Resource-constrained edge deployments demand AI solutions that balance high performance with stringent compute, memory, and energy limitations. In this survey, we present a comprehensive overview of the primary strategies for accelerating deep learning models under such constraints. First, we examine model compression techniques-pruning, quantization, tensor decomposition, and knowledge distillation-that streamline large models into smaller, faster, and more efficient variants. Next, we explore Neural Architecture Search (NAS), a class of automated methods that discover architectures inherently optimized for particular tasks and hardware budgets. We then discuss compiler and deployment frameworks, such as TVM, TensorRT, and OpenVINO, which provide hardware-tailored optimizations at inference time. By integrating these three pillars into unified pipelines, practitioners can achieve multi-objective goals, including latency reduction, memory savings, and energy efficiency-all while maintaining competitive accuracy. We also highlight emerging frontiers in hierarchical NAS, neurosymbolic approaches, and advanced distillation tailored to large language models, underscoring open challenges like pre-training pruning for massive networks. Our survey offers practical insights, identifies current research gaps, and outlines promising directions for building scalable, platform-independent frameworks to accelerate deep learning models at the edge.

Nudging is a behavioral strategy aimed at influencing people's thoughts and actions. Nudging techniques can be found in many situations in our daily lives, and these nudging techniques can targeted at human fast and unconscious thinking, e.g., by using images to generate fear or the more careful and effortful slow thinking, e.g., by releasing information that makes us reflect on our choices. In this paper, we propose and discuss a value-based AI-human collaborative framework where AI systems nudge humans by proposing decision recommendations. Three different nudging modalities, based on when recommendations are presented to the human, are intended to stimulate human fast thinking, slow thinking, or meta-cognition. Values that are relevant to a specific decision scenario are used to decide when and how to use each of these nudging modalities. Examples of values are decision quality, speed, human upskilling and learning, human agency, and privacy. Several values can be present at the same time, and their priorities can vary over time. The framework treats values as parameters to be instantiated in a specific decision environment.

Current AI systems lack several important human capabilities, such as adaptability, generalizability, self-control, consistency, common sense, and causal reasoning. We believe that existing cognitive theories of human decision making, such as the thinking fast and slow theory, can provide insights on how to advance AI systems towards some of these capabilities. In this paper, we propose a general architecture that is based on fast/slow solvers and a metacognitive component. We then present experimental results on the behavior of an instance of this architecture, for AI systems that make decisions about navigating in a constrained environment. We show how combining the fast and slow decision modalities allows the system to evolve over time and gradually pass from slow to fast thinking with enough experience, and that this greatly helps in decision quality, resource consumption, and efficiency.

The stable marriage problem is a well-known problem of matching men to women so that no man and woman, who are not married to each other, both prefer each other. Such a problem has a wide variety of practical applications, ranging from matching resident doctors to hospitals, to matching students to schools or more generally to any two-sided market. In the classical stable marriage problem, both men and women express a strict preference order over the members of the other sex, in a qualitative way. Here we consider stable marriage problems with quantitative preferences: each man (resp., woman) provides a score for each woman (resp., man). Such problems are more expressive than the classical stable marriage problems. Moreover, in some real-life situations it is more natural to express scores (to model, for example, profits or costs) rather than a qualitative preference ordering. In this context, we define new notions of stability and optimality, and we provide algorithms to find marriages which are stable and/or optimal according to these notions. While expressivity greatly increases by adopting quantitative preferences, we show that in most cases the desired solutions can be found by adapting existing algorithms for the classical stable marriage problem.

We consider multi-agent systems where agents' preferences are aggregated via sequential majority voting: each decision is taken by performing a sequence of pairwise comparisons where each comparison is a weighted majority vote among the agents. Incompleteness in the agents' preferences is common in many real-life settings due to privacy issues or an ongoing elicitation process. In addition, there may be uncertainty about how the preferences are aggregated. For example, the agenda (a tree whose leaves are labelled with the decisions being compared) may not yet be known or fixed. We therefore study how to determine collectively optimal decisions (also called winners) when preferences may be incomplete, and when the agenda may be uncertain. We show that it is computationally easy to determine if a candidate decision always wins, or may win, whatever the agenda. On the other hand, it is computationally hard to know wheth er a candidate decision wins in at least one agenda for at least one completion of the agents' preferences. These results hold even if the agenda must be balanced so that each candidate decision faces the same number of majority votes. Such results are useful for reasoning about preference elicitation. They help understand the complexity of tasks such as determining if a decision can be taken collectively, as well as knowing if the winner can be manipulated by appropriately ordering the agenda.