Search

In this paper, we consider the classic fair division problem of allocating $m$ divisible items to $n$ agents with linear valuations over the items. We define novel notions of fair shares from the perspective of individual agents via the cake-cutting process. These shares generalize the notion of proportionality by taking into account the valuations of other agents via constraints capturing envy. We study what fraction (approximation) of these shares are achievable in the worst case, and present tight and non-trivial approximation bounds as a function of $n$ and $m$. In particular, we show a tight approximation bound of $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ for various notions of such shares. We show this bound via a novel application of dual fitting, which may be of independent interest. We also present a bound of $O(m^{2/3})$ for a strict notion of share, with an almost matching lower bound. We further develop weaker notions of shares whose approximation bounds interpolate smoothly between proportionality and the shares described above. We finally present empirical results showing that our definitions lead to more reasonable shares than the standard fair share notion of proportionality.

We address the fundamental problem of selection under uncertainty by modeling it from the perspective of Bayesian persuasion. In our model, a decision maker with imperfect information always selects the option with the highest expected value. We seek to achieve fairness among the options by revealing additional information to the decision maker and hence influencing its subsequent selection. To measure fairness, we adopt the notion of majorization, aiming at simultaneously approximately maximizing all symmetric, monotone, concave functions over the utilities of the options. As our main result, we design a novel information revelation policy that achieves a logarithmic-approximation to majorization in polynomial time. On the other hand, no policy, regardless of its running time, can achieve a constant-approximation to majorization. Our work is the first non-trivial majorization result in the Bayesian persuasion literature with multi-dimensional information sets., Comment: Conference version of this paper appears in SODA 2025

We consider the setting where a user with sensitive features wishes to obtain a recommendation from a server in a differentially private fashion. We propose a ``multi-selection'' architecture where the server can send back multiple recommendations and the user chooses one from these that matches best with their private features. When the user feature is one-dimensional -- on an infinite line -- and the accuracy measure is defined w.r.t some increasing function $\mathfrak{h}(.)$ of the distance on the line, we precisely characterize the optimal mechanism that satisfies differential privacy. The specification of the optimal mechanism includes both the distribution of the noise that the user adds to its private value, and the algorithm used by the server to determine the set of results to send back as a response and further show that Laplace is an optimal noise distribution. We further show that this optimal mechanism results in an error that is inversely proportional to the number of results returned when the function $\mathfrak{h}(.)$ is the identity function.

In this paper, we study third-degree price discrimination in a model first presented in Bergemann, Brooks, and Morris [2015]. Since such price discrimination might create market segments with vastly different posted prices, we consider regulating these prices, specifically, via restricting them to lie within an interval. Given a price interval, we consider segmentations of the market where a seller, who is oblivious to the existence of such regulation, still posts prices within the price interval. We show the following surprising result: For any market and price interval where such segmentation is feasible, there is always a different segmentation that optimally transfers all excess surplus to the consumers. In addition, we characterize the entire space of buyer and seller surplus that are achievable by such segmentation, including maximizing seller surplus, and simultaneously minimizing buyer and seller surplus.

In this paper, we consider classic randomized low diameter decomposition procedures for planar graphs that obtain connected clusters which are cohesive in that close-by pairs of nodes are assigned to the same cluster with high probability. We require the additional aspect of individual fairness - pairs of nodes at comparable distances should be separated with comparable probability. We show that classic decomposition procedures do not satisfy this property. We present novel algorithms that achieve various trade-offs between this property and additional desiderata of connectivity of the clusters and optimality in the number of clusters. We show that our individual fairness bounds may be difficult to improve by tying the improvement to resolving a major open question in metric embeddings. We finally show the efficacy of our algorithms on real planar networks modeling congressional redistricting., Comment: To appear in ICML 2024

We consider the problem of assigning students to schools, when students have different utilities for schools and schools have capacity. There are additional group fairness considerations over students that can be captured either by concave objectives, or additional constraints on the groups. We present approximation algorithms for this problem via convex program rounding that achieve various trade-offs between utility violation, capacity violation, and running time. We also show that our techniques easily extend to the setting where there are arbitrary covering constraints on the feasible assignment, capturing multi-criteria and ranking optimization.

This paper explores the design of a balanced data-sharing marketplace for entities with heterogeneous datasets and machine learning models that they seek to refine using data from other agents. The goal of the marketplace is to encourage participation for data sharing in the presence of such heterogeneity. Our market design approach for data sharing focuses on interim utility balance, where participants contribute and receive equitable utility from refinement of their models. We present such a market model for which we study computational complexity, solution existence, and approximation algorithms for welfare maximization and core stability. We finally support our theoretical insights with simulations on a mean estimation task inspired by road traffic delay estimation., Comment: To appear in WWW 2024

In this paper, we consider differentially private classification when some features are sensitive, while the rest of the features and the label are not. We adapt the definition of differential privacy naturally to this setting. Our main contribution is a novel adaptation of AdaBoost that is not only provably differentially private, but also significantly outperforms a natural benchmark that assumes the entire data of the individual is sensitive in the experiments. As a surprising observation, we show that boosting randomly generated classifiers suffices to achieve high accuracy. Our approach easily adapts to the classical setting where all the features are sensitive, providing an alternate algorithm for differentially private linear classification with a much simpler privacy proof and comparable or higher accuracy than differentially private logistic regression on real-world datasets.

A seller is pricing identical copies of a good to a stream of unit-demand buyers. Each buyer has a value on the good as his private information. The seller only knows the empirical value distribution of the buyer population and chooses the revenue-optimal price. We consider a widely studied third-degree price discrimination model where an information intermediary with perfect knowledge of the arriving buyer's value sends a signal to the seller, hence changing the seller's posterior and inducing the seller to set a personalized posted price. Prior work of Bergemann, Brooks, and Morris (American Economic Review, 2015) has shown the existence of a signaling scheme that preserves seller revenue, while always selling the item, hence maximizing consumer surplus. In a departure from prior work, we ask whether the consumer surplus generated is fairly distributed among buyers with different values. To this end, we aim to maximize welfare functions that reward more balanced surplus allocations. Our main result is the surprising existence of a novel signaling scheme that simultaneously $8$-approximates all welfare functions that are non-negative, monotonically increasing, symmetric, and concave, compared with any other signaling scheme. Classical examples of such welfare functions include the utilitarian social welfare, the Nash welfare, and the max-min welfare. Such a guarantee cannot be given by any consumer-surplus-maximizing scheme -- which are the ones typically studied in the literature. In addition, our scheme is socially efficient, and has the fairness property that buyers with higher values enjoy higher expected surplus, which is not always the case for existing schemes.

