Search for: All records

In a game of persuasion with evidence, a sender has private information. By presenting evidence on the information, the sender wishes to persuade a receiver to take a single action (e.g., hire a job candidate, or convict a defendant). The sender’s utility depends solely on whether the receiver takes the action. The receiver’s utility depends on both the action and the sender’s private information. We study three natural variations. First, we consider the problem of computing an equilibrium of the game without commitment power. Second, we consider a persuasion variant, where the sender commits to a signaling scheme and the receiver, after seeing the evidence, takes the action or not. Third, we study a delegation variant, where the receiver first commits to taking the action if being presented certain evidence, and the sender presents evidence to maximize the probability the action is taken. We study these variants through the computational lens, and give hardness results, optimal approximation algorithms, and polynomial-time algorithms for special cases. Among our results is an approximation algorithm that rounds a semidefinite program that might be of independent interest, since, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first such approximation algorithm in algorithmic economics. 

We study linear Fisher markets with satiation. In these markets, sellers have earning limits, and buyers have utility limits. Beyond applications in economics, they arise in the context of maximizing Nash social welfare when allocating indivisible items to agents. In contrast to markets with either earning or utility limits, markets with both limits have not been studied before. They turn out to have fundamentally different properties. In general, the existence of competitive equilibria is not guaranteed. We identify a natural property of markets (termed money clearing) that implies existence. We show that the set of equilibria is not always convex, answering a question posed in the literature. We design an FPTAS to compute an approximate equilibrium and prove that the problem of computing an exact equilibrium lies in the complexity class continuous local search ([Formula: see text]; i.e., the intersection of polynomial local search ([Formula: see text]) and polynomial parity arguments on directed graphs ([Formula: see text])). For a constant number of buyers or goods, we give a polynomial-time algorithm to compute an exact equilibrium. We show how (approximate) equilibria can be rounded and provide the first constant-factor approximation algorithm (with a factor of 2.404) for maximizing Nash social welfare when agents have capped linear (also known as budget-additive) valuations. Finally, we significantly improve the approximation hardness for additive valuations to [Formula: see text]. Funding: J. Garg was supported by the National Science Foundation [Grant CCF-1942321 (CAREER)]. M. Hoefer was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Grants Ho 3831/5-1, Ho 3831/6-1, and Ho 3831/7-1]. 

We study markets with mixed manna, where m divisible goods and chores shall be divided among n agents to obtain a competitive equilibrium. Equilibrium allocations are known to satisfy many fairness and efficiency conditions. While a lot of recent work in fair division is restricted to linear utilities and chores, we focus on a substantial generalization to separable piecewise-linear and concave (SPLC) utilities and mixed manna. We first derive polynomial-time algorithms for markets with a constant number of items or a constant number of agents. Our main result is a polynomial-time algorithm for instances with a constant number of chores (as well as any number of goods and agents) under the condition that chores dominate the utility of the agents. Interestingly, this stands in contrast to the case when the goods dominate the agents utility in equilibrium, where the problem is known to be PPAD-hard even without chores. 

We study the fair and efficient allocation of a set of indivisible goods among agents, where each good has several copies, and each agent has an additively separable concave valuation function with a threshold. These valuations capture the property of diminishing marginal returns, and they are more general than the well-studied case of additive valuations. We present a polynomial-time algorithm that approximates the optimal Nash social welfare (NSW) up to a factor of e1/e ≈ 1.445. This matches with the state-of-the-art approximation factor for additive valuations. The computed allocation also satisfies the popular fairness guarantee of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) up to a factor of 2 + ε. For instances without thresholds, it is also approximately Pareto-optimal. For instances satisfying a large market property, we show an improved approximation factor. Lastly, we show that the upper bounds on the optimal NSW introduced in Cole and Gkatzelis (2018) and Barman et al. (2018) have the same value. 

We consider the task of assigning indivisible goods to a set of agents in a fair manner. Our notion of fairness is Nash social welfare, i.e., the goal is to maximize the geometric mean of the utilities of the agents. Each good comes in multiple items or copies, and the utility of an agent diminishes as it receives more items of the same good. The utility of a bundle of items for an agent is the sum of the utilities of the items in the bundle. Each agent has a utility cap beyond which he does not value additional items. We give a polynomial time approximation algorithm that maximizes Nash social welfare up to a factor of e^{1/{e}} ~ 1.445. The computed allocation is Pareto-optimal and approximates envy-freeness up to one item up to a factor of 2 + epsilon.