arXiv subjects

Kate Larson

Publications and source records attributed to Kate Larson.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2021

Improving Welfare in One-sided Matching using Simple Threshold Queries

We study one-sided matching problems where $n$ agents have preferences over $m$ objects and each of them need to be assigned to at most one object. Most work on such problems assume that the agents only have ordinal preferences and usually the goal in them is to compute a matching that satisfies some notion of economic efficiency. However, in reality, agents may have some preference intensities or cardinal utilities that, e.g., indicate that they like an object much more than another object, and not taking these into account can result in a loss in welfare. While one way to potentially account for these is to directly ask the agents for this information, such an elicitation process is cognitively demanding. Therefore, we focus on learning more about their cardinal preferences using simple threshold queries which ask an agent if they value an object greater than a certain value, and use this in turn to come up with algorithms that produce a matching that, for a particular economic notion $X$, satisfies $X$ and also achieves a good approximation to the optimal welfare among all matchings that satisfy $X$. We focus on several notions of economic efficiency, and look at both adaptive and non-adaptive algorithms. Overall, our results show how one can improve welfare by even non-adaptively asking the agents for just one bit of extra information per object.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Open Problems in Cooperative AI

Problems of cooperation--in which agents seek ways to jointly improve their welfare--are ubiquitous and important. They can be found at scales ranging from our daily routines--such as driving on highways, scheduling meetings, and working collaboratively--to our global challenges--such as peace, commerce, and pandemic preparedness. Arguably, the success of the human species is rooted in our ability to cooperate. Since machines powered by artificial intelligence are playing an ever greater role in our lives, it will be important to equip them with the capabilities necessary to cooperate and to foster cooperation. We see an opportunity for the field of artificial intelligence to explicitly focus effort on this class of problems, which we term Cooperative AI. The objective of this research would be to study the many aspects of the problems of cooperation and to innovate in AI to contribute to solving these problems. Central goals include building machine agents with the capabilities needed for cooperation, building tools to foster cooperation in populations of (machine and/or human) agents, and otherwise conducting AI research for insight relevant to problems of cooperation. This research integrates ongoing work on multi-agent systems, game theory and social choice, human-machine interaction and alignment, natural-language processing, and the construction of social tools and platforms. However, Cooperative AI is not the union of these existing areas, but rather an independent bet about the productivity of specific kinds of conversations that involve these and other areas. We see opportunity to more explicitly focus on the problem of cooperation, to construct unified theory and vocabulary, and to build bridges with adjacent communities working on cooperation, including in the natural, social, and behavioural sciences.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2019

Mechanism Design for Locating a Facility under Partial Information

We study the classic mechanism design problem of locating a public facility on a real line. In contrast to previous work, we assume that the agents are unable to fully specify where their preferred location lies, and instead only provide coarse information---namely, that their preferred location lies in some interval. Given such partial preference information, we explore the design of robust deterministic mechanisms, where by robust mechanisms we mean ones that perform well with respect to all the possible unknown true preferred locations of the agents. Towards this end, we consider two well-studied objective functions and look at implementing these under two natural solution concepts for our setting i) very weak dominance and ii) minimax dominance. We show that under the former solution concept, there are no mechanisms that do better than a naive mechanism which always, irrespective of the information provided by the agents, outputs the same location. However, when using the latter, weaker, solution concept, we show that one can do significantly better, and we provide upper and lower bounds on the performance of mechanisms for the objective functions of interest. Furthermore, we note that our mechanisms can be viewed as extensions to the classical optimal mechanisms in that they perform optimally when agents precisely know and specify their preferred locations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Robust and Approximately Stable Marriages under Partial Information