We consider the multiwinner election problem where the goal is to choose a committee of $k$ candidates given the voters' utility functions. We allow arbitrary additional constraints on the chosen committee, and the utilities of voters to belong to a very general class of set functions called $\beta$-self bounding. When $\beta=1$, this class includes XOS (and hence, submodular and additive) utilities. We define a novel generalization of core stability called restrained core to handle constraints and consider multiplicative approximations on the utility under this notion. Our main result is the following: If a smooth version of Nash Welfare is globally optimized over committees within the constraints, the resulting committee lies in the $e^{\beta}$-approximate restrained core for $\beta$-self bounding utilities and arbitrary constraints. As a result, we obtain the first constant approximation for stability with arbitrary additional constraints even for additive utilities (factor of $e$), and the first analysis of the stability of Nash Welfare with XOS functions even with no constraints. We complement this positive result by showing that the $c$-approximate restrained core can be empty for $c<16/15$ even for approval utilities and one additional constraint. Furthermore, the exponential dependence on $\beta$ in the approximation is unavoidable for $\beta$-self bounding functions even with no constraints. We next present improved and tight approximation results for simpler classes of utility functions and simpler types of constraints. We also present an extension of restrained core to extended justified representation with constraints and show an existence result for matroid constraints. We finally generalize our results to the setting with arbitrary-size candidates and no additional constraints. Our techniques are different from previous analyses and are of independent interest., Comment: accepted by the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC'23)

In the assignment problem, a set of items must be allocated to unit-demand agents who express ordinal preferences (rankings) over the items. In the assignment problem with priorities, agents with higher priority are entitled to their preferred goods with respect to lower priority agents. A priority can be naturally represented as a ranking and an uncertain priority as a distribution over rankings. For example, this models the problem of assigning student applicants to university seats or job applicants to job openings when the admitting body is uncertain about the true priority over applicants. This uncertainty can express the possibility of bias in the generation of the priority ranking. We believe we are the first to explicitly formulate and study the assignment problem with uncertain priorities. We introduce two natural notions of fairness in this problem: stochastic envy-freeness (SEF) and likelihood envy-freeness (LEF). We show that SEF and LEF are incompatible and that LEF is incompatible with ordinal efficiency. We describe two algorithms, Cycle Elimination (CE) and Unit-Time Eating (UTE) that satisfy ordinal efficiency (a form of ex-ante Pareto optimality) and SEF; the well known random serial dictatorship algorithm satisfies LEF and the weaker efficiency guarantee of ex-post Pareto optimality. We also show that CE satisfies a relaxation of LEF that we term 1-LEF which applies only to certain comparisons of priority, while UTE satisfies a version of proportional allocations with ranks. We conclude by demonstrating how a mediator can model a problem of school admission in the face of bias as an assignment problem with uncertain priority., Comment: Accepted to AAMAS 2023

We consider the classic online learning and stochastic multi-armed bandit (MAB) problems, when at each step, the online policy can probe and find out which of a small number ($k$) of choices has better reward (or loss) before making its choice. In this model, we derive algorithms whose regret bounds have exponentially better dependence on the time horizon compared to the classic regret bounds. In particular, we show that probing with $k=2$ suffices to achieve time-independent regret bounds for online linear and convex optimization. The same number of probes improve the regret bound of stochastic MAB with independent arms from $O(\sqrt{nT})$ to $O(n^2 \log T)$, where $n$ is the number of arms and $T$ is the horizon length. For stochastic MAB, we also consider a stronger model where a probe reveals the reward values of the probed arms, and show that in this case, $k=3$ probes suffice to achieve parameter-independent constant regret, $O(n^2)$. Such regret bounds cannot be achieved even with full feedback after the play, showcasing the power of limited ``advice'' via probing before making the play. We also present extensions to the setting where the hints can be imperfect, and to the case of stochastic MAB where the rewards of the arms can be correlated., Comment: To appear in ITCS 2023

In this paper, we propose to use the concept of local fairness for auditing and ranking redistricting plans. Given a redistricting plan, a deviating group is a population-balanced contiguous region in which a majority of individuals are of the same interest and in the minority of their respective districts; such a set of individuals have a justified complaint with how the redistricting plan was drawn. A redistricting plan with no deviating groups is called locally fair. We show that the problem of auditing a given plan for local fairness is NP-complete. We present an MCMC approach for auditing as well as ranking redistricting plans. We also present a dynamic programming based algorithm for the auditing problem that we use to demonstrate the efficacy of our MCMC approach. Using these tools, we test local fairness on real-world election data, showing that it is indeed possible to find plans that are almost or exactly locally fair. Further, we show that such plans can be generated while sacrificing very little in terms of compactness and existing fairness measures such as competitiveness of the districts or seat shares of the plans.

