We study rank aggregation algorithms that take as input the opinions of players over their peers, represented as rankings, and output a social ordering of the players (which reflects, e.g., relative contribution to a project or fit for a job). To prevent strategic behavior, these algorithms must be impartial, i.e., players should not be able to influence their own position in the output ranking. We design several randomized algorithms that are impartial and closely emulate given (non-impartial) rank aggregation rules in a rigorous sense. Experimental results further support the efficacy and practicability of our algorithms.

A large body of literature deals with the so-called cake cutting So how would strategic agents behave when faced with problem -- a misleadingly childish metaphor for the the cut and choose protocol? A standard way of answering challenging and important task of fairly dividing a heterogeneous this question employs the notion of Nash equilibrium: each divisible good among multiple agents (see the recent agent would use a strategy that is a best response to the other survey by Procaccia (2013) and the books by Brams agent's strategy. To set up a Nash equilibrium, suppose that and Taylor (1996) and Robertson and Webb (1998)). In particular, the first agent cuts two pieces that the second agent values there is a significant amount of AI work on cake cutting equally; the second agent selects its more preferred piece, (Procaccia 2009; Caragiannis, Lai, and Procaccia 2011; and the one less preferred by the first agent in case of a tie. Brams et al. 2012; Bei et al. 2012; Aumann, Dombb, Clearly, the second agent cannot gain from deviating, as it is and Hassidim 2013; Kurokawa, Lai, and Procaccia 2013; selecting a piece that is at least as preferred as the other. As Brânzei, Procaccia, and Zhang 2013; Brânzei and Miltersen for the first agent, if it makes its preferred piece even bigger, 2013; Chen et al. 2013; Balkanski et al. 2014; Brânzei the second agent would choose that piece, making the and Miltersen 2015; Segal-Halevi, Hassidim, and Aumann first agent worse off. Interestingly enough, in this equilibrium 2015), which is closely intertwined with emerging realworld the tables are turned; now it is the second agent who applications of fair division more broadly (Goldman is getting exactly half of its value for the whole cake, while and Procaccia 2014; Kurokawa, Procaccia, and Shah 2015).

The fairness notion of maximin share (MMS) guarantee underlies a deployed algorithm for allocating indivisible goods under additive valuations. Our goal is to understand when we can expect to be able to give each player his MMS guarantee. Previous work has shown that such an MMS allocation may not exist, but the counterexample requires a number of goods that is exponential in the number of players; we give a new construction that uses only a linear number of goods. On the positive side, we formalize the intuition that these counterexamples are very delicate by designing an algorithm that provably finds an MMS allocation with high probability when valuations are drawn at random.

Motivated by a radically new peer review system that the National Science Foundation recently experimented with, we study peer review systems in which proposals are reviewed by PIs who have submitted proposals themselves. An (m,k)-selection mechanism asks each PI to review m proposals, and uses these reviews to select (at most) k proposals. We are interested in impartial mechanisms, which guarantee that the ratings given by a PI to others' proposals do not affect the likelihood of the PI's own proposal being selected. We design an impartial mechanism that selects a k-subset of proposals that is nearly as highly rated as the one selected by the non-impartial (abstract version of) the NSF pilot mechanism, even when the latter mechanism has the "unfair" advantage of eliciting honest reviews.

We introduce the simultaneous model for cake cutting (the fair allocation of a divisible good), in which agents simultaneously send messages containing a sketch of their preferences over the cake. We show that this model enables the computation of divisions that satisfy proportionality -- a popular fairness notion -- using a protocol that circumvents a standard lower bound via parallel information elicitation. Cake divisions satisfying another prominent fairness notion, envy-freeness, are impossible to compute in the simultaneous model, but admit arbitrarily good approximations.

We present a novel extension of normal form games that we call biased games. In these games, a player's utility is influenced by the distance between his mixed strategy and a given base strategy. We argue that biased games capture important aspects of the interaction between software agents. Our main result is that biased games satisfying certain mild conditions always admit an equilibrium. We also tackle the computation of equilibria in biased games.

For decades researchers have struggled with the problem of envy-free cake cutting: how to divide a divisible good between multiple agents so that each agent likes his own allocation best. Although an envy-free cake cutting protocol was ultimately devised, it is unbounded, in the sense that the number of operations can be arbitrarily large, depending on the preferences of the agents. We ask whether bounded protocols exist when the agents' preferences are restricted. Our main result is an envy-free cake cutting protocol for agents with piecewise linear valuations, which requires a number of operations that is polynomial in natural parameters of the given instance.