We study the stable marriage problem in the partial information setting where the agents, although they have an underlying true strict linear order, are allowed to specify partial orders. Specifically, we focus on the case where the agents are allowed to submit strict weak orders and we try to address the following questions from the perspective of a market-designer: i) How can a designer generate matchings that are robust? ii) What is the trade-off between the amount of missing information and the "quality" of solution one can get? With the goal of resolving these questions through a simple and prior-free approach, we suggest looking at matchings that minimize the maximum number of blocking pairs with respect to all the possible underlying true orders as a measure of "quality", and subsequently provide results on finding such matchings. In particular, we first restrict our attention to matchings that have to be stable with respect to at least one of the completions and show that in this case arbitrarily filling-in the missing information and computing the resulting stable matching can give a non-trivial approximation factor for our problem in certain cases. We complement this result by showing that, even under severe restrictions on the preferences of the agents, the factor obtained is asymptotically tight in many cases. We then investigate a special case, where only agents on one side provide strict weak orders and all the missing information is at the bottom of their preference orders, and show that here the negative result mentioned above can be circumvented in order to get a much better approximation factor; this result, too, is tight in many cases. Finally, we move away from the restriction mentioned above and show a general hardness of approximation result and also discuss one possible approach that can lead us to a near-tight approximation bound.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

Deterministic, Strategyproof, and Fair Cake Cutting

We study the classic cake cutting problem from a mechanism design perspective, in particular focusing on deterministic mechanisms that are strategyproof and fair. We begin by looking at mechanisms that are non-wasteful and primarily show that for even the restricted class of piecewise constant valuations there exists no direct-revelation mechanism that is strategyproof and even approximately proportional. Subsequently, we remove the non-wasteful constraint and show another impossibility result stating that there is no strategyproof and approximately proportional direct-revelation mechanism that outputs contiguous allocations, again, for even the restricted class of piecewise constant valuations. In addition to the above results, we also present some negative results when considering an approximate notion of strategyproofness, show a connection between direct-revelation mechanisms and mechanisms in the Robertson-Webb model when agents have piecewise constant valuations, and finally also present a (minor) modification to the well-known Even-Paz algorithm that has better incentive-compatible properties for the cases when there are two or three agents.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

Investigating the Characteristics of One-Sided Matching Mechanisms Under Various Preferences and Risk Attitudes

One-sided matching mechanisms are fundamental for assigning a set of indivisible objects to a set of self-interested agents when monetary transfers are not allowed. Two widely-studied randomized mechanisms in multiagent settings are the Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) and the Probabilistic Serial Rule (PS). Both mechanisms require only that agents specify ordinal preferences and have a number of desirable economic and computational properties. However, the induced outcomes of the mechanisms are often incomparable and thus there are challenges when it comes to deciding which mechanism to adopt in practice. In this paper, we first consider the space of general ordinal preferences and provide empirical results on the (in)comparability of RSD and PS. We analyze their respective economic properties under general and lexicographic preferences. We then instantiate utility functions with the goal of gaining insights on the manipulability, efficiency, and envyfreeness of the mechanisms under different risk-attitude models. Our results hold under various preference distribution models, which further confirm the broad use of RSD in most practical applications.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Strategyproof Quota Mechanisms for Multiple Assignment Problems

We study the problem of allocating multiple objects to agents without transferable utilities, where each agent may receive more than one object according to a quota. Under lexicographic preferences, we characterize the set of strategyproof, non-bossy, and neutral quota mechanisms and show that under a mild Pareto efficiency condition, serial dictatorship quota mechanisms are the only mechanisms satisfying these properties. Dropping the neutrality requirement, this class of quota mechanisms further expands to sequential dictatorship quota mechanisms. We then extend quota mechanisms to randomized settings, and show that the random serial dictatorship quota mechanisms (RSDQ) are envyfree, strategyproof, and ex post efficient for any number of agents and objects and any quota system, proving that the well-studied Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) satisfies envyfreeness when preferences are lexicographic.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2015

Reinstating Combinatorial Protections for Manipulation and Bribery in Single-Peaked and Nearly Single-Peaked Electorates

Understanding when and how computational complexity can be used to protect elections against different manipulative actions has been a highly active research area over the past two decades. A recent body of work, however, has shown that many of the NP-hardness shields, previously obtained, vanish when the electorate has single-peaked or nearly single-peaked preferences. In light of these results, we investigate whether it is possible to reimpose NP-hardness shields for such electorates by allowing the voters to specify partial preferences instead of insisting they cast complete ballots. In particular, we show that in single-peaked and nearly single-peaked electorates, if voters are allowed to submit top-truncated ballots, then the complexity of manipulation and bribery for many voting rules increases from being in P to being NP-complete.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2015