We consider the participatory budgeting problem where each of $n$ voters specifies additive utilities over $m$ candidate projects with given sizes, and the goal is to choose a subset of projects (i.e., a committee) with total size at most $k$. Participatory budgeting mathematically generalizes multiwinner elections, and both have received great attention in computational social choice recently. A well-studied notion of group fairness in this setting is core stability: Each voter is assigned an "entitlement" of $\frac{k}{n}$, so that a subset $S$ of voters can pay for a committee of size at most $|S| \cdot \frac{k}{n}$. A given committee is in the core if no subset of voters can pay for another committee that provides each of them strictly larger utility. This provides proportional representation to all voters in a strong sense. In this paper, we study the following auditing question: Given a committee computed by some preference aggregation method, how close is it to the core? Concretely, how much does the entitlement of each voter need to be scaled down by, so that the core property subsequently holds? As our main contribution, we present computational hardness results for this problem, as well as a logarithmic approximation algorithm via linear program rounding. We show that our analysis is tight against the linear programming bound. Additionally, we consider two related notions of group fairness that have similar audit properties. The first is Lindahl priceability, which audits the closeness of a committee to a market clearing solution. We show that this is related to the linear programming relaxation of auditing the core, leading to efficient exact and approximation algorithms for auditing. The second is a novel weakening of the core that we term the sub-core, and we present computational results for auditing this notion as well., Comment: accepted by the 18th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE 2022)

We study the power of price discrimination via an intermediary in bilateral trade, when there is a revenue-maximizing seller selling an item to a buyer with a private value drawn from a prior. Between the seller and the buyer, there is an intermediary that can segment the market by releasing information about the true values to the seller. This is termed signaling, and enables the seller to price discriminate. In this setting, Bergemann et al. showed the existence of a signaling scheme that simultaneously raises the optimal consumer surplus, guarantees the item always sells, and ensures the seller's revenue does not increase. Our work extends the positive result of Bergemann et al. to settings where the type space is larger, and where optimal auction is randomized, possibly over a menu that can be exponentially large. In particular, we consider two settings motivated by budgets: The first is when there is a publicly known budget constraint on the price the seller can charge and the second is the FedEx problem where the buyer has a private deadline or service level (equivalently, a private budget that is guaranteed to never bind). For both settings, we present a novel signaling scheme and its analysis via a continuous construction process that recreates the optimal consumer surplus guarantee of Bergemann et al. The settings we consider are special cases of the more general problem where the buyer has a private budget constraint in addition to a private value. We finally show that our positive results do not extend to this more general setting. Here, we show that any efficient signaling scheme necessarily transfers almost all the surplus to the seller instead of the buyer., Comment: Appears in ACM EC 2022

We model the societal task of redistricting political districts as a partitioning problem: Given a set of $n$ points in the plane, each belonging to one of two parties, and a parameter $k$, our goal is to compute a partition $\Pi$ of the plane into regions so that each region contains roughly $\sigma = n/k$ points. $\Pi$ should satisfy a notion of ''local'' fairness, which is related to the notion of core, a well-studied concept in cooperative game theory. A region is associated with the majority party in that region, and a point is unhappy in $\Pi$ if it belongs to the minority party. A group $D$ of roughly $\sigma$ contiguous points is called a deviating group with respect to $\Pi$ if majority of points in $D$ are unhappy in $\Pi$. The partition $\Pi$ is locally fair if there is no deviating group with respect to $\Pi$. This paper focuses on a restricted case when points lie in $1$D. The problem is non-trivial even in this case. We consider both adversarial and ''beyond worst-case" settings for this problem. For the former, we characterize the input parameters for which a locally fair partition always exists; we also show that a locally fair partition may not exist for certain parameters. We then consider input models where there are ''runs'' of red and blue points. For such clustered inputs, we show that a locally fair partition may not exist for certain values of $\sigma$, but an approximate locally fair partition exists if we allow some regions to have smaller sizes. We finally present a polynomial-time algorithm for computing a locally fair partition if one exists.

Motivated by civic problems such as participatory budgeting and multiwinner elections, we consider the problem of public good allocation: Given a set of indivisible projects (or candidates) of different sizes, and voters with different monotone utility functions over subsets of these candidates, the goal is to choose a budget-constrained subset of these candidates (or a committee) that provides fair utility to the voters. The notion of fairness we adopt is that of core stability from cooperative game theory: No subset of voters should be able to choose another blocking committee of proportionally smaller size that provides strictly larger utility to all voters that deviate. The core provides a strong notion of fairness, subsuming other notions that have been widely studied in computational social choice. It is well-known that an exact core need not exist even when utility functions of the voters are additive across candidates. We therefore relax the problem to allow approximation: Voters can only deviate to the blocking committee if after they choose any extra candidate (called an additament), their utility still increases by an $\alpha$ factor. If no blocking committee exists under this definition, we call this an $\alpha$-core. Our main result is that an $\alpha$-core, for $\alpha < 67.37$, always exists when utilities of the voters are arbitrary monotone submodular functions, and this can be computed in polynomial time. This result improves to $\alpha < 9.27$ for additive utilities, albeit without the polynomial time guarantee. Our results are a significant improvement over prior work that only shows logarithmic approximations for the case of additive utilities. We complement our results with a lower bound of $\alpha > 1.015$ for submodular utilities, and a lower bound of any function in the number of voters and candidates for general monotone utilities., Comment: Accepted by ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2022)

We consider the problem of allocating divisible items among multiple agents, and consider the setting where any agent is allowed to introduce diversity constraints on the items they are allocated. We motivate this via settings where the items themselves correspond to user ad slots or task workers with attributes such as race and gender on which the principal seeks to achieve demographic parity. We consider the following question: When an agent expresses diversity constraints into an allocation rule, is the allocation of other agents hurt significantly? If this happens, the cost of introducing such constraints is disproportionately borne by agents who do not benefit from diversity. We codify this via two desiderata capturing robustness. These are no negative externality -- other agents are not hurt -- and monotonicity -- the agent enforcing the constraint does not see a large increase in value. We show in a formal sense that the Nash Welfare rule that maximizes product of agent values is uniquely positioned to be robust when diversity constraints are introduced, while almost all other natural allocation rules fail this criterion. We also show that the guarantees achieved by Nash Welfare are nearly optimal within a widely studied class of allocation rules. We finally perform an empirical simulation on real-world data that models ad allocations to show that this gap between Nash Welfare and other rules persists in the wild., Comment: Accepted to NeurIPS 2021

