| Total: 964
We introduce Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD), a novel hybrid of Representative Democracy (RD) and Direct Democracy (DD), in which voters can alter the issue-dependent weights of a set of elected representatives. In line with the literature on Interactive Democracy, our model allows the voters to actively determine the degree to which the system is direct versus representative. However, unlike Liquid Democracy, FRD uses strictly non-transitive delegations, making delegation cycles impossible, preserving privacy and anonymity, and maintaining a fixed set of accountable elected representatives. We present FRD and analyze it using a computational approach with issues that are independent, binary, and symmetric; we compare the outcomes of various democratic systems using Direct Democracy with majority voting and full participation as an ideal baseline. We find through theoretical and empirical analysis that FRD can yield significant improvements over RD for emulating DD with full participation.
A public divisible resource is to be divided among projects. We study rules that decide on a distribution of the budget when voters have ordinal preference rankings over projects. Examples of such portioning problems are participatory budgeting, time shares, and parliament elections. We introduce a family of rules for portioning, inspired by positional scoring rules. Rules in this family are given by a scoring vector (such as plurality or Borda) associating a positive value with each rank in a vote, and an aggregation function such as leximin or the Nash product. Our family contains well-studied rules, but most are new. We discuss computational and normative properties of our rules. We focus on fairness, and introduce the SD-core, a group fairness notion. Our Nash rules are in the SD-core, and the leximin rules satisfy individual fairness properties. Both are Pareto-efficient.
Though there has been an extensive body of work on efficiently solving computational problems for static Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs), little work has been done for handling dynamic AFs and in particular for deciding the skeptical acceptance of a given argument. In this paper we devise an efficient algorithm for computing the skeptical preferred acceptance in dynamic AFs. More specifically, we investigate how the skeptical acceptance of an argument (goal) evolves when the given AF is updated and propose an efficient algorithm for solving this problem. Our algorithm, called SPA, relies on two main ideas: i) computing a small portion of the input AF, called "context-based" AF, which is sufficient to determine the status of the goal in the updated AF, and ii) incrementally computing the ideal extension to further restrict the context-based AF. We experimentally show that SPA significantly outperforms the computation from scratch, and that the overhead of incrementally maintaining the ideal extension pays off as it speeds up the computation.
This paper studies the benefit in using signaling by an information seller holding information that can completely disambiguate some uncertainty concerning the state of the world for the information buyer. We show that a necessary condition for having the information seller benefit from signaling in this model is having some ``seed of truth" in the signaling scheme used. We then introduce two natural signaling mechanisms that adhere to this condition, one where the seller pre-commits to the signaling scheme to be used and the other where she commits to use a signaling scheme that contains a ``seed of truth". Finally, we analyze the equilibrium resulting from each and show that, somehow counter-intuitively, despite the inherent differences between the two mechanisms, they are equivalent in the sense that for any equilibrium associated with the maximum revenue in one there is an equilibrium offering the seller the same revenue in the other.
We introduce Probabilistic Strategy Logic, an extension of Strategy Logic for stochastic systems. The logic has probabilistic terms that allow it to express many standard solution concepts, such as Nash equilibria in randomised strategies, as well as constraints on probabilities, such as independence. We study the model-checking problem for agents with perfect- and imperfect-recall. The former is undecidable, while the latter is decidable in space exponential in the system and triple-exponential in the formula. We identify a natural fragment of the logic, in which every temporal operator is immediately preceded by a probabilistic operator, and show that it is decidable in space exponential in the system and the formula, and double-exponential in the nesting depth of the probabilistic terms. Taking a fixed nesting depth, this gives a fragment that still captures many standard solution concepts, and is decidable in exponential space.
Multi-Agent Pathfinding (MAPF) is the problem of finding paths for multiple agents such that every agent reaches its goal and the agents do not collide. Most prior work on MAPF were on grids, assumed agents' actions have uniform duration, and that time is discretized into timesteps. In this work, we propose a MAPF algorithm that do not assume any of these assumptions, is complete, and provides provably optimal solutions. This algorithm is based on a novel combination of Safe Interval Path Planning (SIPP), a continuous time single agent planning algorithms, and Conflict-Based Search (CBS). We analyze this algorithm, discuss its pros and cons, and evaluate it experimentally on several standard benchmarks.
