Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Kangning Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Kangning Wang.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Stable Voting Rules on the Edge of Optimal Metric Distortion

We prove the existence of a randomized voting rule with metric distortion at most $2.13713$, within $0.025$ of the lower bound of $2.11264$. Our rule comes from a generalization of stable $k$-lotteries developed in the context of committee selection. In contrast to prior work, our rule samples from a single distribution derived from a zero-sum game, without mixing between voting rules. Our result also gives sharp distortion bounds for stable $k$-lotteries, and in particular shows that stable $2$-lotteries have distortion $7/3$, despite only relying on aggregate preferences over triples of candidates.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Online Matching in Convex Bipartite Graphs

Online resource-allocation systems, like outpatient scheduling and spectrum allocation, often assign sequentially arriving requests to an ordered pool of scarce resources, where each request accepts a contiguous interval of feasible options. We study the resulting online matching problem on convex bipartite graphs under irrevocable decisions and adversarial arrivals. We first show that convexity alone does not improve the classic worst-case guarantee of 1-1/e, achieved by Ranking. We then consider the uniform-length model, in which every online request has exactly d consecutive offline neighbors. We propose Flip, which uses one random bit to commit ex-ante to either earliest-feasible assignment or latest-feasible assignment. Although either natural deterministic policy can waste capacity and be asymptotically only 1/2-competitive, we show that their randomized mixture is 2/3-competitive. This guarantee is tight for Flip and remains valid against a semi-adaptive adversary that observes the selected policy before choosing the arrival order. We also prove that no randomized online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio strictly larger than 3/4 in the uniform-length model.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

CRISP: Calibration-Aware Visual State Space Duality for Remote Sensing Semantic Segmentation

State space models, especially Visual State Space Duality (VSSD), have emerged as efficient linear-time alternatives to Transformers for dense visual tasks. However, we observe that VSSD compresses spatial context into a global aggregation that suppresses high-frequency responses, causing excessive boundary smoothing in remote sensing semantic segmentation. To address this, we propose CRISP, a calibration framework with two components. Its core, the Duality Calibration Operator (DCO), restores local contrast and boundary responses through residual injection and frequency calibration within the VSSD backbone, without altering its linear complexity. To retain the recovered detail, an Orthogonal Multi-Prototype (OMP) head assigns multiple orthogonally constrained prototypes per class to model large intra-class variance. Extensive experiments on Potsdam, Vaihingen, and LoveDA show that, with approximately 30M parameters, CRISP achieves consistent gains in mean F1 (mF) and mIoU while remaining competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Code is available at https://github.com/crazylifeha/CRISP.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Pessimal Elections for Approximately Dominating Sets

Condorcet's paradox is a foundational result in social choice theory, showing that no matter which candidate wins an election, a majority of voters may prefer some losing candidate. Worse still, even if the election can choose a committee of $k$ winners, some loser may beat every winner in a majority vote. Recent work showed that this obstruction can be sidestepped by relaxing the majority threshold. For all $\varepsilon > 0$, any election can select a committee of $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ winners such that no loser is preferred to every winner by $\frac12 + \varepsilon$ fraction of voters. We present a simple construction, found by GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra, which proves that this result is tight up to a constant factor.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Dense Language Generation Made Simple: Deterministic, Randomized, and Multi-Order Algorithms

Language generation in the limit is a theoretical framework for studying how a generator can learn to produce new valid strings from a stream of positive examples. In this model, an adversary chooses an unknown language from a countable family and enumerates its elements in an arbitrary order, while the generator must eventually output only elements of the language that have not yet appeared in the enumeration. Reliable generation is thus formalized through two eventual guarantees: validity and novelty relative to the observed data. To further quantify the breadth of the generator's outputs, Kleinberg and Wei (FOCS 2025, STOC 2026) introduced lower density as a measure of output coverage. Given an order representing the importance or relevance of possible outputs, lower density is the asymptotic lower bound, as $n$ grows, on the fraction of the first $n$ elements of the target language that the generator outputs before they appear in the data. Kleinberg and Wei showed that $1/2$ is the optimal lower-density guarantee for deterministic algorithms. We develop a simple and unified framework for obtaining optimal lower-density guarantees. We first give a deterministic algorithm that recovers the optimal guarantee of $1/2$ with a significantly simpler analysis than prior work. We then demonstrate the flexibility of our framework through two extensions. First, against an oblivious adversary, randomization raises the optimal guarantee to $1-1/e$. Second, for any finite collection of orders, the optimal deterministic and randomized guarantees can be achieved simultaneously with respect to every order, so accommodating multiple notions of importance or relevance entails no loss in the optimal guarantee.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