We consider the algorithmic question of choosing a subset of candidates of a given size $k$ from a set of $m$ candidates, with knowledge of voters' ordinal rankings over all candidates. We consider the well-known and classic scoring rule for achieving diverse representation: the Chamberlin-Courant (CC) or $1$-Borda rule, where the score of a committee is the average over the voters, of the rank of the best candidate in the committee for that voter; and its generalization to the average of the top $s$ best candidates, called the $s$-Borda rule. Our first result is an improved analysis of the natural and well-studied greedy heuristic. We show that greedy achieves a $\left(1 - \frac{2}{k+1}\right)$-approximation to the maximization (or satisfaction) version of CC rule, and a $\left(1 - \frac{2s}{k+1}\right)$-approximation to the $s$-Borda score. Our result improves on the best known approximation algorithm for this problem. We show that these bounds are almost tight. For the dissatisfaction (or minimization) version of the problem, we show that the score of $\frac{m+1}{k+1}$ can be viewed as an optimal benchmark for the CC rule, as it is essentially the best achievable score of any polynomial-time algorithm even when the optimal score is a polynomial factor smaller (under standard computational complexity assumptions). We show that another well-studied algorithm for this problem, called the Banzhaf rule, attains this benchmark. We finally show that for the $s$-Borda rule, when the optimal value is small, these algorithms can be improved by a factor of $\tilde \Omega(\sqrt{s})$ via LP rounding. Our upper and lower bounds are a significant improvement over previous results, and taken together, not only enable us to perform a finer comparison of greedy algorithms for these problems, but also provide analytic justification for using such algorithms in practice., Comment: Accepted by the Twenty-Second ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC 2021)

Graph centrality measures use the structure of a network to quantify central or "important" nodes, with applications in web search, social media analysis, and graphical data mining generally. Traditional centrality measures such as the well known PageRank interpret a directed edge as a vote in favor of the importance of the linked node. We study the case where nodes may belong to diverse communities or interests and investigate centrality measures that can identify nodes that are simultaneously important to many such diverse communities. We propose a family of diverse centrality measures formed as fixed point solutions to a generalized nonlinear eigenvalue problem. Our measure can be efficiently computed on large graphs by iterated best response and we study its normative properties on both random graph models and real-world data. We find that we are consistently and efficiently able to identify the most important diverse nodes of a graph, that is, those that are simultaneously central to multiple communities., Comment: Accepted by the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM 2021)

Standard approaches to group-based notions of fairness, such as \emph{parity} and \emph{equalized odds}, try to equalize absolute measures of performance across known groups (based on race, gender, etc.). Consequently, a group that is inherently harder to classify may hold back the performance on other groups; and no guarantees can be provided for unforeseen groups. Instead, we propose a fairness notion whose guarantee, on each group $g$ in a class $\mathcal{G}$, is relative to the performance of the best classifier on $g$. We apply this notion to broad classes of groups, in particular, where (a) $\mathcal{G}$ consists of all possible groups (subsets) in the data, and (b) $\mathcal{G}$ is more streamlined. For the first setting, which is akin to groups being completely unknown, we devise the {\sc PF} (Proportional Fairness) classifier, which guarantees, on any possible group $g$, an accuracy that is proportional to that of the optimal classifier for $g$, scaled by the relative size of $g$ in the data set. Due to including all possible groups, some of which could be too complex to be relevant, the worst-case theoretical guarantees here have to be proportionally weaker for smaller subsets. For the second setting, we devise the {\sc BeFair} (Best-effort Fair) framework which seeks an accuracy, on every $g \in \mathcal{G}$, which approximates that of the optimal classifier on $g$, independent of the size of $g$. Aiming for such a guarantee results in a non-convex problem, and we design novel techniques to get around this difficulty when $\mathcal{G}$ is the set of linear hypotheses. We test our algorithms on real-world data sets, and present interesting comparative insights on their performance.

We consider the problem of center-based clustering in low-dimensional Euclidean spaces under the perturbation stability assumption. An instance is $\alpha$-stable if the underlying optimal clustering continues to remain optimal even when all pairwise distances are arbitrarily perturbed by a factor of at most $\alpha$. Our main contribution is in presenting efficient exact algorithms for $\alpha$-stable clustering instances whose running times depend near-linearly on the size of the data set when $\alpha \ge 2 + \sqrt{3}$. For $k$-center and $k$-means problems, our algorithms also achieve polynomial dependence on the number of clusters, $k$, when $\alpha \geq 2 + \sqrt{3} + \epsilon$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$ in any fixed dimension. For $k$-median, our algorithms have polynomial dependence on $k$ for $\alpha > 5$ in any fixed dimension; and for $\alpha \geq 2 + \sqrt{3}$ in two dimensions. Our algorithms are simple, and only require applying techniques such as local search or dynamic programming to a suitably modified metric space, combined with careful choice of data structures.

We study the limits of an information intermediary in the classical Bayesian auction, where a revenue-maximizing seller sells one item to $n$ buyers with independent private values. In addition, we have an intermediary who knows the buyers' private values, and can map these to a public signal so as to increase consumer surplus. This model generalizes the single-buyer setting proposed by Bergemann, Brooks, and Morris, who present a signaling scheme that raises the optimal consumer surplus, by guaranteeing that the item is always sold and the seller gets the same revenue as without signaling. Our work aims to understand how this result ports to the setting with multiple buyers. We likewise define the benchmark for the optimal consumer surplus: one where the auction is efficient (i.e., the item is always sold to the highest-valued buyer) and the revenue of the seller is unchanged. We show that no signaling scheme can guarantee this benchmark even for $n=2$ buyers with $2$-point valuation distributions. Indeed, no signaling scheme can be efficient while preserving any non-trivial fraction of the original consumer surplus, and no signaling scheme can guarantee consumer surplus better than a factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ compared to the benchmark. These impossibility results are existential (beyond computational), and provide a sharp separation between the single and multi-buyer settings. In light of this impossibility, we develop signaling schemes with good approximation guarantees to the benchmark. Our main technical result is an $O(1)$-approximation for i.i.d. regular buyers, via signaling schemes that are conceptually simple and computable in polynomial time. We also present an extension to the case of general independent distributions., Comment: Accepted to ACM EC 2022