We initiate the study of indivisible chore allocation for agents with asymmetric shares. The fairness concept we focus on is the weighted natural generalization of maxmin share: WMMS fairness and OWMMS fairness. We first highlight the fact that commonly-used algorithms that work well for allocation of goods to asymmetric agents, and even for chores to symmetric agents do not provide good approximations for allocation of chores to asymmetric agents under WMMS. As a consequence, we present a novel polynomial-time constant-approximation algorithm, via linear program, for OWMMS. For two special cases: the binary valuation case and the 2-agent case, we provide exact or better constant-approximation algorithms.
We consider the problem of fairly dividing a set of items. Much of the fair division literature assumes that the items are ``goods'' i.e., they yield positive utility for the agents. There is also some work where the items are ``chores'' that yield negative utility for the agents. In this paper, we consider a more general scenario where an agent may have negative or positive utility for each item. This framework captures, e.g., fair task assignment, where agents can have both positive and negative utilities for each task. We show that whereas some of the positive axiomatic and computational results extend to this more general setting, others do not. We present several new and efficient algorithms for finding fair allocations in this general setting. We also point out several gaps in the literature regarding the existence of allocations satisfying certain fairness and efficiency properties and further study the complexity of computing such allocations.
We initiate the work on fair and strategyproof allocation of indivisible chores. The fairness concept we consider in this paper is maxmin share (MMS) fairness. We consider three previously studied models of information elicited from the agents: the ordinal model, the cardinal model, and the public ranking model in which the ordinal preferences are publicly known. We present both positive and negative results on the level of MMS approximation that can be guaranteed if we require the algorithm to be strategyproof. Our results uncover some interesting contrasts between the approximation ratios achieved for chores versus goods.
In this paper, we study coalition formation in hedonic games through the fairness criterion of envy-freeness. Since the grand coalition is always envy-free, we focus on the conjunction of envy-freeness with stability notions. We first show that, in symmetric and additively separable hedonic games, an individually stable and justified envy-free partition may not exist and deciding its existence is NP-complete. Then, we prove that the top responsiveness property guarantees the existence of a Pareto optimal, individually stable, and envy-free partition, but it is not sufficient for the conjunction of core stability and envy-freeness. Finally, under bottom responsiveness, we show that deciding the existence of an individually stable and envy-free partition is NP-complete, but a Pareto optimal and justified envy-free partition always exists.
In an election, votes are often given as ordered lists over candidates. A common way of determining the winner is then to apply some scoring system, where each position is associated with a specific score. This setting is also transferable to other situations, such as sports tournaments. The design of such systems, i.e., the choice of the score values, may have a crucial influence on the outcome. We study the computational complexity of two related decision problems. In addition, we provide a case study of data from Formula 1 using ILP formulations. Our results show that under some mild conditions there are cases where the actual scoring system has no influence, whereas in other cases very small changes may lead to a different winner. This may be seen as a measure of robustness of the winning candidate.
We investigate the efficiency of fair allocations of indivisible goods using the well-studied price of fairness concept. Previous work has focused on classical fairness notions such as envy-freeness, proportionality, and equitability. However, these notions cannot always be satisfied for indivisible goods, leading to certain instances being ignored in the analysis. In this paper, we focus instead on notions with guaranteed existence, including envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), balancedness, maximum Nash welfare (MNW), and leximin. We mostly provide tight or asymptotically tight bounds on the worst-case efficiency loss for allocations satisfying these notions.
In this paper we introduce Strategy Logic with simple goals (SL[SG]), a fragment of Strategy Logic that strictly extends the well-known Alternating-time Temporal Logic ATL by introducing arbitrary quantification over the agents' strategies. Our motivation comes from game-theoretic applications, such as expressing Stackelberg equilibria in games, coercion in voting protocols, as well as module checking for simple goals. Most importantly, we prove that the model checking problem for SL[SG] is PTIME-complete, the same as ATL. Thus, the extra expressive power comes at no computational cost as far as verification is concerned.
