In a seminal paper, McAfee (1992) presented a truthful mechanism for double auctions, attaining asymptotically-optimal gain-from-trade without any prior information on the valuations of the traders. McAfee's mechanism handles single-parametric agents, allowing each seller to sell a single unit and each buyer to buy a single unit. This paper presents a double-auction mechanism that handles multi-parametric agents and allows multiple units per trader, as long as the valuation functions of all traders have decreasing marginal returns. The mechanism is prior-free, ex-post individually-rational, dominant-strategy truthful and strongly-budget-balanced. Its gain-from-trade approaches the optimum when the market size is sufficiently large.

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.

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.

Balancing fairness and efficiency in resource allocation is a classical economic and computational problem. The price of fairness measures the worst-case loss of economic efficiency when using an inefficient but fair allocation rule; for indivisible goods in many settings, this price is unacceptably high. One such setting is kidney exchange, where needy patients swap willing but incompatible kidney donors. In this work, we close an open problem regarding the theoretical price of fairness in modern kidney exchanges. We then propose a general hybrid fairness rule that balances a strict lexicographic preference ordering over classes of agents, and a utilitarian objective that maximizes economic efficiency. We develop a utility function for this rule that favors disadvantaged groups lexicographically; but if cost to overall efficiency becomes too high, it switches to a utilitarian objective. This rule has only one parameter which is proportional to a bound on the price of fairness, and can be adjusted by policymakers. We apply this rule to real data from a large kidney exchange and show that our hybrid rule produces more reliable outcomes than other fairness rules.

We propose a novel mechanism for solving the assignment problem when we have a two sided matching problem with preferences from one side (the agents/reviewers) over the other side (the objects/papers) and both sides have capacity constraints. The assignment problem is a fundamental in both computer science and economics with application in many areas including task and resource allocation. Drawing inspiration from work in multi-criteria decision making and social choice theory we use order weighted averages (OWAs), a parameterized class of mean aggregators, to propose a novel and flexible class of algorithms for the assignment problem. We show an algorithm for finding an SUM-OWA assignment in polynomial time, in contrast to the NP-hardness of finding an egalitarian assignment. We demonstrate through empirical experiments that using SUM-OWA assignments can lead to high quality and more fair assignments.

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.

Cooperative games provide a framework to study cooperation among self-interested agents. They offer a number of solution concepts describing how the outcome of the cooperation should be shared among the players. Unfortunately, computational problems associated with many of these solution concepts tend to be intractable---NP-hard or worse. In this paper, we incorporate complexity measures recently proposed by Feige and Izsak (2013), called dependency degree and supermodular degree, into the complexity analysis of coopera- tive games. We show that many computational problems for cooperative games become tractable for games whose dependency degree or supermodular degree are bounded. In particular, we prove that simple games admit efficient algorithms for various solution concepts when the supermodular degree is small; further, we show that computing the Shapley value is always in FPT with respect to the dependency degree. Finally, we observe that, while determining the dependency among players is computationally hard, there are efficient algorithms for special classes of games.

We study the complexity of bribery in a network-based rating system, where individuals are connected in a social network and an attacker, typically a service provider, can influence their rating and increase the overall profit. We derive a number of algorithmic properties of this framework, in particular we show that establishing the existence of an optimal manipulation strategy for the attacker is NP-complete, even with full knowledge of the underlying network structure.

In this paper, we propose a fractional preference model for the facility location game with two facilities that serve the similar purpose on a line where each agent has his location information as well as fractional preference to indicate how well they prefer the facilities. The preference for each facility is in the range of [0, L] such that the sum of the preference for all facilities is equal to 1. The utility is measured by subtracting the sum of the cost of both facilities from the total length L where the cost of facilities is defined as the multiplication of the fractional preference and the distance between the agent and the facilities. We first show that the lower bound for the objective of minimizing total cost is at least Ω(n^1/3). Hence, we use the utility function to analyze the agents' satification. Our objective is to place two facilities on [0, L] to maximize the social utility or the minimum utility. For each objective function, we propose deterministic strategy-proof mechanisms. For the objective of maximizing the social utility, we present an optimal deterministic strategy-proof mechanism in the case where agents can only misreport their locations. In the case where agents can only misreport their preferences, we present a 2-approximation deterministic strategy-proof mechanism. Finally, we present a 4-approximation deterministic strategy-proof mechanism and a randomized strategy-proof mechanism with an approximation ratio of 2 where agents can misreport both the preference and location information. Moreover, we also give a lower-bound of 1.06. For the objective of maximizing the minimum utility, we give a lower-bound of 1.5 and present a 2-approximation deterministic strategy-proof mechanism where agents can misreport both the preference and location.

Committee scoring rules form an important class of multiwinner voting rules. As computing winning committees under such rules is generally intractable, in this paper we investigate efficient heuristics for this task. We design two novel heuristics for computing approximate results of multiwinner elections under arbitrary committee scoring rules; notably, one of these heuristics uses concepts from cooperative game theory. We then provide an experimental evaluation of our heuristics (and two others, known from the literature): we compare the scores of the committees output by our algorithms to the scores of the optimal committees, and also use the two-dimensional Euclidean domain to compare the visual representations of the outputs of our algorithms.