Online advertising on platforms such as Google or Facebook has become an indispensable outreach tool, including for applications where it is desirable to engage different demographics in an equitable fashion, such as hiring, housing, civic processes, and public health outreach efforts. Somewhat surprisingly, the existing online advertising ecosystem provides very little support for advertising to (and recruiting) a demographically representative cohort. We study the problem of advertising for demographic representativeness from both an empirical and algorithmic perspective. In essence, we seek fairness in the outcome or conversions generated by the advertising campaigns. We first present detailed empirical findings from real-world experiments for recruiting for civic processes, using which we show that methods using Facebook-inferred features are too inaccurate for achieving equity in outcomes, while targeting via custom audiences based on a list of registered voters segmented on known attributes has much superior accuracy. This motivates us to consider the algorithmic question of optimally segmenting the list of individuals with known attributes into a few custom campaigns and allocating budgets to them so that we cost-effectively achieve outcome parity with the population on the maximum possible number of demographics. Under the assumption that a platform can reasonably enforce proportionality in spend across demographics, we present efficient exact and approximation algorithms for this problem. We present simulation results on our datasets to show the efficacy of these algorithms in achieving demographic parity.

We study higher statistical moments of Distortion for randomized social choice in a metric implicit utilitarian model. The Distortion of a social choice mechanism is the expected approximation factor with respect to the optimal utilitarian social cost (OPT). The $k^{th}$ moment of Distortion is the expected approximation factor with respect to the $k^{th}$ power of OPT. We consider mechanisms that elicit alternatives by randomly sampling voters for their favorite alternative. We design two families of mechanisms that provide constant (with respect to the number of voters and alternatives) $k^{th}$ moment of Distortion using just $k$ samples if all voters can then participate in a vote among the proposed alternatives, or $2k-1$ samples if only the sampled voters can participate. We also show that these numbers of samples are tight. Such mechanisms deviate from a constant approximation to OPT with probability that drops exponentially in the number of samples, independent of the total number of voters and alternatives. We conclude with simulations on real-world Participatory Budgeting data to qualitatively complement our theoretical insights., Comment: To be published in the 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2020)

In this paper, we consider the following dynamic fair allocation problem: Given a sequence of job arrivals and departures, the goal is to maintain an approximately fair allocation of the resource against a target fair allocation policy, while minimizing the total number of disruptions, which is the number of times the allocation of any job is changed. We consider a rich class of fair allocation policies that significantly generalize those considered in previous work. We first consider the models where jobs only arrive, or jobs only depart. We present tight upper and lower bounds for the number of disruptions required to maintain a constant approximate fair allocation every time step. In particular, for the canonical case where jobs have weights and the resource allocation is proportional to the job's weight, we show that maintaining a constant approximate fair allocation requires $\Theta(\log^* n)$ disruptions per job, almost matching the bounds in prior work for the unit weight case. For the more general setting where the allocation policy only decreases the allocation to a job when new jobs arrive, we show that maintaining a constant approximate fair allocation requires $\Theta(\log n)$ disruptions per job. We then consider the model where jobs can both arrive and depart. We first show strong lower bounds on the number of disruptions required to maintain constant approximate fairness for arbitrary instances. In contrast we then show that there there is an algorithm that can maintain constant approximate fairness with $O(1)$ expected disruptions per job if the weights of the jobs are independent of the jobs arrival and departure order. We finally show how our results can be extended to the setting with multiple resources., Comment: To appear in Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems (POMACS) 2020 (SIGMETRICS)

We consider the problem of selling perishable items to a stream of buyers in order to maximize social welfare. A seller starts with a set of identical items, and each arriving buyer wants any one item, and has a valuation drawn i.i.d. from a known distribution. Each item, however, disappears after an a priori unknown amount of time that we term the horizon for that item. The seller knows the (possibly different) distribution of the horizon for each item, but not its realization till the item actually disappears. As with the classic prophet inequalities, the goal is to design an online pricing scheme that competes with the prophet that knows the horizon and extracts full social surplus (or welfare). Our main results are for the setting where items have independent horizon distributions satisfying the monotone-hazard-rate (MHR) condition. Here, for any number of items, we achieve a constant-competitive bound via a conceptually simple policy that balances the rate at which buyers are accepted with the rate at which items are removed from the system. We implement this policy via a novel technique of matching via probabilistically simulating departures of the items at future times. Moreover, for a single item and MHR horizon distribution with mean $\mu$, we show a tight result: There is a fixed pricing scheme that has competitive ratio at most $2 - 1/\mu$, and this is the best achievable in this class. We further show that our results are best possible. First, we show that the competitive ratio is unbounded without the MHR assumption even for one item. Further, even when the horizon distributions are i.i.d. MHR and the number of items becomes large, the competitive ratio of any policy is lower bounded by a constant greater than $1$, which is in sharp contrast to the setting with identical deterministic horizons., Comment: Accepted by ACM SIGMETRICS 2020; 25 pages

In the committee selection problem, we are given $m$ candidates, and $n$ voters. Candidates can have different weights. A committee is a subset of candidates, and its weight is the sum of weights of its candidates. Each voter expresses an ordinal ranking over all possible committees. The only assumption we make on preferences is monotonicity: If $S \subseteq S'$ are two committees, then any voter weakly prefers $S'$ to $S$. We study a general notion of group fairness via stability: A committee of given total weight $K$ is stable if no coalition of voters can deviate and choose a committee of proportional weight, so that all these voters strictly prefer the new committee to the existing one. Extending this notion to approximation, for parameter $c \ge 1$, a committee $S$ of weight $K$ is said to be $c$-approximately stable if for any other committee $S'$ of weight $K'$, the fraction of voters that strictly prefer $S'$ to $S$ is strictly less than $\frac{c K'}{K}$. When $c = 1$, this condition is equivalent to classical core stability. The question we ask is: Does a $c$-approximately stable committee of weight at most any given value $K$ always exist for constant $c$? It is relatively easy to show that there exist monotone preferences for which $c \ge 2$. However, even for simple and widely studied preference structures, a non-trivial upper bound on $c$ has been elusive. In this paper, we show that $c = O(1)$ for all monotone preference structures. Our proof proceeds via showing an existence result for a randomized notion of stability, and iteratively rounding the resulting fractional solution., Comment: STOC 2020