In this paper, we study the problem of matching a set of items to a set of agents partitioned into types so as to balance fairness towards the types against overall utility/efficiency. We extend multiple desirable properties of indivisible goods allocation to our model and investigate the possibility and hardness of achieving combinations of these properties, e.g. we prove that maximizing utilitarian social welfare under constraints of typewise envy-freeness up to one item (TEF1) is computationally intractable. We also define a new concept of waste for this setting, show experimentally that augmenting an existing algorithm with a marginal utility maximization heuristic can produce a TEF1 solution with reduced waste, and also provide a polynomial-time algorithm for computing a non-wasteful TEF1 allocation for binary agent-item utilities.
The generalized group activity selection problem (GGASP) consists in assigning agents to activities according to their preferences, which depend on both the activity and the set of its participants. We consider additively separable GGASPs, where every agent has a separate valuation for each activity as well as for any other agent, and her overall utility is given by the sum of the valuations she has for the selected activity and its participants. Depending on the nature of the agents' valuations, nine different variants of the problem arise. We completely characterize the complexity of computing a social optimum and provide approximation algorithms for the NP-hard cases. We also focus on Nash stable outcomes, for which we give some complexity results and a full picture of the related performance by providing tights bounds on both the price of anarchy and the price of stability.
We provide an experimental study of committees that achieve (proportional/extended) justified representation (JR/PJR/EJR). In particular, we ask how many such committees exist and how varied they are in terms of voter satisfaction and coverage. We find that under many natural distributions of preferences a large fraction of randomly selected JR committees also provide PJR and EJR. Further, we find that the sets of JR committees for our elections are very varied and include both high-quality ones and not-so-appealing ones.
Liquid democracy, which combines features of direct and representative democracy has been proposed as a modern practice for collective decision making. Its advocates support that by allowing voters to delegate their vote to more informed voters can result in better decisions. In an attempt to evaluate the validity of such claims, we study liquid democracy as a means to discover an underlying ground truth. We revisit a recent model by Kahng et al. [2018] and conclude with three negative results, criticizing an important assumption of their modeling, as well as liquid democracy more generally. In particular, we first identify cases where natural local mechanisms are much worse than either direct voting or the other extreme of full delegation to a common dictator. We then show that delegating to less informed voters may considerably increase the chance of discovering the ground truth. Finally, we show that deciding delegations that maximize the probability to find the ground truth is a computationally hard problem.
We study the problem of computing correlated strategies to commit to in games with multiple leaders and followers. To the best of our knowledge, this problem is widely unexplored so far, as the majority of the works in the literature focus on games with a single leader and one or more followers. The fundamental ingredient of our model is that a leader can decide whether to participate in the commitment or to defect from it by taking on the role of follower. This introduces a preliminary stage where, before the underlying game is played, the leaders make their decisions to reach an agreement on the correlated strategy to commit to. We distinguish three solution concepts on the basis of the constraints that they enforce on the agreement reached by the leaders. Then, we provide a comprehensive study of the properties of our solution concepts, in terms of existence, relation with other solution concepts, and computational complexity.
In this paper, we study the problem of assigning PhD grants. Master students apply for PhD grants on different topics and the number of available grants is limited. In this problem, students have preferences over topics they applied to and the university has preferences over possible matchings of student/topic that satisfy the limited number of grants. The particularity of this framework is the uncertainty on a student's decision to accept or reject a topic offered to him. Without using probability to model uncertainty, we study the possibility of designing protocols of exchanges between the students and the university in order to construct a matching which is as close as possible to the optimal one i.e., the best achievable matching without uncertainty.
We study envy-free allocations of indivisible goods to agents in settings where each agent is unaware of the goods allocated to other agents. In particular, we propose the maximin aware (MMA) fairness measure, which guarantees that every agent, given the bundle allocated to her, is aware that she does not envy at least one other agent, even if she does not know how the other goods are distributed among other agents. We also introduce two of its relaxations, and discuss their egalitarian guarantee and existence. Finally, we present a polynomial-time algorithm, which computes an allocation that approximately satisfies MMA or its relaxations. Interestingly, the returned allocation is also 1/2-approximate EFX when all agents have sub- additive valuations, which improves the algorithm in [Plaut and Roughgarden, 2018].