Approximating Gains-from-Trade in Matching Markets

A central challenge in mechanism design is to develop truthful trade mechanisms that maximize the expected gains-from-trade (GFT) in two-sided markets with strategic agents. As achieving the full GFT is generally impossible, much of the literature has focused on constant-factor approximations. Existing results, however, are limited to the highly structured settings of bilateral trade and double auctions, in which every buyer can trade with every seller. We consider the significantly more general setting of two-sided matching markets with arbitrary downward-closed constraints on the family of allowed matchings. For this setting, we present a simple randomized truthful mechanism that guarantees a constant-factor approximation to the optimal expected GFT. This result also resolves an open problem posed by Cai, Goldner, Ma, and Zhao (2021).

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Additively Competitive Secretaries

In the secretary problem, a set of secretary candidates arrive in a uniformly random order and reveal their values one by one. A company, who can only hire one candidate and hopes to maximize the expected value of its hire, needs to make irrevocable online decisions about whether to hire the current candidate. The classical framework of evaluating a policy is to compute its worst-case competitive ratio against the optimal solution in hindsight, and there the best policy -- the ``$1/e$ law'' -- has a competitive ratio of $1/e$. We propose an alternative evaluation framework through the lens of regret -- the worst-case additive difference between the optimal hindsight solution and the expected performance of the policy, assuming that each value is normalized between $0$ and $1$. The $1/e$ law for the classical framework has a regret of $1 - 1/e \approx 0.632$; by contrast, we show that the class of ``pricing curves'' algorithms can guarantee a regret of at most $1/4 = 0.25$ (which is tight within the class), and the class of ``best-only pricing curves'' algorithms can guarantee a regret of at most $0.190$ (with a lower bound of $0.171$). In addition, we show that in general, no policy can give a regret guarantee better than $0.152$. Finally, we discuss other objectives in our regret-minimization framework, such as selecting the top-$k$ candidates for $k > 1$, or maximizing revenue during the selection process.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

Distortion of Metric Voting with Bounded Randomness

We study the design of voting rules in the metric distortion framework. It is known that any deterministic rule suffers distortion of at least $3$, and that randomized rules can achieve distortion strictly less than $3$, often at the cost of reduced transparency and interpretability. In this work, we explore the trade-off between these paradigms by asking whether it is possible to break the distortion barrier of $3$ using only "bounded" randomness. We answer in the affirmative by presenting a voting rule that (1) achieves distortion of at most $3 - \varepsilon$ for some absolute constant $\varepsilon > 0$, and (2) selects a winner uniformly at random from a deterministically identified list of constant size. Our analysis builds on new structural results for the distortion and approximation of Maximal Lotteries and Stable Lotteries.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Winning in the Limit: Average-Case Committee Selection with Many Candidates

We study the committee selection problem in the canonical impartial culture model with a large number of voters and an even larger candidate set. Here, each voter independently reports a uniformly random preference order over the candidates. For a fixed committee size $k$, we ask when a committee can collectively beat every candidate outside the committee by a prescribed majority level $\alpha$. We focus on two natural notions of collective dominance, $\alpha$-winning and $\alpha$-dominating sets, and we identify sharp threshold phenomena for both of them using probabilistic methods, duality arguments, and rounding techniques. We first consider $\alpha$-winning sets. A set $S$ of $k$ candidates is $\alpha$-winning if, for every outside candidate $a \notin S$, at least an $\alpha$-fraction of voters rank some member of $S$ above $a$. We show a sharp threshold at \[ \alpha_{\mathrm{win}}^\star = 1 - \frac{1}{k}. \] Specifically, an $\alpha$-winning set of size $k$ exists with high probability when $\alpha < \alpha_{\mathrm{win}}^\star$, and is unlikely to exist when $\alpha > \alpha_{\mathrm{win}}^\star$. We then study the stronger notion of $\alpha$-dominating sets. A set $S$ of $k$ candidates is $\alpha$-dominating if, for every outside candidate $a \notin S$, there exists a single committee member $b \in S$ such that at least an $\alpha$-fraction of voters prefer $b$ to $a$. Here we establish an analogous sharp threshold at \[ \alpha_{\mathrm{dom}}^\star = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2k}. \] As a corollary, our analysis yields an impossibility result for $\alpha$-dominating sets: for every $k$ and every $\alpha > \alpha_{\mathrm{dom}}^\star = 1 / 2 - 1 / (2k)$, there exist preference profiles that admit no $\alpha$-dominating set of size $k$. This corollary improves the best previously known bounds for all $k \geq 2$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2025