Complexity of Manipulation in Elections with Top-truncated Ballots

In the computational social choice literature, there has been great interest in understanding how computational complexity can act as a barrier against manipulation of elections. Much of this literature, however, makes the assumption that the voters or agents specify a complete preference ordering over the set of candidates. There are many multiagent systems applications, and even real-world elections, where this assumption is not warranted, and this in turn raises the question "How hard is it to manipulate elections if the agents reveal only partial preference orderings?" It is this question we try to address in this paper. In particular, we look at the weighted manipulation problem -- both constructive and destructive manipulation -- when the voters are allowed to specify any top-truncated ordering over the set of candidates. We provide general results for all scoring rules, for elimination versions of all scoring rules, for the plurality with runoff rule, for a family of election systems known as Copeland$^α$, and for the maximin protocol. Finally, we also look at the impact on complexity of manipulation when there is uncertainty about the non-manipulators' votes.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2015

Random Serial Dictatorship versus Probabilistic Serial Rule: A Tale of Two Random Mechanisms

For assignment problems where agents, specifying ordinal preferences, are allocated indivisible objects, two widely studied randomized mechanisms are the Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) and Probabilistic Serial Rule (PS). These two mechanisms both have desirable economic and computational properties, but the outcomes they induce can be incomparable in many instances, thus creating challenges in deciding which mechanism to adopt in practice. In this paper we first look at the space of lexicographic preferences and show that, as opposed to the general preference domain, RSD satisfies envyfreeness. Moreover, we show that although under lexicographic preferences PS is strategyproof when the number of objects is less than or equal agents, it is strictly manipulable when there are more objects than agents. In the space of general preferences, we provide empirical results on the (in)comparability of RSD and PS, analyze economic properties, and provide further insights on the applicability of each mechanism in different application domains.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

Inducing Honest Reporting Without Observing Outcomes: An Application to the Peer-Review Process

When eliciting opinions from a group of experts, traditional devices used to promote honest reporting assume that there is an observable future outcome. In practice, however, this assumption is not always reasonable. In this paper, we propose a scoring method built on strictly proper scoring rules to induce honest reporting without assuming observable outcomes. Our method provides scores based on pairwise comparisons between the reports made by each pair of experts in the group. For ease of exposition, we introduce our scoring method by illustrating its application to the peer-review process. In order to do so, we start by modeling the peer-review process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account. Thereafter, we introduce our scoring method to evaluate the reported reviews. Under the assumptions that reviewers are Bayesian decision-makers and that they cannot influence the reviews of other reviewers, we show that risk-neutral reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing their reviews. We also show how the group's scores can be used to find a consensual review. Experimental results show that encouraging honest reporting through the proposed scoring method creates more accurate reviews than the traditional peer-review process.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2013

Matching Demand with Supply in the Smart Grid using Agent-Based Multiunit Auction

Recent work has suggested reducing electricity generation cost by cutting the peak to average ratio (PAR) without reducing the total amount of the loads. However, most of these proposals rely on consumer's willingness to act. In this paper, we propose an approach to cut PAR explicitly from the supply side. The resulting cut loads are then distributed among consumers by the means of a multiunit auction which is done by an intelligent agent on behalf of the consumer. This approach is also in line with the future vision of the smart grid to have the demand side matched with the supply side. Experiments suggest that our approach reduces overall system cost and gives benefit to both consumers and the energy provider.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2013

On a Reliable Peer-Review Process

We propose an enhanced peer-review process where the reviewers are encouraged to truthfully disclose their reviews. We start by modelling that process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account. After that, we introduce a scoring function to evaluate the reported reviews. Under mild assumptions, we show that reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by telling the truth. We also show how those scores can be used in order to reach consensus.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

