arXiv subjects

Georgios Birmpas

Publications and source records attributed to Georgios Birmpas.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Envy Cycle Elimination with Strategic Agents: Best Responses and Fairness Guarantees

With strong evidence in the literature showing that fairness and truthfulness are incompatible, there is a recent line of work focusing on the fairness properties of equilibria of simple fair division mechanisms, especially Round-Robin. We consider the Envy Cycle Elimination (E-C-E) procedure of Lipton et al. [23], one of the most versatile tools in fair division. While this simple and intuitive algorithm achieves allocations that are envy-free up to one item (EF1) for any number of agents and general monotone valuation functions, surprisingly little is known about its behavior when agents act strategically. We demonstrate how the presence of incentives, although highly natural and relevant for the majority of applications, completely removes the intuitive clarity in the algorithm's execution, even for a few agents and very simple valuation functions. Additionally, while in the standard algorithmic setting there is great flexibility in how the details of E-C-E are implemented, here additional specifications are needed before the procedure is clearly defined, the choice of which has a potentially huge impact on the agents' behavior. Despite these obstacles, for various natural versions of E-C-E, we give the first results on the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria of the resulting mechanisms, and show there exist versions where fairness guarantees are approximately preserved for agents who play best responses.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Position Auctions with a Capacity Constraint

Sponsored search auctions are commonly modeled as an assignment of a fixed set of slots (positions) to a set of advertisers, with welfare maximization being reducible to a standard matching problem. Motivated by modern ad formats, we study a richer variant of the classical position auctions model, in which ads have heterogeneous sizes and the platform must jointly select and assign a subset of ads to positions subject to a global space constraint. We formulate this as a matching problem with a capacity constraint, and propose an algorithmic technique that goes beyond simple greedy methods while achieving constant factor approximation guarantees. Our allocation rule augments density-based ordering with capacity-aware local improvements, which allow for re-allocations that improve welfare, while respecting the capacity constraint. Applied in the context of position auctions, we analyze this mechanism under the assumption of single-parameter agents and position-dependent click-through-rates (CTRs). We show that a minor modification to our approach yields a universally truthful randomized mechanism with a constant factor approximation guarantee. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first truthful constant-approximation mechanism for this variant of capacity-constrained matching.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Tractable Exclusion Zones for Instant-Runoff Voting on Trees and Beyond

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is often used when voters rank candidates rather than choosing only one favourite. We study IRV under graph-induced metric preferences where each vertex of an unweighted undirected graph hosts one voter and is also a possible candidate location. Voters rank candidates by shortest-path distance with fixed deterministic tie-breaking. We focus on exclusion zones, i.e., sets S such that, whenever at least one candidate lies in S, the IRV winner must also lie in S. Such zones serve as robustness certificates, identifying regions whose participation prevents outside winners from emerging. For general graphs, exclusion-zone verification is co-NP-complete and minimum-zone computation is NP-hard. We show that both problems become polynomial-time solvable on trees. Our main tool is a membership test asking whether a candidate can be forced to lose using opponents from a restricted region. A round-1 reduction shows that any such loss has a witness in which the candidate is eliminated in the first IRV round, enabling a bottom-up dynamic program on trees. We also show that minimum-zone computation has a much smaller search space than its definition suggests. The pairwise-loss graph, obtained from all two-candidate elections, imposes closure constraints on every exclusion zone. With deterministic tie-breaking this graph is a tournament, implying that every nonempty exclusion zone on a tree is generated by the closure of one vertex. Thus, the minimum exclusion zone can be found by testing only linearly many candidate sets. On the opposite front, we refine the intractability range of computing minimum exclusion zones on general graphs, extending it to a much broader class of deterministic elimination rules, dubbed as Strong Forced Elimination.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Reward Schemes and Committee Sizes in Proof of Stake Governance

In this paper, we investigate the impact of reward schemes and committee sizes motivated by governance systems over blockchain communities. We introduce a model for elections with a binary outcome space where there is a ground truth (i.e., a "correct" outcome), and where stakeholders can only choose to delegate their voting power to a set of delegation representatives (DReps). Moreover, the effort (cost) invested by each DRep positively influences both (i) her ability to vote correctly and (ii) the total delegation that she attracts, thereby increasing her voting power. This model constitutes the natural counterpart of delegated proof-of-stake (PoS) protocols, where delegated stakes are used to elect the block builders. As a way to motivate the representatives to exert effort, a reward scheme can be used based on the delegation attracted by each DRep. We analyze both the game-theoretic aspects and the optimization counterpart of this model. Our primary focus is on selecting a committee that maximizes the probability of reaching the correct outcome, given a fixed monetary budget allocated for rewarding the delegates. Our findings provide insights into the design of effective reward mechanisms and optimal committee structures (i.e., how many DReps are enough) in these PoS-like governance systems.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Algorithmically Fair Maximization of Multiple Submodular Objective Functions and Implications to Constrained Fair Division