Strategyproof Tournament Rules for Teams with a Constant Degree of Selfishness

We revisit the well-studied problem of designing fair and manipulation-resistant tournament rules. In this problem, we seek a mechanism that (probabilistically) identifies the winner of a tournament after observing round-robin play among $n$ teams in a league. Such a mechanism should satisfy the natural properties of monotonicity and Condorcet consistency. Moreover, from the league's perspective, the winner-determination tournament rule should be strategyproof, meaning that no team can do better by losing a game on purpose. Past work considered settings in which each team is fully selfish, caring only about its own probability of winning, and settings in which each team is fully selfless, caring only about the total winning probability of itself and the team to which it deliberately loses. More recently, researchers considered a mixture of these two settings with a parameter $\lambda$. Intermediate selfishness $\lambda$ means that a team will not lose on purpose unless its pair gains at least $\lambda s$ winning probability, where $s$ is the individual team's sacrifice from its own winning probability. All of the dozens of previously known tournament rules require $\lambda = \Omega(n)$ to be strategyproof, and it has been an open problem to find such a rule with the smallest $\lambda$. In this work, we make significant progress by designing a tournament rule that is strategyproof with $\lambda = 11$. Along the way, we propose a new notion of multiplicative pairwise non-manipulability that ensures that two teams cannot manipulate the outcome of a game to increase the sum of their winning probabilities by more than a multiplicative factor $\delta$ and provide a rule which is multiplicatively pairwise non-manipulable for $\delta = 3.5$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2025

A Geometric Analysis of Gains from Trade

We provide a geometric proof that the random proposer mechanism is a $4$-approximation to the first-best gains from trade in bilateral exchange. We then refine this geometric analysis to recover the state-of-the-art approximation ratio of $3.15$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2025

Metric Distortion for Tournament Voting and Beyond

In the well-studied metric distortion problem in social choice, we have voters and candidates located in a shared metric space, and the objective is to design a voting rule that selects a candidate with minimal total distance to the voters. However, the voting rule has limited information about the distances in the metric, such as each voter's ordinal rankings of the candidates in order of distances. The central question is whether we can design rules that, for any election and underlying metric space, select a candidate whose total cost deviates from the optimal by only a small factor, referred to as the distortion. A long line of work resolved the optimal distortion of deterministic rules, and recent work resolved the optimal distortion of randomized (weighted) tournament rules, which only use the aggregate preferences between pairs of candidates. In both cases, simple rules achieve the optimal distortion of $3$. Can we achieve the best of both worlds: a deterministic tournament rule matching the lower bound of $3$? Prior to our work, the best rules have distortion $2 + \sqrt{5} \approx 4.2361$. In this work, we establish a lower bound of $3.1128$ on the distortion of any deterministic tournament rule, even when there are only 5 candidates, and improve the upper bound with a novel rule guaranteeing distortion $3.9312$. We then generalize tournament rules to the class of $k$-tournament rules which obtain the aggregate preferences between $k$-tuples of candidates. We show that there is a family of deterministic $k$-tournament rules that achieves distortion approaching $3$ as $k$ grows. Finally, we show that even with $k = 3$, a randomized $k$-tournament rule can achieve distortion less than $3$, which had been a longstanding barrier even for the larger class of ranked voting rules.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2025

Approximately Dominating Sets in Elections

Condorcet's paradox is a fundamental result in social choice theory which states that there exist elections in which, no matter which candidate wins, a majority of voters prefer a different candidate. In fact, even if we can select any $k$ winners, there still may exist another candidate that would beat each of the winners in a majority vote. That is, elections may require arbitrarily large dominating sets. We show that approximately dominating sets of constant size always exist. In particular, for every $\varepsilon > 0$, every election (irrespective of the number of voters or candidates) can select $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon ^2})$ winners such that no other candidate beats each of the winners by a margin of more than $\varepsilon$ fraction of voters. Our proof uses a simple probabilistic construction using samples from a maximal lottery, a well-studied distribution over candidates derived from the Nash equilibrium of a two-player game. In stark contrast to general approximate equilibria, which may require support logarithmic in the number of pure strategies, we show that maximal lotteries can be approximated with constant support size. These approximate maximal lotteries may be of independent interest.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2025

