Showing 1–22 of 22 results for author: Birmpas, G

Reward Schemes and Committee Sizes in Proof of Stake Governance

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos, Evangelos Markakis, Paolo Penna

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 31 July, 2024; v1 submitted 15 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Algorithmically Fair Maximization of Multiple Submodular Objective Functions

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser

Abstract: Constrained maximization of submodular functions poses a central problem in combinatorial optimization. In many realistic scenarios, a number of agents need to maximize multiple submodular objectives over the same ground set. We study such a setting, where the different solutions must be disjoint, and thus, questions of algorithmic fairness arise. Inspired from the fair division literature, we sug… ▽ More Constrained maximization of submodular functions poses a central problem in combinatorial optimization. In many realistic scenarios, a number of agents need to maximize multiple submodular objectives over the same ground set. We study such a setting, where the different solutions must be disjoint, and thus, questions of algorithmic fairness arise. Inspired from the fair division literature, we suggest a simple round-robin protocol, where agents are allowed to build their solutions one item at a time by taking turns. Unlike what is typical in fair division, however, the prime goal here is to provide a fair algorithmic environment; each agent is allowed to use any algorithm for constructing their respective solutions. We show that just by following simple greedy policies, agents have solid guarantees for both monotone and non-monotone objectives, and for combinatorial constraints as general as $p$-systems (which capture cardinality and matroid intersection constraints). In the monotone case, our results include approximate EF1-type guarantees and their implications in fair division may be of independent interest. Further, although following a greedy policy may not be optimal in general, we show that consistently performing better than that is computationally hard. △ Less

Submitted 19 July, 2024; v1 submitted 23 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Fair Division with Interdependent Values

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Tomer Ezra, Stefano Leonardi, Matteo Russo

Abstract: 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 s… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 23 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

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

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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! △ Less

Submitted 31 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: Recent Progress and Open Questions

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Haris Aziz, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Hervé Moulin, Alexandros A. Voudouris, Xiaowei Wu

Abstract: 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 proportio… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 21 June, 2023; v1 submitted 18 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: This survey unifies and extends preliminary versions that appeared in IJCAI 2022 (arXiv:2202.07551) and SIGecom Exchanges (arXiv:2202.08713). It has been accepted for publication to the journal of Artificial Intelligence (AIJ)

Decentralised Update Selection with Semi-Strategic Experts

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos, Francisco J. Marmolejo-Cossío

Abstract: 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 th… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 17 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

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

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alexandros A. Voudouris

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 4 October, 2022; v1 submitted 3 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: A conference version of this work was accepted in the 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022)

Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: A Survey

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alexandros A. Voudouris

Abstract: 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)… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2022; v1 submitted 15 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

Parallel Contests for Crowdsourcing Reviews: Existence and Quality of Equilibria

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Lyudmila Kovalchuk, Philip Lazos, Roman Oliynykov

Abstract: 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 'exce… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 8 May, 2025; v1 submitted 8 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

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

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Federico Fusco, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser

Abstract: 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 f… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 11 December, 2023; v1 submitted 17 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: The conference version of this work was presented at the 17th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE 2021). The journal version has been accepted to Mathematics of Operations Research

Fair Equilibria in Sponsored Search Auctions: The Advertisers' Perspective

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Andrea Celli, Riccardo Colini-Baldeschi, Stefano Leonardi

Abstract: 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, $β$-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 fai… ▽ More 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, $β$-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. △ Less

Submitted 18 October, 2022; v1 submitted 17 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

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

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alexandros A. Voudouris

Abstract: 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 preference… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 14 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Optimally Deceiving a Learning Leader in Stackelberg Games

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Jiarui Gan, Alexandros Hollender, Francisco J. Marmolejo-Cossío, Ninad Rajgopal, Alexandros A. Voudouris

Abstract: 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 differ… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Journal ref: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 72:507-531 (2021)

Maximum Nash Welfare and Other Stories About EFX

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alexandros Hollender, Alexandros A. Voudouris

Abstract: 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 lon… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 1 June, 2020; v1 submitted 27 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Journal ref: Theoretical Computer Science, 863:69-85 (2021)

Cost Sharing over Combinatorial Domains: Complement-Free Cost Functions and Beyond

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Evangelos Markakis, Guido Schäfer

