It is well known that strategic behavior in elections is essentially unavoidable; we therefore ask: how bad can the rational outcome be? We answer this question via the notion of the price of anarchy, using the scores of alternatives as a proxy for their quality and bounding the ratio between the score of the optimal alternative and the score of the winning alternative in Nash equilibrium. Specifically, we are interested in Nash equilibria that are obtained via sequences of rational strategic moves. Focusing on three common voting rules — plurality, veto, and Borda — we provide very positive results for plurality and very negative results for Borda, and place veto in the middle of this spectrum.

Social choice theory provides insights into a variety of collective decision making settings, but nowadays some of its tenets are challenged by internet environments, which call for dynamic decision making under constantly changing preferences. In this paper we model the problem via Markov decision processes (MDP), where the states of the MDP coincide with preference profiles and a (deterministic, stationary) policy corresponds to a social choice function. We can therefore employ the axioms studied in the social choice literature as guidelines in the design of socially desirable policies. We present tractable algorithms that compute optimal policies under different prominent social choice constraints. Our machinery relies on techniques for exploiting symmetries and isomorphisms between MDPs.

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.

In many dynamic matching applications — especially high-stakes ones — the competitive ratios of prior-free online algorithms are unacceptably poor. The algorithm should take distributional information about possible futures into account in deciding what action to take now. This is typically done by drawing sample trajectories of possible futures at each time period, but may require a prohibitively large number of trajectories or prohibitive memory and/or computation to decide what action to take. Instead, we propose to learn potentials of elements (e.g., vertices) of the current problem. Then, at run time, we simply run an offline matching algorithm at each time period, but subtracting out in the objective the potentials of the elements used up in the matching. We apply the approach to kidney exchange. Kidney exchanges enable willing but incompatible patient-donor pairs (vertices) to swap donors. These swaps typically include cycles longer than two pairs and chains triggered by altruistic donors. Fielded exchanges currently match myopically, maximizing the number of patients who get kidneys in an offline fashion at each time period. Myopic matching is sub-optimal; the clearing problem is dynamic since patients, donors, and altruists appear and expire over time. We theoretically compare the power of using potentials on increasingly large elements: vertices, edges, cycles, and the entire graph (optimum). Then, experiments show that by learning vertex potentials, our algorithm matches more patients than the current practice of clearing myopically. It scales to exchanges orders of magnitude beyond those handled by the prior dynamic algorithm.

We consider the problem of selecting fair divisions of a heterogeneous divisible good among a set of agents. Recent work (Cohler et al., AAAI 2011) focused on designing algorithms for computing maxsum—social welfare maximizing—allocations under the fairness notion of envy-freeness. Maxsum allocations can also be found under alternative notions such as equitability. In this paper, we examine the properties of these allocations. In particular, We provide conditions for when maxsum envy-free or equitable allocations are Pareto optimal and give examples where fairness with Pareto optimality is not possible. We also prove that maxsum envy-free allocations have weakly greater welfare than maxsum equitable allocations when agents have structured valuations, and we derive an approximate version of this inequality for general valuations.

Distance rationalizability is an intuitive paradigm for developing and studying voting rules: given a notion of consensus and a distance function on preference profiles, a rationalizable voting rule selects an alternative that is closest to being a consensus winner. Despite its appeal, distance rationalizability faces the challenge of connecting the chosen distance measure and consensus notion to an operational measure of social desirability. We tackle this issue via the decision-theoretic framework of dynamic social choice, in which a social choice Markov decision process (MDP) models the dynamics of voter preferences in response to winner selection. We show that, for a prominent class of distance functions, one can construct a social choice MDP, with natural preference dynamics and rewards, such that a voting rule is (votewise) rationalizable with respect to the unanimity consensus for a given distance function iff it is a (deterministic) optimal policy in the MDP. This provides an alternative rationale for distance rationalizability, demonstrating the equivalence of rationalizable voting rules in a static sense and winner selection to maximize societal utility in a dynamic process.

We consider the problem of fairly dividing a heterogeneous divisible good among agents with different preferences. Previous work has shown that envy-free allocations, i.e., where each agent prefers its own allocation to any other, may not be efficient, in the sense of maximizing the total value of the agents. Our goal is to pinpoint the most efficient allocations among all envy-free allocations. We provide tractable algorithms for doing so under different assumptions regarding the preferences of the agents.

AI’s War on Manipulation: Are We Winning?

We provide an overview of more than two decades of work, mostly in AI, that studies computational complexity as a barrier against manipulation in elections. We provide an overview of more than two decades of work, mostly in AI, that studies computational complexity as a barrier against manipulation in elections.

Friedgut, Kalai, and Nisan also assume that there is a single manipulator. In the first part of the survey we discussed worstcase Their main insight is that a completely random hardness as a barrier against manipulation in manipulation may succeed with nonnegligible elections.