The Price of Competitive Information Disclosure

In many decision-making scenarios, individuals strategically choose what information to disclose to optimize their own outcomes. It is unclear whether such strategic information disclosure can lead to good societal outcomes. To address this question, we consider a competitive Bayesian persuasion model in which multiple agents selectively disclose information about their qualities to a principal, who aims to choose the candidates with the highest qualities. Using the price-of-anarchy framework, we quantify the inefficiency of such strategic disclosure. We show that the price of anarchy is at most a constant when the agents have independent quality distributions, even if their utility functions are heterogeneous. This result provides the first theoretical guarantee on the limits of inefficiency in Bayesian persuasion with competitive information disclosure.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2025

Approximately Efficient Bilateral Trade with Samples

We study the social efficiency of bilateral trade between a seller and a buyer. In the classical Bayesian setting, the celebrated Myerson-Satterthwaite impossibility theorem states that no Bayesian incentive-compatible, individually rational, and budget-balanced mechanism can achieve full efficiency. As a counterpoint, Deng, Mao, Sivan, and Wang (STOC 2022) show that if pricing power is delegated to the right person (either the seller or the buyer), the resulting mechanism can guarantee at least a constant fraction of the ideal (yet unattainable) gains from trade. In practice, the agent with pricing power may not have perfect knowledge of the value distribution of the other party, and instead may rely on samples of that distribution to set a price. We show that for a broad class of sampling and pricing behaviors, the resulting market still guarantees a constant fraction of the ideal gains from trade in expectation. Our analysis hinges on the insight that social welfare under sample-based pricing approximates the seller's optimal revenue -- a result we establish via a reduction to a random walk.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2024

Breaking the Metric Voting Distortion Barrier

We consider the following well-studied problem of metric distortion in social choice. Suppose we have an election with $n$ voters and $m$ candidates located in a shared metric space. We would like to design a voting rule that chooses a candidate whose average distance to the voters is small. However, instead of having direct access to the distances in the metric space, the voting rule obtains, from each voter, a ranked list of the candidates in order of distance. Can we design a rule that regardless of the election instance and underlying metric space, chooses a candidate whose cost differs from the true optimum by only a small factor (known as the distortion)? A long line of work culminated in finding optimal deterministic voting rules with metric distortion $3$. However, for randomized voting rules, there is still a gap in our understanding: Even though the best lower bound is $2.112$, the best upper bound is still $3$, attained even by simple rules such as Random Dictatorship. Finding a randomized rule that guarantees distortion $3 - ε$ has been a major challenge in computational social choice, as prevalent approaches to designing voting rules are known to be insufficient. Such a voting rule must use information beyond aggregate comparisons between pairs of candidates, and cannot only assign positive probability to candidates that are voters' top choices. In this work, we give a rule that guarantees distortion less than $2.753$. To do so we study a handful of voting rules that are new to the problem. One is Maximal Lotteries, a rule based on the Nash equilibrium of a natural zero-sum game which dates back to the 60's. The others are novel rules that can be thought of as hybrids of Random Dictatorship and the Copeland rule. Though none of these rules can beat distortion $3$ alone, a randomization between Maximal Lotteries and any of the novel rules can.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2024

Six Candidates Suffice to Win a Voter Majority

A cornerstone of social choice theory is Condorcet's paradox which says that in an election where $n$ voters rank $m$ candidates it is possible that, no matter which candidate is declared the winner, a majority of voters would have preferred an alternative candidate. Instead, can we always choose a small committee of winning candidates that is preferred to any alternative candidate by a majority of voters? Elkind, Lang, and Saffidine raised this question and called such a committee a Condorcet winning set. They showed that winning sets of size $2$ may not exist, but sets of size logarithmic in the number of candidates always do. In this work, we show that Condorcet winning sets of size $6$ always exist, regardless of the number of candidates or the number of voters. More generally, we show that if $\frac{\alpha}{1 - \ln \alpha} \geq \frac{2}{k + 1}$, then there always exists a committee of size $k$ such that less than an $\alpha$ fraction of the voters prefer an alternate candidate. These are the first nontrivial positive results that apply for all $k \geq 2$. Our proof uses the probabilistic method and the minimax theorem, inspired by recent work on approximately stable committee selection. We construct a distribution over committees that performs sufficiently well (when compared against any candidate on any small subset of the voters) so that this distribution must contain a committee with the desired property in its support.

cs.GT↗