Abstract: We study mechanism design for combinatorial cost sharing. Imagine that multiple items or services are available to be shared among a set of interested agents. The outcome of a mechanism in this setting consists of an assignment, determining for each item the set of players who are granted service, together with respective payments. Although there are several works studying specialized versions of… ▽ More We study mechanism design for combinatorial cost sharing. Imagine that multiple items or services are available to be shared among a set of interested agents. The outcome of a mechanism in this setting consists of an assignment, determining for each item the set of players who are granted service, together with respective payments. Although there are several works studying specialized versions of such problems, there has been almost no progress for general combinatorial cost sharing domains until recently \cite{DobzinskiO17}. The main goal of our work is to further understand this interplay in terms of budget balance and social cost approximation. Towards this, we provide a refinement of cross-monotonicity (trace-monotonicity) that is applicable to iterative mechanisms. The trace here refers to the order in which players become finalized. On top of this, we also provide two parameterizations of cost functions which capture the behavior of their average cost-shares. Based on our trace-monotonicity property, we design a scheme of ascending cost sharing mechanisms which is applicable to the combinatorial cost sharing setting with symmetric submodular valuations. Using our first cost function parameterization, we identify conditions under which our mechanism is weakly group-strategyproof, $O(1)$-budget-balanced and $O(H_n)$-approximate with respect to the social cost. Finally, we consider general valuation functions and exploit our second parameterization to derive a more fine-grained analysis of the Sequential Mechanism introduced by Moulin. This mechanism is budget balanced by construction, but in general only guarantees a poor social cost approximation of $n$. We identify conditions under which the mechanism achieves improved social cost approximation guarantees. △ Less

Submitted 14 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Fairness and Efficiency in DAG-based Cryptocurrencies

Authors: Georgios Birmpas, Elias Koutsoupias, Philip Lazos, Francisco J. Marmolejo-Cossío

Abstract: Bitcoin is a decentralised digital currency that serves as an alternative to existing transaction systems based on an external central authority for security. Although Bitcoin has many desirable properties, one of its fundamental shortcomings is its inability to process transactions at high rates. To address this challenge, many subsequent protocols either modify the rules of block acceptance (lon… ▽ More Bitcoin is a decentralised digital currency that serves as an alternative to existing transaction systems based on an external central authority for security. Although Bitcoin has many desirable properties, one of its fundamental shortcomings is its inability to process transactions at high rates. To address this challenge, many subsequent protocols either modify the rules of block acceptance (longest chain rule) and reward, or alter the graphical structure of the public ledger from a tree to a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Motivated by these approaches, we introduce a new general framework that captures ledger growth for a large class of DAG-based implementations. With this in hand, and by assuming honest miner behaviour, we (experimentally) explore how different DAG-based protocols perform in terms of fairness, i.e., if the block reward of a miner is proportional to their hash power, as well as efficiency, i.e. what proportion of user transactions a ledger deems valid after a certain length of time. Our results demonstrate fundamental structural limits on how well DAG-based ledger protocols cope with a high transaction load. More specifically, we show that even in a scenario where every miner on the system is honest in terms of when they publish blocks, what they point to, and what transactions each block contains, fairness and efficiency of the ledger can break down at specific hash rates if miners have differing levels of connectivity to the P2P network sustaining the protocol. △ Less

Submitted 4 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Peeking Behind the Ordinal Curtain: Improving Distortion via Cardinal Queries

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Alexandros A. Voudouris

Abstract: 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 Rosensche… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 15 April, 2021; v1 submitted 18 July, 2019; originally announced July 2019.

Comparing Approximate Relaxations of Envy-Freeness

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Evangelos Markakis

Abstract: In fair division problems with indivisible goods it is well known that one cannot have any guarantees for the classic fairness notions of envy-freeness and proportionality. As a result, several relaxations have been introduced, most of which in quite recent works. We focus on four such notions, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), maximin share fairness (M… ▽ More In fair division problems with indivisible goods it is well known that one cannot have any guarantees for the classic fairness notions of envy-freeness and proportionality. As a result, several relaxations have been introduced, most of which in quite recent works. We focus on four such notions, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), maximin share fairness (MMS), and pairwise maximin share fairness (PMMS). Since obtaining these relaxations also turns out to be problematic in several scenarios, approximate versions of them have been considered. In this work, we investigate further the connections between the four notions mentioned above and their approximate versions. We establish several tight, or almost tight, results concerning the approximation quality that any of these notions guarantees for the others, providing an almost complete picture of this landscape. Some of our findings reveal interesting and surprising consequences regarding the power of these notions, e.g., PMMS and EFX provide the same worst-case guarantee for MMS, despite PMMS being a strictly stronger notion than EFX. We believe such implications provide further insight on the quality of approximately fair solutions. △ Less

Submitted 8 June, 2018; originally announced June 2018.

Comments: accepted in IJCAI 2018

Truthful Allocation Mechanisms Without Payments: Characterization and Implications on Fairness

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, George Christodoulou, Evangelos Markakis

Abstract: We study the mechanism design problem of allocating a set of indivisible items without monetary transfers. Despite the vast literature on this very standard model, it still remains unclear how do truthful mechanisms look like. We focus on the case of two players with additive valuation functions and our purpose is twofold. First, our main result provides a complete characterization of truthful mec… ▽ More We study the mechanism design problem of allocating a set of indivisible items without monetary transfers. Despite the vast literature on this very standard model, it still remains unclear how do truthful mechanisms look like. We focus on the case of two players with additive valuation functions and our purpose is twofold. First, our main result provides a complete characterization of truthful mechanisms that allocate all the items to the players. Our characterization reveals an interesting structure underlying all truthful mechanisms, showing that they can be decomposed into two components: a selection part where players pick their best subset among prespecified choices determined by the mechanism, and an exchange part where players are offered the chance to exchange certain subsets if it is favorable to do so. In the remaining paper, we apply our main result and derive several consequences on the design of mechanisms with fairness guarantees. We consider various notions of fairness, (indicatively, maximin share guarantees and envy-freeness up to one item) and provide tight bounds for their approximability. Our work settles some of the open problems in this agenda, and we conclude by discussing possible extensions to more players. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Comments: To appear in the 18th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (ACM EC '17)

On Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design for Symmetric Submodular Objectives

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Evangelos Markakis

Abstract: We study a class of procurement auctions with a budget constraint, where an auctioneer is interested in buying resources or services from a set of agents. Ideally, the auctioneer would like to select a subset of the resources so as to maximize his valuation function, without exceeding a given budget. As the resources are owned by strategic agents however, our overall goal is to design mechanisms t… ▽ More We study a class of procurement auctions with a budget constraint, where an auctioneer is interested in buying resources or services from a set of agents. Ideally, the auctioneer would like to select a subset of the resources so as to maximize his valuation function, without exceeding a given budget. As the resources are owned by strategic agents however, our overall goal is to design mechanisms that are truthful, budget-feasible, and obtain a good approximation to the optimal value. Budget-feasibility creates additional challenges, making several approaches inapplicable in this setting. Previous results on budget-feasible mechanisms have considered mostly monotone valuation functions. In this work, we mainly focus on symmetric submodular valuations, a prominent class of non-monotone submodular functions that includes cut functions. We begin first with a purely algorithmic result, obtaining a $\frac{2e}{e-1}$-approximation for maximizing symmetric submodular functions under a budget constraint. We view this as a standalone result of independent interest, as it is the best known factor achieved by a deterministic algorithm. We then proceed to propose truthful, budget feasible mechanisms (both deterministic and randomized), paying particular attention on the Budgeted Max Cut problem. Our results significantly improve the known approximation ratios for these objectives, while establishing polynomial running time for cases where only exponential mechanisms were known. At the heart of our approach lies an appropriate combination of local search algorithms with results for monotone submodular valuations, applied to the derived local optima. △ Less

Submitted 9 October, 2017; v1 submitted 23 April, 2017; originally announced April 2017.

Comments: A conference version appears in WINE 2017

Coverage, Matching, and Beyond: New Results on Budgeted Mechanism Design

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Evangelos Markakis

Abstract: We study a type of reverse (procurement) auction problems in the presence of budget constraints. The general algorithmic problem is to purchase a set of resources, which come at a cost, so as not to exceed a given budget and at the same time maximize a given valuation function. This framework captures the budgeted version of several well known optimization problems, and when the resources are owne… ▽ More We study a type of reverse (procurement) auction problems in the presence of budget constraints. The general algorithmic problem is to purchase a set of resources, which come at a cost, so as not to exceed a given budget and at the same time maximize a given valuation function. This framework captures the budgeted version of several well known optimization problems, and when the resources are owned by strategic agents the goal is to design truthful and budget feasible mechanisms, i.e. elicit the true cost of the resources and ensure the payments of the mechanism do not exceed the budget. Budget feasibility introduces more challenges in mechanism design, and we study instantiations of this problem for certain classes of submodular and XOS valuation functions. We first obtain mechanisms with an improved approximation ratio for weighted coverage valuations, a special class of submodular functions that has already attracted attention in previous works. We then provide a general scheme for designing randomized and deterministic polynomial time mechanisms for a class of XOS problems. This class contains problems whose feasible set forms an independence system (a more general structure than matroids), and some representative problems include, among others, finding maximum weighted matchings, maximum weighted matroid members, and maximum weighted 3D-matchings. For most of these problems, only randomized mechanisms with very high approximation ratios were known prior to our results. △ Less

Submitted 4 October, 2016; originally announced October 2016.

On Truthful Mechanisms for Maximin Share Allocations

Authors: Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Evangelos Markakis

Abstract: We study a fair division problem with indivisible items, namely the computation of maximin share allocations. Given a set of $n$ players, the maximin share of a single player is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she would partition the items in any way she prefers, into $n$ bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find an allocation, so that each playe… ▽ More We study a fair division problem with indivisible items, namely the computation of maximin share allocations. Given a set of $n$ players, the maximin share of a single player is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she would partition the items in any way she prefers, into $n$ bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find an allocation, so that each player is guaranteed her maximin share. Previous works have studied this problem mostly algorithmically, providing constant factor approximation algorithms. In this work we embark on a mechanism design approach and investigate the existence of truthful mechanisms. We propose three models regarding the information that the mechanism attempts to elicit from the players, based on the cardinal and ordinal representation of preferences. We establish positive and negative (impossibility) results for each model and highlight the limitations imposed by truthfulness on the approximability of the problem. Finally, we pay particular attention to the case of two players, which already leads to challenging questions. △ Less

Submitted 12 May, 2016; originally announced May 2016.