arXiv subjects

Eden Hartman

Publications and source records attributed to Eden Hartman.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Who Is Really Playing? Strategic Interaction in AI-Guided Populations

AI systems in general, and Large language models (LLMs), in particular, are increasingly used to provide instructions to many agents who interact with one another. Such shared reliance couples agents who appear to act independently: they may in fact be guided by a common model. This coupling can change the prospects for cooperation among agents with misaligned incentives. We study settings in which multiple \emph{guidance providers} each advise a population of clients who participate in instances of an underlying game, creating strategic interaction at the level of the providers themselves. This induces a meta-game among the providers, mediated through clients. We first analyze the one-shot setting, where we show that shared instructions can change equilibrium behavior only when some provider influences more than one role in the same interaction. In such cases, cooperation may emerge, and the effect of client share can be beneficial, harmful, or non-monotone, depending on the base game. For the repeated setting, we prove a folk theorem for guidance providers: despite indirect observation and the clients' inability to identify which LLM advised their opponents, all feasible and individually rational outcomes can be sustained as $\varepsilon$-equilibria.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

How Many Votes is a Lie Worth? Measuring Strategyproofness through Resource Augmentation

It is well known, by the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem, that when there are more than two candidates, any non-dictatorial voting rule can be manipulated by untruthful voters. But how much stronger is an untruthful voter over a truthful one under different voting rules? We suggest measuring the potential comparative advantage of a strategic voter by asking how many copies of their (truthful) vote must be added to the election in order to achieve an outcome as good as their best manipulation. Intuitively, this definition quantifies what a voter can gain by manipulating in comparison to what they would have gained by finding like-minded voters to join the election (equivalently, by increasing their voter weight). The higher the former is, the more incentive a voter will have to manipulate, even when it is computationally costly. Using this framework, we obtain a principled method to measure and compare the manipulation potential for different voting rules. We analyze and report this potential for well-known and broad classes of social choice functions. In particular, we show that the positional scoring rule with the smallest manipulation potential will always be either Borda Count (if the number of voters outweighs the number of candidates) or Plurality (vice versa). Further, we prove that any rule satisfying a weak form of majority consistency (and therefore any Condorcet extension) cannot outperform Plurality, and that any majoritarian Condorcet rule will perform significantly worse. Consequently, out of the voting rules we analyze, Borda Count stands out as the only one with a manipulation potential that does not grow with the number of voters. By establishing a clear separation between different rules in terms of manipulation potential, our work paves the way for the search for rules that provide voters with minimal advantage from manipulating.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Coalition Tactics: Bribery and Control in Parliamentary Elections

Strategic manipulation of elections is typically studied in the context of promoting individual candidates. In parliamentary elections, however, the focus shifts: voters may care more about the overall governing coalition than the individual parties' seat counts. This paper studies this new problem: manipulating parliamentary elections with the goal of promoting the collective seat count of a coalition of parties. We focus on proportional representation elections, and consider two variants of the problem; one in which the sole goal is to maximize the total number of seats held by the desired coalition, and the other with a dual objective of both promoting the coalition and promoting the relative power of some favorite party within the coalition. We examine two types of strategic manipulations: \emph{bribery}, which allows modifying voters' preferences, and \emph{control}, which allows changing the sets of voters and parties. We consider multiple bribery types, presenting polynomial-time algorithms for some, while proving NP-hardness for others. For control, we provide polynomial-time algorithms for control by adding and deleting voters. In contrast, control by adding and deleting parties, we show, is either impossible (i.e., the problem is immune to control) or computationally hard, in particular, W[1]-hard when parameterized by the number of parties that can be added or deleted.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Fairly Wired: Towards Leximin-Optimal Division of Electricity

In many parts of the world - particularly in developing countries - the demand for electricity exceeds the available supply. In such cases, it is impossible to provide electricity to all households simultaneously. This raises a fundamental question: how should electricity be allocated fairly? In this paper, we explore this question through the lens of egalitarianism - a principle that emphasizes equality by prioritizing the welfare of the worst-off households. One natural rule that aligns with this principle is to maximize the egalitarian welfare - the smallest utility across all households. We show that computing such an allocation is NP-hard, even under strong simplifying assumptions. Leximin is a stronger fairness notion that generalizes the egalitarian welfare: it also requires to maximize the smallest utility, but then, subject to that, the second-smallest, then the third, and so on. The hardness results extends directly to leximin as well. Despite this, we present a Fully Polynomial-Time Approximation Scheme (FPTAS) for leximin in the special case where the network connectivity graph is a tree. This means that we can efficiently approximate leximin - and, in particular, the egalitarian welfare - to any desired level of accuracy.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Control for Coalitions in Parliamentary Elections

