Envy-freeness has become the cornerstone of fair division research. In settings where each individual is allocated a disjoint share of collective resources, it is a compelling fairness axiom which demands that no individual strictly prefer the allocation of another individual to their own. Unfortunately, in many real-life collective decision-making problems, the goal is to choose a (common) public outcome that is equally applicable to all individuals, and the notion of envy becomes vacuous. Consequently, this literature has avoided studying fairness criteria that focus on individuals feeling a sense of jealousy or resentment towards other individuals (rather than towards the system), missing out on a key aspect of fairness. In this work, we propose a novel fairness criterion, individual harm ratio, which is inspired by envy-freeness but applies to a broad range of collective decision-making settings. Theoretically, we identify minimal conditions under which this criterion and its groupwise extensions can be guaranteed, and study the computational complexity of related problems. Empirically, we conduct experiments with real data to show that our fairness criterion is powerful enough to differentiate between prominent decision-making algorithms for a range of tasks from voting and fair division to participatory budgeting and peer review.

We introduce a new model for two-sided matching which allows us to borrow popular fairness notions from the fair division literature such as envy-freeness up to one good and maximin share guarantee. In our model, each agent is matched to multiple agents on the other side over whom she has additive preferences. We demand fairness for each side separately, giving rise to notions such as double envy-freeness up to one match (DEF1) and double maximin share guarantee (DMMS). We show that (a slight strengthening of) DEF1 cannot always be achieved, but in the special case where both sides have identical preferences, the round-robin algorithm with a carefully designed agent ordering achieves it. In contrast, DMMS cannot be achieved even when both sides have identical preferences.

We consider the design of forecasting competitions in which multiple forecasters make predictions about one or more independent events and compete for a single prize. We have two objectives: (1) to award the prize to the most accurate forecaster, and (2) to incentivize forecasters to report truthfully, so that forecasts are informative and forecasters need not spend any cognitive effort strategizing about reports. Proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting if all forecasters are paid according to their scores. However, incentives become distorted if only the best-scoring forecaster wins a prize, since forecasters can often increase their probability of having the highest score by reporting extreme beliefs. Even if forecasters do report truthfully, awarding the prize to the forecaster with highest score does not guarantee that high-accuracy forecasters are likely to win; in extreme cases, it can result in a perfect forecaster having zero probability of winning. In this paper, we introduce a truthful forecaster selection mechanism. We lower-bound the probability that our mechanism selects the most accurate forecaster, and give rates for how quickly this bound approaches 1 as the number of events grows. Our techniques can be generalized to the related problems of outputting a ranking over forecasters and hiring a forecaster with high accuracy on future events.

A prediction market is a useful means of aggregating information about a future event. To function, the market needs a trusted entity who will verify the true outcome in the end. Motivated by the recent introduction of decentralized prediction markets, we introduce a mechanism that allows for the outcome to be determined by the votes of a group of arbiters who may themselves hold stakes in the market. Despite the potential conflict of interest, we derive conditions under which we can incentivize arbiters to vote truthfully by using funds raised from market fees to implement a peer prediction mechanism. Finally, we investigate what parameter values could be used in a real-world implementation of our mechanism.

In the late 19th century, Lars Edvard Phragmén proposed a load-balancing approach for selecting committees based on approval ballots. We consider three committee voting rules resulting from this approach: two optimization variants one minimizing the maximal load and one minimizing the variance of loads —and a sequential variant. We study Phragmén's methods from an axiomatic point of view, focussing on justified representation and related properties that have recently been introduced by Aziz et al. (2015a) and Sánchez-Fernández et al. (2017). We show that the sequential variant satisfies proportional justified representation, making it the first known polynomial-time computable method with this property. Moreover, we show that the optimization variants satisfy perfect representation. We also analyze the com- putational complexity of Phragmén's methods and provide mixed-integer programming based algorithms for computing them.

In many multiagent environments, a designer has some, but limited control over the game being played. In this paper, we formalize this by considering incompletely specified games, in which some entries of the payoff matrices can be chosen from a specified set. We show that it is NP-hard for the designer to make this choices optimally, even in zero-sum games. In fact, it is already intractable to decide whether a given action is (potentially or necessarily) played in equilibrium. We also consider incompletely specified symmetric games in which all completions are required to be symmetric. Here, hardness holds even in weak tournament games (symmetric zero-sum games whose entries are all -1, 0, or 1) and in tournament games (symmetric zero-sum games whose non-diagonal entries are all -1 or 1). The latter result settles the complexity of the possible and necessary winner problems for a social-choice-theoretic solution concept known as the bipartisan set. We finally give a mixed-integer linear programming formulation for weak tournament games and evaluate it experimentally.

We study the societal tradeoffs problem, where a set of voters each submit their ideal tradeoff value between each pair of activities (e.g., "using a gallon of gasoline is as bad as creating 2 bags of landfill trash"), and these are then aggregated into the societal tradeoff vector using a rule. We introduce the family of distance-based rules and show that these can be justified as maximum likelihood estimators of the truth. Within this family, we single out the logarithmic distance-based rule as especially appealing based on a social-choice-theoretic axiomatization. We give an efficient algorithm for executing this rule as well as an approximate hill climbing algorithm, and evaluate these experimentally.

We consider approval-based committee voting, i.e., the setting where each voter approves a subset of candidates, and these votes are then used to select a fixed-size set of winners (committee). We propose a natural axiom for this setting, which we call justified representation (JR). This axiom requires that if a large enough group of voters exhibits agree- ment by supporting the same candidate, then at least one voter in this group has an approved candidate in the winning committee. We show that for every list of ballots it is possible to select a committee that provides JR. We then check if this axiom is fulfilled by well-known approval-based voting rules. We show that the answer is negative for most of the rules we consider, with notable exceptions of PAV (Proportional Approval Voting), an extreme version of RAV (Reweighted Approval Voting), and, for a restricted preference domain, MAV (Minimax Approval Voting). We then introduce a stronger version of the JR axiom, which we call extended justified representation (EJR), and show that PAV satisfies EJR, while other rules do not. We also consider several other questions related to JR and EJR, including the relationship between JR/EJR and unanimity, and the complexity of the associated algorithmic problems.

Runoff voting rules such as single transferable vote (STV) and Baldwin's rule are of particular interest in computational social choice due to their recursive nature and hardness of manipulation, as well as in (human) practice because they are relatively easy to understand. However, they are not known for their compliance with desirable axiomatic properties, which we attempt to rectify here. We characterize runoff rules that are based on scoring rules using two axioms: a weakening of local independence of irrelevant alternatives and a variant of population-consistency. We then show, as our main technical result, that STV is the only runoff scoring rule satisfying an independence-of-clones property. Furthermore, we provide axiomatizations of Baldwin's rule and Coombs' rule.