Constrained maximization of submodular functions is a central problem in combinatorial optimization. In many realistic scenarios, multiple agents each need to maximize their own submodular objective over a common ground set, subject to individual constraints, with the requirement that their solutions be disjoint. We study this setting through the lens of algorithmic fairness and constrained fair division. Inspired by the fair division literature, we propose and analyze a simple Round-Robin protocol in which agents take turns building their solutions one item at a time; each agent is free to use any internal algorithm, and the protocol itself performs no computation. We show that agents following simple greedy policies enjoy solid guarantees for both monotone and non-monotone objectives subject to constraints as general as $p$-systems. For monotone objectives, a greedy agent $i$ with a $p_i$-system constraint achieves a $1/(n+p_i)$ fraction of the best value available when they first get to choose. On instances that are robust to competition -- where no agent's optimal value is greatly affected by losing some items to others -- these guarantees improve to a $1/\Theta(p_i)$ approximation of the unconstrained optimum, which is asymptotically best-possible in polynomial time. We further establish novel fairness guarantees: greedy agents produce approximately feasible-envy-free-up-to-one-item (FEF1) and approximately feasible-envy-free-towards-unallocated-items (FEFu) allocations for monotone and non-monotone objectives. Via a simple augmented protocol and a self-contained polynomial-time proxy algorithm, we also obtain the first $\Theta(1/p_i)$-approximate feasible maximin share (FMMS) guarantees for submodular agents with combinatorial constraints. Finally, although greedy policies may not be individually optimal, consistently improving upon them is NP-hard even in the simplest settings.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2023

Fair Division with Interdependent Values

We introduce the study of designing allocation mechanisms for fairly allocating indivisible goods in settings with interdependent valuation functions. In our setting, there is a set of goods that needs to be allocated to a set of agents (without disposal). Each agent is given a private signal, and his valuation function depends on the signals of all agents. Without the use of payments, there are strong impossibility results for designing strategyproof allocation mechanisms even in settings without interdependent values. Therefore, we turn to design mechanisms that always admit equilibria that are fair with respect to their true signals, despite their potentially distorted perception. To do so, we first extend the definitions of pure Nash equilibrium and well-studied fairness notions in literature to the interdependent setting. We devise simple allocation mechanisms that always admit a fair equilibrium with respect to the true signals. We complement this result by showing that, even for very simple cases with binary additive interdependent valuation functions, no allocation mechanism that always admits an equilibrium, can guarantee that all equilibria are fair with respect to the true signals.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Round-Robin Beyond Additive Agents: Existence and Fairness of Approximate Equilibria

Fair allocation of indivisible goods has attracted extensive attention over the last two decades, yielding numerous elegant algorithmic results and producing challenging open questions. The problem becomes much harder in the presence of strategic agents. Ideally, one would want to design truthful mechanisms that produce allocations with fairness guarantees. However, in the standard setting without monetary transfers, it is generally impossible to have truthful mechanisms that provide non-trivial fairness guarantees. Recently, Amanatidis et al. [2021] suggested the study of mechanisms that produce fair allocations in their equilibria. Specifically, when the agents have additive valuation functions, the simple Round-Robin algorithm always has pure Nash equilibria and the corresponding allocations are envy-free up to one good (EF1) with respect to the agents' true valuation functions. Following this agenda, we show that this outstanding property of the Round-Robin mechanism extends much beyond the above default assumption of additivity. In particular, we prove that for agents with cancelable valuation functions (a natural class that contains, e.g., additive and budget-additive functions), this simple mechanism always has equilibria and even its approximate equilibria correspond to approximately EF1 allocations with respect to the agents' true valuation functions. Further, we show that the approximate EF1 fairness of approximate equilibria surprisingly holds for the important class of submodular valuation functions as well, even though exact equilibria fail to exist!

