https://papers.cool/arxiv/cs.GTComputer Science and Game Theory2024-11-06T00:00:00+00:00python-feedgenCool Papers - Immersive Paper Discoveryhttps://papers.cool/arxiv/2411.02654Fair and Welfare-Efficient Constrained Multi-matchings under Uncertainty2024-11-06T00:00:00+00:00Elita LoboJustin PayanCyrus CousinsYair ZickWe study fair allocation of constrained resources, where a market designer optimizes overall welfare while maintaining group fairness. In many large-scale settings, utilities are not known in advance, but are instead observed after realizing the allocation. We therefore estimate agent utilities using machine learning. Optimizing over estimates requires trading-off between mean utilities and their predictive variances. We discuss these trade-offs under two paradigms for preference modeling -- in the stochastic optimization regime, the market designer has access to a probability distribution over utilities, and in the robust optimization regime they have access to an uncertainty set containing the true utilities with high probability. We discuss utilitarian and egalitarian welfare objectives, and we explore how to optimize for them under stochastic and robust paradigms. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approaches on three publicly available conference reviewer assignment datasets. The approaches presented enable scalable constrained resource allocation under uncertainty for many combinations of objectives and preference models.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2411.02661Pricing and Competition for Generative AI2024-11-06T00:00:00+00:00Rafid MahmoodCompared to classical machine learning (ML) models, generative models offer a new usage paradigm where (i) a single model can be used for many different tasks out-of-the-box; (ii) users interact with this model over a series of natural language prompts; and (iii) the model is ideally evaluated on binary user satisfaction with respect to model outputs. Given these characteristics, we explore the problem of how developers of new generative AI software can release and price their technology. We first develop a comparison of two different models for a specific task with respect to user cost-effectiveness. We then model the pricing problem of generative AI software as a game between two different companies who sequentially release their models before users choose their preferred model for each task. Here, the price optimization problem becomes piecewise continuous where the companies must choose a subset of the tasks on which to be cost-effective and forgo revenue for the remaining tasks. In particular, we reveal the value of market information by showing that a company who deploys later after knowing their competitor's price can always secure cost-effectiveness on at least one task, whereas the company who is the first-to-market must price their model in a way that incentivizes higher prices from the latecomer in order to gain revenue. Most importantly, we find that if the different tasks are sufficiently similar, the first-to-market model may become cost-ineffective on all tasks regardless of how this technology is priced.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2411.02942Constant Approximation for Weighted Nash Social Welfare with Submodular Valuations2024-11-06T00:00:00+00:00Yuda FengYang HuShi LiRuilong ZhangWe study the problem of assigning items to agents so as to maximize the \emph{weighted} Nash Social Welfare (NSW) under submodular valuations. The best-known result for the problem is an $O(nw_{\max})$-approximation due to Garg, Husic, Li, Vega, and Vondrak~\cite{GHL23}, where $w_{\max}$ is the maximum weight over all agents. Obtaining a constant approximation algorithm is an open problem in the field that has recently attracted considerable attention. We give the first such algorithm for the problem, thus solving the open problem in the affirmative. Our algorithm is based on the natural Configuration LP for the problem, which was introduced recently by Feng and Li~\cite{FL24} for the additive valuation case. Our rounding algorithm is similar to that of Li \cite{Li25} developed for the unrelated machine scheduling problem to minimize weighted completion time. Roughly speaking, we designate the largest item in each configuration as a large item and the remaining items as small items. So, every agent gets precisely 1 fractional large item in the configuration LP solution. With the rounding algorithm in \cite{Li25}, we can ensure that in the obtained solution, every agent gets precisely 1 large item, and the assignments of small items are negatively correlated.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2411.03248On the Role of Constraints in the Complexity of Min-Max Optimization2024-11-06T00:00:00+00:00Martino BernasconiMatteo CastiglioniAndrea CelliGabriele FarinaWe investigate the role of constraints in the computational complexity of min-max optimization. First, we show that when the constraints are jointly convex (i.e., the min player and max player share the same constraints), computing a local min-max equilibrium with a nonconvex-concave objective is PPAD-hard. This improves the result of Daskalakis, Skoulakis, and Zampetakis [2021] along multiple directions: it applies to nonconvex-concave objectives (instead of nonconvex-nonconcave ones) that are degree-two polynomials, and it's essentially tight in the parameters. Second, we show that with general constraints (i.e., the min player and max player have different constraints), even convex-concave min-max optimization becomes PPAD-hard. Conversely, local min-max equilibria for nonconvex-concave and convex-concave objectives can be computed in polynomial time under simpler classes of constraints. Therefore, our results show that constraints are a key driver of the complexity of min-max optimization problems. Along the way, we also provide PPAD-membership of a general problem related to quasi-variational inequalities, which has applications beyond our problem.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2411.03270Stable Matching with Ties: Approximation Ratios and Learning2024-11-06T00:00:00+00:00Shiyun LinSimon MaurasNadav MerlisVianney PerchetWe study the problem of matching markets with ties, where one side of the market does not necessarily have strict preferences over members at its other side. For example, workers do not always have strict preferences over jobs, students can give the same ranking for different schools and more. In particular, assume w.l.o.g. that workers' preferences are determined by their utility from being matched to each job, which might admit ties. Notably, in contrast to classical two-sided markets with strict preferences, there is no longer a single stable matching that simultaneously maximizes the utility for all workers. We aim to guarantee each worker the largest possible share from the utility in her best possible stable matching. We call the ratio between the worker's best possible stable utility and its assigned utility the \emph{Optimal Stable Share} (OSS)-ratio. We first prove that distributions over stable matchings cannot guarantee an OSS-ratio that is sublinear in the number of workers. Instead, randomizing over possibly non-stable matchings, we show how to achieve a tight logarithmic OSS-ratio. Then, we analyze the case where the real utility is not necessarily known and can only be approximated. In particular, we provide an algorithm that guarantees a similar fraction of the utility compared to the best possible utility. Finally, we move to a bandit setting, where we select a matching at each round and only observe the utilities for matches we perform. We show how to utilize our results for approximate utilities to gracefully interpolate between problems without ties and problems with statistical ties (small suboptimality gaps).