouraging voters to truthfully reveal their preferences in an election has long been an important issue. Recently, computational complexity has been suggested as a means of precluding strategic behavior. Previous studies have shown that some voting protocols are hard to manipulate, but used NP-hardness as the complexity measure. Such a worst-case analysis may be an insufficient guarantee of resistance to manipulation. Indeed, we demonstrate that NP-hard manipulations may be tractable in the average case. For this purpose, we augment the existing theory of average-case complexity with some new concepts. In particular, we consider elections distributed with respect to junta distributions, which concentrate on hard instances. We use our techniques to prove that scoring protocols are susceptible to manipulation by coalitions, when the number of candidates is constant.