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: Recent Progress and Open Questions

Allocating resources to individuals in a fair manner has been a topic of interest since ancient times, with most of the early mathematical work on the problem focusing on resources that are infinitely divisible. Over the last decade, there has been a surge of papers studying computational questions regarding the indivisible case, for which exact fairness notions such as envy-freeness and proportionality are hard to satisfy. One main theme in the recent research agenda is to investigate the extent to which their relaxations, like maximin share fairness (MMS) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), can be achieved. In this survey, we present a comprehensive review of the recent progress made in the related literature by highlighting different ways to relax fairness notions, common algorithm design techniques, and the most interesting questions for future research.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Decentralised Update Selection with Semi-Strategic Experts

Motivated by governance models adopted in blockchain applications, we study the problem of selecting appropriate system updates in a decentralised way. Contrary to most existing voting approaches, we use the input of a set of motivated experts of varying levels of expertise. In particular, we develop an approval voting inspired selection mechanism through which the experts approve or disapprove the different updates according to their perception of the quality of each alternative. Given their opinions, and weighted by their expertise level, a single update is then implemented and evaluated, and the experts receive rewards based on their choices. We show that this mechanism always has approximate pure Nash equilibria and that these achieve a constant factor approximation with respect to the quality benchmark of the optimal alternative. Finally, we study the repeated version of the problem, where the weights of the experts are adjusted after each update, according to their performance. Under mild assumptions about the weights, the extension of our mechanism still has approximate pure Nash equilibria in this setting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Don't Roll the Dice, Ask Twice: The Two-Query Distortion of Matching Problems and Beyond

In most social choice settings, the participating agents express their preferences over the different alternatives in the form of linear orderings. While this clearly simplifies preference elicitation, it inevitably leads to poor performance with respect to optimizing a cardinal objective, such as the social welfare, since the values of the agents remain virtually unknown. This loss in performance because of lack of information is measured by the notion of distortion. A recent array of works put forward the agenda of designing mechanisms that learn the values of the agents for a small number of alternatives via queries, and use this limited extra information to make better-informed decisions, thus improving distortion. Following this agenda, in this work we focus on a class of combinatorial problems that includes most well-known matching problems and several of their generalizations, such as One-Sided Matching, Two-Sided Matching, General Graph Matching, and $k$-Constrained Resource Allocation. We design two-query mechanisms that achieve the best-possible worst-case distortion in terms of social welfare, and outperform the best-possible expected distortion achieved by randomized ordinal mechanisms.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: A Survey

Allocating resources to individuals in a fair manner has been a topic of interest since the ancient times, with most of the early rigorous mathematical work on the problem focusing on infinitely divisible resources. Recently, there has been a surge of papers studying computational questions regarding various different notions of fairness for the indivisible case, like maximin share fairness (MMS) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX). We survey the most important results in the discrete fair division literature, focusing on the case of additive valuation functions and paying particular attention to the progress made in the last 10 years.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Parallel Contests for Crowdsourcing Reviews: Existence and Quality of Equilibria

Motivated by the intricacies of allocating treasury funds in blockchain settings, we study the problem of crowdsourcing reviews for many different proposals, in parallel. During the reviewing phase, every reviewer can select the proposals to write reviews for, as well as the quality of each review. The quality levels follow certain very coarse community guidelines and can have values such as 'excellent' or 'good'. Based on these scores and the distribution of reviews, every reviewer will receive some reward for their efforts. In this paper, we design a reward scheme and show that it always has pure Nash equilibria, for any set of proposals and reviewers. In addition, we show that these equilibria guarantee constant factor approximations for two natural metrics: the total quality of all reviews, as well as the fraction of proposals that received at least one review, compared to the optimal outcome.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Allocating Indivisible Goods to Strategic Agents: Pure Nash Equilibria and Fairness

We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of strategic agents with additive valuation functions. We assume no monetary transfers and, therefore, a mechanism in our setting is an algorithm that takes as input the reported -- rather than the true -- values of the agents. Our main goal is to explore whether there exist mechanisms that have pure Nash equilibria for every instance and, at the same time, provide fairness guarantees for the allocations that correspond to these equilibria. We focus on two relaxations of envy-freeness, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), and we positively answer the above question. In particular, we study two algorithms that are known to produce such allocations in the non-strategic setting: Round-Robin (EF1 allocations for any number of agents) and a cut-and-choose algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden [SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 2020] (EFX allocations for two agents). For Round-Robin we show that all of its pure Nash equilibria induce allocations that are EF1 with respect to the underlying true values, while for the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden we show that the corresponding allocations not only are EFX but also satisfy maximin share fairness, something that is not true for this algorithm in the non-strategic setting! Further, we show that a weaker version of the latter result holds for any mechanism for two agents that always has pure Nash equilibria which all induce EFX allocations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Fair Equilibria in Sponsored Search Auctions: The Advertisers' Perspective