Motivated by the increasing appeal of robots in information-gathering missions, we study multi-agent path planning problems in which the agents must remain interconnected. We model an area by a topological graph specifying the movement and the connectivity constraints of the agents. We study the theoretical complexity of the reachability and the coverage problems of a fleet of connected agents on various classes of topological graphs. We establish the complexity of these problems on known classes, and introduce a new class called sight-moveable graphs which admit efficient algorithms.
We study how to maximize the broker's (expected) profit in a two-sided market, where she buys items from a set of sellers and resells them to a set of buyers. Each seller has a single item to sell and holds a private value on her item, and each buyer has a valuation function over the bundles of the sellers' items. We consider the Bayesian setting where the agents' values/valuations are independently drawn from prior distributions, and aim at designing dominant-strategy incentive-compatible (DSIC) mechanisms that are approximately optimal. Production-cost markets, where each item has a publicly-known cost to be produced, provide a platform for us to study two-sided markets. Briefly, we show how to covert a mechanism for production-cost markets into a mechanism for the broker, whenever the former satisfies cost-monotonicity. This reduction holds even when buyers have general combinatorial valuation functions. When the buyers' valuations are additive, we generalize an existing mechanism to production-cost markets in an approximation-preserving way. We then show that the resulting mechanism is cost-monotone and thus can be converted into an 8-approximation mechanism for two-sided markets.
We consider the electoral bribery problem in computational social choice. In this context, extensive studies have been carried out to analyze the computational vulnerability of various voting (or election) rules. However, essentially all prior studies assume a deterministic model where each voter has an associated threshold value, which is used as follows. A voter will take a bribe and vote according to the attacker's (i.e., briber's) preference when the amount of the bribe is above the threshold, and a voter will not take a bribe when the amount of the bribe is not above the threshold (in this case, the voter will vote according to its own preference, rather than the attacker's). In this paper, we initiate the study of a more realistic model where each voter is associated with a willingness function, rather than a fixed threshold value. The willingness function characterizes the likelihood a bribed voter would vote according to the attacker's preference; we call this bribe-effect uncertainty. We characterize the computational complexity of the electoral bribery problem in this new model. In particular, we discover a dichotomy result: a certain mathematical property of the willingness function dictates whether or not the computational hardness can serve as a deterrence to bribery attackers.
Over the past few years, ride-sharing has emerged as an effective way to relieve traffic congestion. A key problem for the ride-sharing platforms is to come up with a revenue-optimal (or GMV-optimal) pricing scheme and a vehicle dispatching policy that incorporate geographic and temporal information. In this paper, we aim to tackle this problem via an economic approach. Modeled naively, the underlying optimization problem may be non-convex and thus hard to solve. To this end, we use a so-called ``ironing'' technique to convert the problem into an equivalent convex optimization one via a clean Markov decision process (MDP) formulation, where the states are the driver distributions and the decision variables are the prices for each pair of locations. Our main finding is an efficient algorithm that computes the exact revenue-optimal (or GMV-optimal) randomized pricing scheme, which naturally induces the accompany vehicle dispatching policy. We also conduct empirical evaluations of our solution through real data of a major ride-sharing platform and show its advantages over fixed pricing schemes as well as several prevalent surge-based pricing schemes.
In an ad hoc teamwork setting, the team needs to coordinate their activities to perform a task without prior agreement on how to achieve it. The ad hoc agent cannot communicate with its teammates but it can observe their behaviour and plan accordingly. To do so, the existing approaches rely on the teammates' behaviour models. However, the models may not be accurate, which can compromise teamwork. For this reason, we present Ad Hoc Teamwork by Sub-task Inference and Selection (ATSIS) algorithm that uses a sub-task inference without relying on teammates' models. First, the ad hoc agent observes its teammates to infer which sub-tasks they are handling. Based on that, it selects its own sub-task using a partially observable Markov decision process that handles the uncertainty of the sub-task inference. Last, the ad hoc agent uses the Monte Carlo tree search to find the set of actions to perform the sub-task. Our experiments show the benefits of ATSIS for robust teamwork.