We propose and study a planning problem we call Sequential Fault-Intolerant Process Planning (SFIPP). SFIPP captures a reward structure common in many sequential multi-stage decision problems where the planning is deemed successful only if all stages succeed. Such reward structures are different from classic additive reward structures and arise in important applications such as drug/material discovery, security, and quality-critical product design. We design provably tight online algorithms for settings in which we need to pick between different actions with unknown success chances at each stage. We do so both for the foundational case in which the behavior of actions is deterministic, and the case of probabilistic action outcomes, where we effectively balance exploration for learning and exploitation for planning through the usage of multi-armed bandit algorithms. In our empirical evaluations, we demonstrate that the specialized algorithms we develop, which leverage additional information about the structure of the SFIPP instance, outperform our more general algorithm.

Restless multi-armed bandits (RMABs) have been highly successful in optimizing sequential resource allocation across many domains. However, in many practical settings with highly scarce resources, where each agent can only receive at most one resource, such as healthcare intervention programs, the standard RMAB framework falls short. To tackle such scenarios, we introduce Finite-Horizon Single-Pull RMABs (SPRMABs), a novel variant in which each arm can only be pulled once. This single-pull constraint introduces additional complexity, rendering many existing RMAB solutions suboptimal or ineffective. %To address this, we propose using dummy states to duplicate the system, ensuring that once an arm is activated, it transitions exclusively within the dummy states. To address this shortcoming, we propose using \textit{dummy states} that expand the system and enforce the one-pull constraint. We then design a lightweight index policy for this expanded system. For the first time, we demonstrate that our index policy achieves a sub-linearly decaying average optimality gap of $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(\frac{1}{\rho^{1/2}}\right)$ for a finite number of arms, where $\rho$ is the scaling factor for each arm cluster. Extensive simulations validate the proposed method, showing robust performance across various domains compared to existing benchmarks.

AI for social impact (AI4SI) offers significant potential for addressing complex societal challenges in areas such as public health, agriculture, education, conservation, and public safety. However, existing AI4SI research is often labor-intensive and resource-demanding, limiting its accessibility and scalability; the standard approach is to design a (base-level) system tailored to a specific AI4SI problem. We propose the development of a novel meta-level multi-agent system designed to accelerate the development of such base-level systems, thereby reducing the computational cost and the burden on social impact domain experts and AI researchers. Leveraging advancements in foundation models and large language models, our proposed approach focuses on resource allocation problems providing help across the full AI4SI pipeline from problem formulation over solution design to impact evaluation. We highlight the ethical considerations and challenges inherent in deploying such systems and emphasize the importance of a human-in-the-loop approach to ensure the responsible and effective application of AI systems.

Maternal mortality remains a significant global public health challenge. One promising approach to reducing maternal deaths occurring during facility-based childbirth is through early warning systems, which require the consistent monitoring of mothers' vital signs after giving birth. Wireless vital sign monitoring devices offer a labor-efficient solution for continuous monitoring, but their scarcity raises the critical question of how to allocate them most effectively. We devise an allocation algorithm for this problem by modeling it as a variant of the popular Restless Multi-Armed Bandit (RMAB) paradigm. In doing so, we identify and address novel, previously unstudied constraints unique to this domain, which render previous approaches for RMABs unsuitable and significantly increase the complexity of the learning and planning problem. To overcome these challenges, we adopt the popular Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm from reinforcement learning to learn an allocation policy by training a policy and value function network. We demonstrate in simulations that our approach outperforms the best heuristic baseline by up to a factor of $4$.

Automated voice calls are an effective method of delivering maternal and child health information to mothers in underserved communities. One method to fight dwindling listenership is through an intervention in which health workers make live service calls. Previous work has shown that we can use AI to identify beneficiaries whose listenership gets the greatest boost from an intervention. It has also been demonstrated that listening to the automated voice calls consistently leads to improved health outcomes for the beneficiaries of the program. These two observations combined suggest the positive effect of AI-based intervention scheduling on behavioral and health outcomes. This study analyzes the relationship between the two. Specifically, we are interested in mothers' health knowledge in the post-natal period, measured through survey questions. We present evidence that improved listenership through AI-scheduled interventions leads to a better understanding of key health issues during pregnancy and infancy. This improved understanding has the potential to benefit the health outcomes of mothers and their babies.