In this work we introduce a new class of mechanisms composed of a traditional Generalized Second Price (GSP) auction and a fair division scheme, in order to achieve some desired level of fairness between groups of Bayesian strategic advertisers. We propose two mechanisms, $\beta$-Fair GSP and GSP-EFX, that compose GSP with, respectively, an envy-free up to one item, and an envy-free up to any item fair division scheme. The payments of GSP are adjusted in order to compensate advertisers that suffer a loss of efficiency due the fair division stage. We investigate the strategic learning implications of the deployment of sponsored search auction mechanisms that obey to such fairness criteria. We prove that, for both mechanisms, if bidders play so as to minimize their external regret they are guaranteed to reach an equilibrium with good social welfare. We also prove that the mechanisms are budget balanced, so that the payments charged by the traditional GSP mechanism are a good proxy of the total compensation offered to the advertisers. Finally, we evaluate the quality of the allocations through experiments on real-world data.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Peeking Behind the Ordinal Curtain: Improving Distortion via Cardinal Queries

Aggregating the preferences of individuals into a collective decision is the core subject of study of social choice theory. In 2006, Procaccia and Rosenschein considered a utilitarian social choice setting, where the agents have explicit numerical values for the alternatives, yet they only report their linear orderings over them. To compare different aggregation mechanisms, Procaccia and Rosenschein introduced the notion of distortion, which quantifies the inefficiency of using only ordinal information when trying to maximize the social welfare, i.e., the sum of the underlying values of the agents for the chosen outcome. Since then, this research area has flourished and bounds on the distortion have been obtained for a wide variety of fundamental scenarios. However, the vast majority of the existing literature is focused on the case where nothing is known beyond the ordinal preferences of the agents over the alternatives. In this paper, we take a more expressive approach, and consider mechanisms that are allowed to further ask a few cardinal queries in order to gain partial access to the underlying values that the agents have for the alternatives. With this extra power, we design new deterministic mechanisms that achieve significantly improved distortion bounds and, in many cases, outperform the best-known randomized ordinal mechanisms. We paint an almost complete picture of the number of queries required by deterministic mechanisms to achieve specific distortion bounds.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

A Few Queries Go a Long Way: Information-Distortion Tradeoffs in Matching

We consider the one-sided matching problem, where n agents have preferences over n items, and these preferences are induced by underlying cardinal valuation functions. The goal is to match every agent to a single item so as to maximize the social welfare. Most of the related literature, however, assumes that the values of the agents are not a priori known, and only access to the ordinal preferences of the agents over the items is provided. Consequently, this incomplete information leads to loss of efficiency, which is measured by the notion of distortion. In this paper, we further assume that the agents can answer a small number of queries, allowing us partial access to their values. We study the interplay between elicited cardinal information (measured by the number of queries per agent) and distortion for one-sided matching, as well as a wide range of well-studied related problems. Qualitatively, our results show that with a limited number of queries, it is possible to obtain significant improvements over the classic setting, where only access to ordinal information is given.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Optimally Deceiving a Learning Leader in Stackelberg Games

Recent results in the ML community have revealed that learning algorithms used to compute the optimal strategy for the leader to commit to in a Stackelberg game, are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. Such a learning algorithm operates by querying the best responses or the payoffs of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by responding as if his payoffs were much different than what they actually are. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the payoffs that would make the learning algorithm compute a commitment so that best responding to it maximizes the follower's utility, according to his true payoffs. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature only focused on the simplified scenario in which the payoff space is finite, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill in this gap, by showing that it is always possible for the follower to compute (near-)optimal payoffs for various scenarios about the learning interaction between leader and follower.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Maximum Nash Welfare and Other Stories About EFX

We consider the classic problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods among agents with additive valuation functions and explore the connection between two prominent fairness notions: maximum Nash welfare (MNW) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX). We establish that an MNW allocation is always EFX as long as there are at most two possible values for the goods, whereas this implication is no longer true for three or more distinct values. As a notable consequence, this proves the existence of EFX allocations for these restricted valuation functions. While the efficient computation of an MNW allocation for two possible values remains an open problem, we present a novel algorithm for directly constructing EFX allocations in this setting. Finally, we study the question of whether an MNW allocation implies any EFX guarantee for general additive valuation functions under a natural new interpretation of approximate EFX allocations.

cs.GT↗