In this paper, we study fairness in committee selection problems. We consider a general notion of fairness via stability: A committee is stable if no coalition of voters can deviate and choose a committee of proportional size, so that all these voters strictly prefer the new committee to the existing one. Our main contribution is to extend this definition to stability of a distribution (or lottery) over committees. We consider two canonical voter preference models: the Approval Set setting where each voter approves a set of candidates and prefers committees with larger intersection with this set; and the Ranking setting where each voter ranks committees based on how much she likes her favorite candidate in a committee. Our main result is to show that stable lotteries always exist for these canonical preference models. Interestingly, given preferences of voters over committees, the procedure for computing an approximately stable lottery is the same for both models and therefore extends to the setting where some voters have the former preference structure and others have the latter. Our existence proof uses the probabilistic method and a new large deviation inequality that may be of independent interest., Comment: EC 2019

We extend the fair machine learning literature by considering the problem of proportional centroid clustering in a metric context. For clustering $n$ points with $k$ centers, we define fairness as proportionality to mean that any $n/k$ points are entitled to form their own cluster if there is another center that is closer in distance for all $n/k$ points. We seek clustering solutions to which there are no such justified complaints from any subsets of agents, without assuming any a priori notion of protected subsets. We present and analyze algorithms to efficiently compute, optimize, and audit proportional solutions. We conclude with an empirical examination of the tradeoff between proportional solutions and the $k$-means objective., Comment: To appear in ICML 2019

In this paper, we study the metric distortion of deterministic social choice rules that choose a winning candidate from a set of candidates based on voter preferences. Voters and candidates are located in an underlying metric space. A voter has cost equal to her distance to the winning candidate. Ordinal social choice rules only have access to the ordinal preferences of the voters that are assumed to be consistent with the metric distances. Our goal is to design an ordinal social choice rule with minimum distortion, which is the worst-case ratio, over all consistent metrics, between the social cost of the rule and that of the optimal omniscient rule with knowledge of the underlying metric space. The distortion of the best deterministic social choice rule was known to be between $3$ and $5$. It had been conjectured that any rule that only looks at the weighted tournament graph on the candidates cannot have distortion better than $5$. In our paper, we disprove it by presenting a weighted tournament rule with distortion of $4.236$. We design this rule by generalizing the classic notion of uncovered sets, and further show that this class of rules cannot have distortion better than $4.236$. We then propose a new voting rule, via an alternative generalization of uncovered sets. We show that if a candidate satisfying the criterion of this voting rule exists, then choosing such a candidate yields a distortion bound of $3$, matching the lower bound. We present a combinatorial conjecture that implies distortion of $3$, and verify it for small numbers of candidates and voters by computer experiments. Using our framework, we also show that selecting any candidate guarantees distortion of at most $3$ when the weighted tournament graph is cyclically symmetric., Comment: EC 2019

We study social choice mechanisms in an implicit utilitarian framework with a metric constraint, where the goal is to minimize \textit{Distortion}, the worst case social cost of an ordinal mechanism relative to underlying cardinal utilities. We consider two additional desiderata: Constant sample complexity and Squared Distortion. Constant sample complexity means that the mechanism (potentially randomized) only uses a constant number of ordinal queries regardless of the number of voters and alternatives. Squared Distortion is a measure of variance of the Distortion of a randomized mechanism. Our primary contribution is the first social choice mechanism with constant sample complexity \textit{and} constant Squared Distortion (which also implies constant Distortion). We call the mechanism Random Referee, because it uses a random agent to compare two alternatives that are the favorites of two other random agents. We prove that the use of a comparison query is necessary: no mechanism that only elicits the top-k preferred alternatives of voters (for constant k) can have Squared Distortion that is sublinear in the number of alternatives. We also prove that unlike any top-k only mechanism, the Distortion of Random Referee meaningfully improves on benign metric spaces, using the Euclidean plane as a canonical example. Finally, among top-1 only mechanisms, we introduce Random Oligarchy. The mechanism asks just 3 queries and is essentially optimal among the class of such mechanisms with respect to Distortion. In summary, we demonstrate the surprising power of constant sample complexity mechanisms generally, and just three random voters in particular, to provide some of the best known results in the implicit utilitarian framework., Comment: Conference version Published in AAAI 2019 (https://aaai.org/Conferences/AAAI-19/)

We study a classic Bayesian mechanism design setting of monopoly problem for an additive buyer in the presence of budgets. In this setting a monopolist seller with $m$ heterogeneous items faces a single buyer and seeks to maximize her revenue. The buyer has a budget and additive valuations drawn independently for each item from (non-identical) distributions. We show that when the buyer's budget is publicly known, the better of selling each item separately and selling the grand bundle extracts a constant fraction of the optimal revenue. When the budget is private, we consider a standard Bayesian setting where buyer's budget $b$ is drawn from a known distribution $B$. We show that if $b$ is independent of the valuations and distribution $B$ satisfies monotone hazard rate condition, then selling items separately or in a grand bundle is still approximately optimal. We give a complementary example showing that no constant approximation simple mechanism is possible if budget $b$ can be interdependent with valuations.