Sharing a Reward Based on Peer Evaluations

We study a problem where a group of agents has to decide how some fixed value should be shared among them. We are interested in settings where the share that each agent receives is based on how that agent is evaluated by other members of the group, where highly regarded agents receive a greater share compared to agents that are not well regarded. We introduce two mechanisms for determining agents' shares: the peer-evaluation mechanism, where each agent gives a direct evaluation for every other member of the group, and the peer-prediction mechanism, where each agent is asked to report how they believe group members will evaluate a particular agent. The sharing is based on the provided information. While both mechanisms are individually rational, the first mechanism is strategy-proof and budget-balanced, but it can be collusion-prone. Further, the second mechanism is collusion-resistant and incentive-compatible.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

A Truth Serum for Sharing Rewards

We study a problem where a group of agents has to decide how a joint reward should be shared among them. We focus on settings where the share that each agent receives depends on the subjective opinions of its peers concerning that agent's contribution to the group. To this end, we introduce a mechanism to elicit and aggregate subjective opinions as well as for determining agents' shares. The intuition behind the proposed mechanism is that each agent who believes that the others are telling the truth has its expected share maximized to the extent that it is well-evaluated by its peers and that it is truthfully reporting its opinions. Under the assumptions that agents are Bayesian decision-makers and that the underlying population is sufficiently large, we show that our mechanism is incentive-compatible, budget-balanced, and tractable. We also present strategies to make this mechanism individually rational and fair.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

A Consensual Linear Opinion Pool

An important question when eliciting opinions from experts is how to aggregate the reported opinions. In this paper, we propose a pooling method to aggregate expert opinions. Intuitively, it works as if the experts were continuously updating their opinions in order to accommodate the expertise of others. Each updated opinion takes the form of a linear opinion pool, where the weight that an expert assigns to a peer's opinion is inversely related to the distance between their opinions. In other words, experts are assumed to prefer opinions that are close to their own opinions. We prove that such an updating process leads to consensus, \textit{i.e.}, the experts all converge towards the same opinion. Further, we show that if rational experts are rewarded using the quadratic scoring rule, then the assumption that they prefer opinions that are close to their own opinions follows naturally. We empirically demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method using real-world data.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2012

Equilibria of Chinese Auctions

Chinese auctions are a combination between a raffle and an auction and are held in practice at charity events or festivals. In a Chinese auction, multiple players compete for several items by buying tickets, which can be used to win the items. In front of each item there is a basket, and the players can bid by placing tickets in the basket(s) corresponding to the item(s) they are trying to win. After all the players have placed their tickets, a ticket is drawn at random from each basket and the item is given to the owner of the winning ticket. While a player is never guaranteed to win an item, they can improve their chances of getting it by increasing the number of tickets for that item. In this paper we investigate the existence of pure Nash equilibria in both the continuous and discrete settings. When the players have continuous budgets, we show that a pure Nash equilibrium may not exist for asymmetric games when some valuations are zero. In that case we prove that the auctioneer can stabilize the game by placing his own ticket in each basket. On the other hand, when all the valuations are strictly positive, a pure Nash equilibrium is guaranteed to exist, and the equilibrium strategies are symmetric when both valuations and budgets are symmetric. We also study Chinese auctions with discrete budgets, for which we give both existence results and counterexamples. While the literature on rent-seeking contests traditionally focuses on continuous costly tickets, the discrete variant is very natural and more closely models the version of the auction held in practice.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2012

Network Bargaining: Using Approximate Blocking Sets to Stabilize Unstable Instances

We study a network extension to the Nash bargaining game, as introduced by Kleinberg and Tardos (STOC'08), where the set of players corresponds to vertices in a graph $G=(V,E)$ and each edge $ij\in E$ represents a possible deal between players $i$ and $j$. We reformulate the problem as a cooperative game and study the following question: Given a game with an empty core (i.e. an unstable game) is it possible, through minimal changes in the underlying network, to stabilize the game? We show that by removing edges in the network that belong to a blocking set we can find a stable solution in polynomial time. This motivates the problem of finding small blocking sets. While it has been previously shown that finding the smallest blocking set is NP-hard (Biro,Kern,Paulusma, TAMC'10), we show that it is possible to efficiently find approximate blocking sets in sparse graphs.

cs.GT↗