It is common to see a handful of reviewers reject a highly novel paper, because they view, say, extensive experiments as far more important than novelty, whereas the community as a whole would have embraced the paper. More generally, the disparate mapping of criteria scores to final recommendations by different reviewers is a major source of inconsistency in peer review. In this paper we present a framework --- based on $L(p,q)$-norm empirical risk minimization --- for learning the community's aggregate mapping. We draw on computational social choice to identify desirable values of $p$ and $q$; specifically, we characterize $p=q=1$ as the only choice that satisfies three natural axiomatic properties. Finally, we implement and apply our approach to reviews from IJCAI 2017.

We investigate the query complexity of the fair allocation of indivisible goods. For two agents with arbitrary monotonic valuations, we design an algorithm that computes an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), a relaxation of envy-freeness, using a logarithmic number of queries. We show that the logarithmic query complexity bound also holds for three agents with additive valuations. These results suggest that it is possible to fairly allocate goods in practice even when the number of goods is extremely large. By contrast, we prove that computing an allocation satisfying envy-freeness and another of its relaxations, envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), requires a linear number of queries even when there are only two agents with identical additive valuations.

The Lazy Shortest Path (LazySP) class consists of motion-planning algorithms that only evaluate edges along candidate shortest paths between the source and target. These algorithms were designed to minimize the number of edge evaluations in settings where edge evaluation dominates the running time of the algorithm; but how close to optimal are LazySP algorithms in terms of this objective? Our main result is an analytical upper bound, in a probabilistic model, on the number of edge evaluations required by LazySP algorithms; a matching lower bound shows that these algorithms are asymptotically optimal in the worst case.

This paper is part of an emerging line of work at the intersection of machine learning and mechanism design, which aims to avoid noise in training data by correctly aligning the incentives of data sources. Specifically, we focus on the ubiquitous problem of linear regression, where strategyproof mechanisms have previously been identified in two dimensions. In our setting, agents have single-peaked preferences and can manipulate only their response variables. Our main contribution is the discovery of a family of group strategyproof linear regression mechanisms in any number of dimensions, which we call generalized resistant hyperplane mechanisms. The game-theoretic properties of these mechanisms -- and, in fact, their very existence -- are established through a connection to a discrete version of the Ham Sandwich Theorem.

Voting systems typically treat all voters equally. We argue that perhaps they should not: Voters who have supported good choices in the past should be given higher weight than voters who have supported bad ones. To develop a formal framework for desirable weighting schemes, we draw on no-regret learning. Specifically, given a voting rule, we wish to design a weighting scheme such that applying the voting rule, with voters weighted by the scheme, leads to choices that are almost as good as those endorsed by the best voter in hindsight. We derive possibility and impossibility results for the existence of such weighting schemes, depending on whether the voting rule and the weighting scheme are deterministic or randomized, as well as on the social choice axioms satisfied by the voting rule.

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.

We present a general approach to automating ethical decisions, drawing on machine learning and computational social choice. In a nutshell, we propose to learn a model of societal preferences, and, when faced with a specific ethical dilemma at runtime, efficiently aggregate those preferences to identify a desirable choice. We provide a concrete algorithm that instantiates our approach; some of its crucial steps are informed by a new theory of swap-dominance efficient voting rules. Finally, we implement and evaluate a system for ethical decision making in the autonomous vehicle domain, using preference data collected from 1.3 million people through the Moral Machine website.

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.

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.

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.