We consider the problem of fairly allocating indivisible public goods. We model the public goods as elements with feasibility constraints on what subsets of elements can be chosen, and assume that agents have additive utilities across elements. Our model generalizes existing frameworks such as fair public decision making and participatory budgeting. We study a groupwise fairness notion called the core, which generalizes well-studied notions of proportionality and Pareto efficiency, and requires that each subset of agents must receive an outcome that is fair relative to its size. In contrast to the case of divisible public goods (where fractional allocations are permitted), the core is not guaranteed to exist when allocating indivisible public goods. Our primary contributions are the notion of an additive approximation to the core (with a tiny multiplicative loss), and polynomial time algorithms that achieve a small additive approximation, where the additive factor is relative to the largest utility of an agent for an element. If the feasibility constraints define a matroid, we show an additive approximation of 2. A similar approach yields a constant additive bound when the feasibility constraints define a matching. More generally, if the feasibility constraints define an arbitrary packing polytope with mild restrictions, we show an additive guarantee that is logarithmic in the width of the polytope. Our algorithms are based on variants of the convex program for maximizing the Nash social welfare, but differ significantly from previous work in how it is used. Our guarantees are meaningful even when there are fewer elements than the number of agents. As far as we are aware, our work is the first to approximate the core in indivisible settings., Comment: Published in EC 2018, The 19th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

Recent years have witnessed the rise of many successful e-commerce marketplace platforms like the Amazon marketplace, AirBnB, Uber/Lyft, and Upwork, where a central platform mediates economic transactions between buyers and sellers. Motivated by these platforms, we formulate a set of facility location problems that we term Two-sided Facility location. In our model, agents arrive at nodes in an underlying metric space, where the metric distance between any buyer and seller captures the quality of the corresponding match. The platform posts prices and wages at the nodes, and opens a set of facilities to route the agents to. The agents at any facility are assumed to be matched. The platform ensures high match quality by imposing a distance constraint between a node and the facilities it is routed to. It ensures high service availability by ensuring flow to the facility is at least a pre-specified lower bound. Subject to these constraints, the goal of the platform is to maximize the social surplus (or gains from trade) subject to weak budget balance, i.e., profit being non-negative. We present an approximation algorithm for this problem that yields a $(1 + \epsilon)$ approximation to surplus for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, while relaxing the match quality (i.e., maximum distance of any match) by a constant factor. We use an LP rounding framework that easily extends to other objectives such as maximizing volume of trade or profit. We justify our models by considering a dynamic marketplace setting where agents arrive according to a stochastic process and have finite patience (or deadlines) for being matched. We perform queueing analysis to show that for policies that route agents to facilities and match them, ensuring a low abandonment probability of agents reduces to ensuring sufficient flow arrives at each facility.

In large scale collective decision making, social choice is a normative study of how one ought to design a protocol for reaching consensus. However, in instances where the underlying decision space is too large or complex for ordinal voting, standard voting methods of social choice may be impractical. How then can we design a mechanism - preferably decentralized, simple, scalable, and not requiring any special knowledge of the decision space - to reach consensus? We propose sequential deliberation as a natural solution to this problem. In this iterative method, successive pairs of agents bargain over the decision space using the previous decision as a disagreement alternative. We describe the general method and analyze the quality of its outcome when the space of preferences define a median graph. We show that sequential deliberation finds a 1.208- approximation to the optimal social cost on such graphs, coming very close to this value with only a small constant number of agents sampled from the population. We also show lower bounds on simpler classes of mechanisms to justify our design choices. We further show that sequential deliberation is ex-post Pareto efficient and has truthful reporting as an equilibrium of the induced extensive form game. We finally show that for general metric spaces, the second moment of of the distribution of social cost of the outcomes produced by sequential deliberation is also bounded.

Many societal decision problems lie in high-dimensional continuous spaces not amenable to the voting techniques common for their discrete or single-dimensional counterparts. These problems are typically discretized before running an election or decided upon through negotiation by representatives. We propose a algorithm called {\sc Iterative Local Voting} for collective decision-making in this setting. In this algorithm, voters are sequentially sampled and asked to modify a candidate solution within some local neighborhood of its current value, as defined by a ball in some chosen norm, with the size of the ball shrinking at a specified rate. We first prove the convergence of this algorithm under appropriate choices of neighborhoods to Pareto optimal solutions with desirable fairness properties in certain natural settings: when the voters' utilities can be expressed in terms of some form of distance from their ideal solution, and when these utilities are additively decomposable across dimensions. In many of these cases, we obtain convergence to the societal welfare maximizing solution. We then describe an experiment in which we test our algorithm for the decision of the U.S. Federal Budget on Mechanical Turk with over 2,000 workers, employing neighborhoods defined by $\mathcal{L}^1, \mathcal{L}^2$ and $\mathcal{L}^\infty$ balls. We make several observations that inform future implementations of such a procedure., Comment: 39 pages, to appear in Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

We study social choice rules under the utilitarian distortion framework, with an additional metric assumption on the agents' costs over the alternatives. In this approach, these costs are given by an underlying metric on the set of all agents plus alternatives. Social choice rules have access to only the ordinal preferences of agents but not the latent cardinal costs that induce them. Distortion is then defined as the ratio between the social cost (typically the sum of agent costs) of the alternative chosen by the mechanism at hand, and that of the optimal alternative chosen by an omniscient algorithm. The worst-case distortion of a social choice rule is, therefore, a measure of how close it always gets to the optimal alternative without any knowledge of the underlying costs. Under this model, it has been conjectured that Ranked Pairs, the well-known weighted-tournament rule, achieves a distortion of at most 3 [Anshelevich et al. 2015]. We disprove this conjecture by constructing a sequence of instances which shows that the worst-case distortion of Ranked Pairs is at least 5. Our lower bound on the worst case distortion of Ranked Pairs matches a previously known upper bound for the Copeland rule, proving that in the worst case, the simpler Copeland rule is at least as good as Ranked Pairs. And as long as we are limited to (weighted or unweighted) tournament rules, we demonstrate that randomization cannot help achieve an expected worst-case distortion of less than 3. Using the concept of approximate majorization within the distortion framework, we prove that Copeland and Randomized Dictatorship achieve low constant factor fairness-ratios (5 and 3 respectively), which is a considerable generalization of similar results for the sum of costs and single largest cost objectives. In addition to all of the above, we outline several interesting directions for further research in this space.