When resources are scarce, an allocation policy is needed to decide who receives a resource. This problem occurs, for instance, when allocating scarce medical resources and is often solved using modern ML methods. This paper introduces methods to evaluate index-based allocation policies -- that allocate a fixed number of resources to those who need them the most -- by using data from a randomized control trial. Such policies create dependencies between agents, which render the assumptions behind standard statistical tests invalid and limit the effectiveness of estimators. Addressing these challenges, we translate and extend recent ideas from the statistics literature to present an efficient estimator and methods for computing asymptotically correct confidence intervals. This enables us to effectively draw valid statistical conclusions, a critical gap in previous work. Our extensive experiments validate our methodology in practical settings, while also showcasing its statistical power. We conclude by proposing and empirically verifying extensions of our methodology that enable us to reevaluate a past randomized control trial to evaluate different ML allocation policies in the context of a mHealth program, drawing previously invisible conclusions.

We consider the problem of subset selection where one is given multiple rankings of items and the goal is to select the highest ``quality'' subset. Score functions from the multiwinner voting literature have been used to aggregate rankings into quality scores for subsets. We study this setting of subset selection problems when, in addition, rankings may contain systemic or unconscious biases toward a group of items. For a general model of input rankings and biases, we show that requiring the selected subset to satisfy group fairness constraints can improve the quality of the selection with respect to unbiased rankings. Importantly, we show that for fairness constraints to be effective, different multiwinner score functions may require a drastically different number of rankings: While for some functions, fairness constraints need an exponential number of rankings to recover a close-to-optimal solution, for others, this dependency is only polynomial. This result relies on a novel notion of ``smoothness'' of submodular functions in this setting that quantifies how well a function can ``correctly'' assess the quality of items in the presence of bias. The results in this paper can be used to guide the choice of multiwinner score functions for the subset selection setting considered here; we additionally provide a tool to empirically enable this.

As the world's democratic institutions are challenged by dissatisfied citizens, political scientists and also computer scientists have proposed and analyzed various (innovative) methods to select representative bodies, a crucial task in every democracy. However, a unified framework to analyze and compare different selection mechanisms is missing, resulting in very few comparative works. To address this gap, we advocate employing concepts and tools from computational social choice in order to devise a model in which different selection mechanisms can be formalized. Such a model would allow for desirable representation axioms to be conceptualized and evaluated. We make the first step in this direction by proposing a unifying mathematical formulation of different selection mechanisms as well as various social-choice-inspired axioms such as proportionality and monotonicity.

We use the ``map of elections'' approach of Szufa et al. (AAMAS-2020) to analyze several well-known vote distributions. For each of them, we give an explicit formula or an efficient algorithm for computing its frequency matrix, which captures the probability that a given candidate appears in a given position in a sampled vote. We use these matrices to draw the ``skeleton map'' of distributions, evaluate its robustness, and analyze its properties. Finally, we develop a general and unified framework for learning the distribution of real-world preferences using the frequency matrices of established vote distributions.

A recent report of Littmann [Commun. ACM '21] outlines the existence and the fatal impact of collusion rings in academic peer reviewing. We introduce and analyze the problem Cycle-Free Reviewing that aims at finding a review assignment without the following kind of collusion ring: A sequence of reviewers each reviewing a paper authored by the next reviewer in the sequence (with the last reviewer reviewing a paper of the first), thus creating a review cycle where each reviewer gives favorable reviews. As a result, all papers in that cycle have a high chance of acceptance independent of their respective scientific merit. We observe that review assignments computed using a standard Linear Programming approach typically admit many short review cycles. On the negative side, we show that Cycle-Free Reviewing is NP-hard in various restricted cases (i.e., when every author is qualified to review all papers and one wants to prevent that authors review each other's or their own papers or when every author has only one paper and is only qualified to review few papers). On the positive side, among others, we show that, in some realistic settings, an assignment without any review cycles of small length always exists. This result also gives rise to an efficient heuristic for computing (weighted) cycle-free review assignments, which we show to be of excellent quality in practice.