The traditional election control problem focuses on the use of control to promote a single candidate. In parliamentary elections, however, the focus shifts: voters care no less about the overall governing coalition than the individual parties' seat count. This paper introduces a new problem: controlling parliamentary elections, where the goal extends beyond promoting a single party to influencing the collective seat count of coalitions of parties. We focus on plurality rule and control through the addition or deletion of parties. Our analysis reveals that, without restrictions on voters' preferences, these control problems are W[1]-hard. In some cases, the problems are immune to control, making such efforts ineffective. We then study the special case where preferences are symmetric single-peaked. We show that in the single-peaked setting, aggregation of voters into types allows for a compact representation of the problem. Our findings show that for the single-peaked setting, some cases are solvable in polynomial time, while others are NP-hard for the compact representation - but admit a polynomial algorithm for the extensive representation.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

It's Not All Black and White: Degree of Truthfulness for Risk-Avoiding Agents

The classic notion of \emph{truthfulness} requires that no agent has a profitable manipulation -- an untruthful report that, for \emph{some} combination of reports of the other agents, increases her utility. This strong notion implicitly assumes that the manipulating agent either knows what all other agents are going to report, or is willing to take the risk and act as-if she knows their reports. Without knowledge of the others' reports, most manipulations are \emph{risky} -- they might decrease the manipulator's utility for some other combinations of reports by the other agents. Accordingly, a recent paper (Bu, Song and Tao, ``On the existence of truthful fair cake cutting mechanisms'', Artificial Intelligence 319 (2023), 103904) suggests a relaxed notion, which we refer to as \emph{risk-avoiding truthfulness (RAT)}, which requires only that no agent can gain from a \emph{safe} manipulation -- one that is sometimes beneficial and never harmful. Truthfulness and RAT are two extremes: the former considers manipulators with complete knowledge of others, whereas the latter considers manipulators with no knowledge at all. In reality, agents often know about some -- but not all -- of the other agents. This paper introduces the \emph{RAT-degree} of a mechanism, defined as the smallest number of agents whose reports, if known, may allow another agent to safely manipulate, or $n$ if there is no such number. This notion interpolates between classic truthfulness (degree $n$) and RAT (degree at least $1$): a mechanism with a higher RAT-degree is harder to manipulate safely. To illustrate the generality and applicability of this concept, we analyze the RAT-degree of prominent mechanisms across various social choice settings, including auctions, indivisible goods allocations, cake-cutting, voting, and two-sided matching.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Reducing Leximin Fairness to Utilitarian Optimization

Two prominent objectives in social choice are utilitarian - maximizing the sum of agents' utilities, and leximin - maximizing the smallest agent's utility, then the second-smallest, etc. Utilitarianism is typically computationally easier to attain but is generally viewed as less fair. This paper presents a general reduction scheme that, given a utilitarian solver, produces a distribution over states (deterministic outcomes) that is leximin in expectation. Importantly, the scheme is robust in the sense that, given an approximate utilitarian solver, it produces a lottery that is approximately-leximin (in expectation) - with the same approximation factor. We apply our scheme to several social choice problems: stochastic allocations of indivisible goods, giveaway lotteries, and fair lotteries for participatory budgeting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Leximin Approximation: From Single-Objective to Multi-Objective

Leximin is a common approach to multi-objective optimization, frequently employed in fair division applications. In leximin optimization, one first aims to maximize the smallest objective value; subject to this, one maximizes the second-smallest objective; and so on. Often, even the single-objective problem of maximizing the smallest value cannot be solved accurately. What can we hope to accomplish for leximin optimization in this situation? Recently, Henzinger et al. (2022) defined a notion of \emph{approximate} leximin optimality. Their definition, however, considers only an additive approximation. In this work, we first define the notion of approximate leximin optimality, allowing both multiplicative and additive errors. We then show how to compute, in polynomial time, such an approximate leximin solution, using an oracle that finds an approximation to a single-objective problem. The approximation factors of the algorithms are closely related: an $(α,ε)$-approximation for the single-objective problem (where $α\in (0,1]$ and $ε\geq 0$ are the multiplicative and additive factors respectively) translates into an $\left(\frac{α^2}{1-α+ α^2}, \fracε{1-α+α^2}\right)$-approximation for the multi-objective leximin problem, regardless of the number of objectives.

cs.GT↗