In participatory budgeting, communities collectively decide on the allocation of public tax dollars for local public projects. In this work, we consider the question of fairly aggregating the preferences of community members to determine an allocation of funds to projects. This problem is different from standard fair resource allocation because of public goods: The allocated goods benefit all users simultaneously. Fairness is crucial in participatory decision making, since generating equitable outcomes is an important goal of these processes. We argue that the classic game theoretic notion of core captures fairness in the setting. To compute the core, we first develop a novel characterization of a public goods market equilibrium called the Lindahl equilibrium, which is always a core solution. We then provide the first (to our knowledge) polynomial time algorithm for computing such an equilibrium for a broad set of utility functions; our algorithm also generalizes (in a non-trivial way) the well-known concept of proportional fairness. We use our theoretical insights to perform experiments on real participatory budgeting voting data. We empirically show that the core can be efficiently computed for utility functions that naturally model our practical setting, and examine the relation of the core with the familiar welfare objective. Finally, we address concerns of incentives and mechanism design by developing a randomized approximately dominant-strategy truthful mechanism building on the exponential mechanism from differential privacy.

Systems for processing big data---e.g., Hadoop, Spark, and massively parallel databases---need to run workloads on behalf of multiple tenants simultaneously. The abundant disk-based storage in these systems is usually complemented by a smaller, but much faster, {\em cache}. Cache is a precious resource: Tenants who get to use cache can see two orders of magnitude performance improvement. Cache is also a limited and hence shared resource: Unlike a resource like a CPU core which can be used by only one tenant at a time, a cached data item can be accessed by multiple tenants at the same time. Cache, therefore, has to be shared by a multi-tenancy-aware policy across tenants, each having a unique set of priorities and workload characteristics. In this paper, we develop cache allocation strategies that speed up the overall workload while being {\em fair} to each tenant. We build a novel fairness model targeted at the shared resource setting that incorporates not only the more standard concepts of Pareto-efficiency and sharing incentive, but also define envy freeness via the notion of {\em core} from cooperative game theory. Our cache management platform, ROBUS, uses randomization over small time batches, and we develop a proportionally fair allocation mechanism that satisfies the core property in expectation. We show that this algorithm and related fair algorithms can be approximated to arbitrary precision in polynomial time. We evaluate these algorithms on a ROBUS prototype implemented on Spark with RDD store used as cache. Our evaluation on a synthetically generated industry-standard workload shows that our algorithms provide a speedup close to performance optimal algorithms while guaranteeing fairness across tenants.

We consider the classical problem of minimizing the total weighted flow-time for unrelated machines in the online \emph{non-clairvoyant} setting. In this problem, a set of jobs $J$ arrive over time to be scheduled on a set of $M$ machines. Each job $j$ has processing length $p_j$, weight $w_j$, and is processed at a rate of $\ell_{ij}$ when scheduled on machine $i$. The online scheduler knows the values of $w_j$ and $\ell_{ij}$ upon arrival of the job, but is not aware of the quantity $p_j$. We present the {\em first} online algorithm that is {\em scalable} ($(1+\eps)$-speed $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2})$-competitive for any constant $\eps > 0$) for the total weighted flow-time objective. No non-trivial results were known for this setting, except for the most basic case of identical machines. Our result resolves a major open problem in online scheduling theory. Moreover, we also show that no job needs more than a logarithmic number of migrations. We further extend our result and give a scalable algorithm for the objective of minimizing total weighted flow-time plus energy cost for the case of unrelated machines and obtain a scalable algorithm. The key algorithmic idea is to let jobs migrate selfishly until they converge to an equilibrium. Towards this end, we define a game where each job's utility which is closely tied to the instantaneous increase in the objective the job is responsible for, and each machine declares a policy that assigns priorities to jobs based on when they migrate to it, and the execution speeds. This has a spirit similar to coordination mechanisms that attempt to achieve near optimum welfare in the presence of selfish agents (jobs). To the best our knowledge, this is the first work that demonstrates the usefulness of ideas from coordination mechanisms and Nash equilibria for designing and analyzing online algorithms.

We introduce and study a general scheduling problem that we term the Packing Scheduling problem. In this problem, jobs can have different arrival times and sizes; a scheduler can process job $j$ at rate $x_j$, subject to arbitrary packing constraints over the set of rates ($\vec{x}$) of the outstanding jobs. The PSP framework captures a variety of scheduling problems, including the classical problems of unrelated machines scheduling, broadcast scheduling, and scheduling jobs of different parallelizability. It also captures scheduling constraints arising in diverse modern environments ranging from individual computer architectures to data centers. More concretely, PSP models multidimensional resource requirements and parallelizability, as well as network bandwidth requirements found in data center scheduling. In this paper, we design non-clairvoyant online algorithms for PSP and its special cases -- in this setting, the scheduler is unaware of the sizes of jobs. Our two main results are, 1) a constant competitive algorithm for minimizing total weighted completion time for PSP and 2)a scalable algorithm for minimizing the total flow-time on unrelated machines, which is a special case of PSP., Comment: Accepted for publication in STOC 2014

In this paper, we consider several finite-horizon Bayesian multi-armed bandit problems with side constraints which are computationally intractable (NP-Hard) and for which no optimal (or near optimal) algorithms are known to exist with sub-exponential running time. All of these problems violate the standard exchange property, which assumes that the reward from the play of an arm is not contingent upon when the arm is played. Not only are index policies suboptimal in these contexts, there has been little analysis of such policies in these problem settings. We show that if we consider near-optimal policies, in the sense of approximation algorithms, then there exists (near) index policies. Conceptually, if we can find policies that satisfy an approximate version of the exchange property, namely, that the reward from the play of an arm depends on when the arm is played to within a constant factor, then we have an avenue towards solving these problems. However such an approximate version of the idling bandit property does not hold on a per-play basis and are shown to hold in a global sense. Clearly, such a property is not necessarily true of arbitrary single arm policies and finding such single arm policies is nontrivial. We show that by restricting the state spaces of arms we can find single arm policies and that these single arm policies can be combined into global (near) index policies where the approximate version of the exchange property is true in expectation. The number of different bandit problems that can be addressed by this technique already demonstrate its wide applicability., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1011.1161