Logged advertising auctions make offline reserve-price evaluation attractive but risky. Replay tables can identify policies with large apparent yield gains, yet they can also hide weak threshold support, multiple-comparison effects, subgroup harm, and bidder-response uncertainty. Existing replay and off-policy evaluation methods estimate or rank policy values, but they do not directly answer the operational question of whether the available evidence is strong enough to justify validation. This paper develops a support-aware offline decision framework for reserve-policy selection. Rather than outputting a single point-estimate winner, the framework converts logged evidence into a conservative decision object consisting of certified policies, statistically dominated alternatives, and unresolved candidates requiring further validation. The main theoretical result gives a unified finite-catalog guarantee showing that, under simultaneous uncertainty control and conservative support gates, the framework preserves the best gate-passing policy while eliminating only policies with certified regret. Supporting results characterize support-localized replay generalization, establish information-theoretic threshold-resolution limits, and quantify when heterogeneous bidder response can overturn localized replay rankings. Experiments on iPinYou real-time-bidding logs show that the leading reserve rule achieves a 47.66% replay lift in season two, a 40.71% simultaneous lower-bound lift, and a 43.87% frozen out-of-time replay lift in season three. The framework reduces a 19-policy catalog to a two-policy validation shortlist while certifying non-harm across 44 advertiser, exchange, and region segments. The results support the central claim that offline reserve-policy evaluation should produce certified validation decisions rather than point-estimate rankings alone.

We consider the problem of generating rankings that are fair towards both users and item producers in recommender systems. We address both usual recommendation (e.g., of music or movies) and reciprocal recommendation (e.g., dating). Following concepts of distributive justice in welfare economics, our notion of fairness aims at increasing the utility of the worse-off individuals, which we formalize using the criterion of Lorenz efficiency. It guarantees that rankings are Pareto efficient, and that they maximally redistribute utility from better-off to worse-off, at a given level of overall utility. We propose to generate rankings by maximizing concave welfare functions, and develop an efficient inference procedure based on the Frank-Wolfe algorithm. We prove that unlike existing approaches based on fairness constraints, our approach always produces fair rankings. Our experiments also show that it increases the utility of the worse-off at lower costs in terms of overall utility.

We propose a model for online graph problems where algorithms are given access to an oracle that predicts (e.g., based on modeling assumptions or on past data) the degrees of nodes in the graph. Within this model, we study the classic problem of online bipartite matching, and a natural greedy matching algorithm called MinPredictedDegree, which uses predictions of the degrees of offline nodes. For the bipartite version of a stochastic graph model due to Chung, Lu, and Vu where the expected values of the offline degrees are known and used as predictions, we show that MinPredictedDegree stochastically dominates any other online algorithm, i.e., it is optimal for graphs drawn from this model. Since the "symmetric" version of the model, where all online nodes are identical, is a special case of the well-studied "known i.i.d.

We study the sample complexity (i.e., the number of comparisons needed) bounds for actively ranking a set of n items from multi-wise comparisons. Here, a multiwise comparison takes m items as input and returns a (noisy) result about the best item (the winner feedback) or the order of these items (the full-ranking feedback). We consider two basic ranking problems: top-k items selection and full ranking. Unlike previous works that study ranking from multi-wise comparisons, in this paper, we do not require any parametric model or assumption and work on the fundamental setting where each comparison returns the correct result with probability 1or a certain probability larger than 12. This paper helps understand whether and to what degree utilizing multi-wise comparisons can reduce the sample complexity for the ranking problems compared to ranking from pairwise comparisons. Specifically, under the winner feedback setting, one can reduce the sample complexity for top-k selection up to an m factor and that for full ranking up to a logm factor. Under the full-ranking feedback setting, one can reduce the sample complexity for top-k selection up to an m factor and that for full ranking up to an mlogm factor. We also conduct numerical simulations to confirm our theoretical results.