Papers

Aggregate performance in smart mobility systems depends heavily on the emergent behavior of selfish, resource-sharing agents that participate within the systems. As a result, recent work has focused on how a system designer can leverage incentives to influence behavior so that system cost (e.g., traffic congestion) is minimized. These results show that worst-case equilibria can be quite inefficient compared to system-optimal allocations. However, it is unclear to what extent agents are “satisfied” with their decisions in these worst-case scenarios. We demonstrate that in any incentivized atomic congestion game, agents' aggregate satisfaction at equilibrium (relative to their actions in an optimal allocation) is correlated with the efficiency of the corresponding system cost, in the sense that if agents are very satisfied with their equilibrium choices, the equilibrium must be relatively efficient. Further, we show that worst-case Nash equilibria are fragile, as every agent is indifferent between their action in a worst-case equilibrium and their action in a system-optimal allocation. In summary, at equilibrium, either agents are highly satisfied with their decisions or their decisions are highly inefficient, but both cannot be true simultaneously. This work adds to recent results for other classes of games which indicate that worst-case equilibrium efficiency guarantees only occur when agents are indifferent about their decisions.

Conditional transaction engines (CTEs) execute conditional instructions for offline users. This paper formalizes the mechanism-design problem within each engine invocation. A conditional transaction mechanism (CTM) decides which pending conditions to evaluate first because each evaluation delays the eventual write. We model this problem as Strategic Pandora, a discounted variant of the Pandora's box model with independent Bernoulli boxes. Agents report privately assessed success probabilities and, in the full model, values for the write action. We propose the reported-Weitzman mechanism (RW) and the reported-values second-price mechanism (RWSP). To compare revenue without a common prior, we introduce dynamic No-Betting Revenue. Under the stated competition and equilibrium conditions, every qualifying pure equilibrium of RW or RWSP earns a constant fraction of its corresponding dynamic NBR benchmark.

This work considers multi-agent coordination with arbitrary information networks among the agents using a game-theoretic approach. A system designer aims to assign local utility functions to the agents to guide their actions toward a desired system objective. The performance of the assigned local utilities is measured by the well known pure price of anarchy (pPoA) metric that equals the ratio of the system objective at the worst pure Nash equilibrium of the corresponding game to the optimal system objective. Our aim is to derive the utility functions which optimize the pPoA-based performance guarantees for any given information network and system objective. We develop a linear program that derives the optimal pPoA for any arbitrary information network and arbitrary system objective. Our work is the first to solve optimal utility design for arbitrary networks; our techniques generalize previous approaches which considered only the full-information setting. For supermodular objective functions, we prove that counterintuitively, a fully communication-denied utility design is optimal irrespective of the original information network. For submodular system objectives, an exhaustive numerical analysis suggests that the optimal utility design is robust to communication failures even for this case. When the system objective is weighted maximum coverage, the marginal contribution utility design provably optimizes the pPoA for a wide variety of information networks of interest.

The Dark Forest argument holds that a civilization that detects another should strike it at once. Existing formal models make the detected civilization the object of the strike and play it on a roster the attacker knows to be complete. This paper changes both choices. The object of hostility is remaining uncontrolled capacity to retaliate or to warn someone who can, and the roster is open: no attacker ever knows it has met everyone. A first strike is then rational only if the timing benefit of what it removes now rather than later is at least the disclosure loss from every survivor that learns of it. A survivor that can bring about the attacker's destruction enters that loss as a lump, not a per-unit rate, and the actors the attacker has never found may be such a survivor, one that no strike removes. Their capacity cannot be estimated, but what they can do is capped at the attacker's destruction, so the test against them asks one answerable question: a first strike is rational only if the attacker accepts that the strike may be its last attack. The Dark Forest premises, read as hypotheses, fix what a general attacker cannot estimate: hidden hunters exist, a hunter that verifies a hostile acts against it with probability at least $q$, and a hider is rarely found, so a believer's first strike is rational only if what it removes is worth a $q$-share of its survival, the whole of it as $q$ approaches one. With survival as the payoff, the profile in which every hunter strikes what it finds is not a Nash equilibrium whenever a strike is more visible to unfound hunters than a hider is findable, while the profile in which every hunter hides is. That visibility comparison is the decisive physical question; an attacker that treats its strike as unseen has assumed the roster closed.

Counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) is one of the few large numerical workloads that still runs faster on CPUs than on GPUs. Each iteration sweeps a game tree with up to billions of states in millions of small, interdependent gather and scatter steps issued through a generic tree interface. On a GPU every kernel finishes in microseconds, so kernel launches and framework dispatch dominate the run time, and prior GPU implementations have lost to optimized CPU code. We observe that for a fixed game, everything about a CFR iteration except the numerical values is known before the first iteration runs. We propose GPU-CFR, a compiler and runtime built on this observation. It compiles any game once into static dataflow: flat edge and information-set arrays, precomputed indices, and depth-level batched passes fix the entire operation sequence, and only solver state changes between iterations. Static chance folding, depth-level execution blocks, and a dual-lane reach buffer cut the number of framework operations by up to 18.1x. Because shapes, indices, and buffer addresses never change, CUDA Graph Replay records the iteration once and replays it with a single graph launch. On one A100, across an eight-game suite that spans card games, dice games, and board games, GPU-CFR runs 29.8–80.4x faster than the fastest prior GPU CFR on the same accelerator, and 14–258x faster than LiteEFG, one of the fastest open-source CPU implementations, on the four largest games. The compiled representation carries most of that margin: on eight CPU threads with no accelerator it is already 2.2–51.1x faster than the GPU baseline. On the CPU the optimized path reproduces the reference iterates bitwise, and tree construction and graph capture pay for themselves within the first solve. GPU-CFR beats every CPU and GPU baseline on the mid-to-large games of the suite without changing the update rule.

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal. A recent work further shows that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. Leveraging this, we design an Approximate Best Response Algorithm (ABRA) governed by a noise parameter and a rationality parameter. The noise allows ABRA to escape the bad equilibria and the rationality parameter balances any degradation in the objective function caused by the noise. We show for any two-player game that if ABRA converges to a Nash equilibrium, its system objective value is strictly more than 50% of optimal plus a term controlled by the noise parameter. Otherwise, ABRA converges to some recurrent class: if a recurrent class contains any action profile yielding system objective less than 50% of the optimal, the class must also contain either the optimal action profile or an action profile yielding system objective strictly more than 50% of the optimal by the same amount in addition to a factor controlled by noise parameter. The time that ABRA spends in such action profiles can be controlled using the rationality parameter. Using numerical simulations, we show that the minimum expected objective function is typically well above half of the optimal.

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

We introduce cooperative integer programming games (CIPGs), in which agents pool budget constraints to accomplish indivisible tasks jointly and the characteristic function maps every coalition to the optimal value of a pooled integer program. Our goal is to identify an optimal coalition structure (OCS) and a stable one (OSCS). We derive a stability inequality that keeps each formed coalition in the Core with respect to itself, and present two mixed-integer OCS formulations, aggregated and disaggregated, proving that the disaggregated formulation is integer-equivalent yet yields a tighter LP relaxation. Building on the stability inequality we develop lifted stability cuts, several separation strategies inside a cutting-plane algorithm, an SCS-feasible primal heuristic that constructs warm starts with guaranteed stability, and a payoff-refinement step computing the Shapley value and the nucleolus of every formed coalition. On benchmark cooperative knapsack games, the method certifies optimality with up to 16 players and reaches MIP gaps below 1% at 30 players while evaluating 766 of the roughly $10^9$ coalition values.

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

For the fair allocation of indivisible goods, the milestone work of Caragiannis et al. (2019) revolutionized the understanding of Maximum Nash Welfare (MNW) allocations by revealing their "unreasonable" ability to balance fairness (EF1) and efficiency (PO) for general additive functions. Subsequent work established that MNW allocations simultaneously satisfy EFX and GMMS (and consequently MMS and PMMS) for binary instances (Amanatidis et al. 2021 and Barman et al. 2018), and satisfy EFX for bi-valued instances (Amanatidis et al. 2021). In this paper, we revisit the (personalized) bi-valued instances and provide a tight characterization of the approximation guarantees of MNW allocations with respect to EFX, PMMS, and GMMS, showing that these guarantees are significantly stronger than what is known for general valuations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even for the slightly more general setting of tri-valued instances, the fairness guarantees of MNW deteriorate significantly, which establishes a sharp boundary on the instances for which MNW allocations are strongly fair.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is an algorithmic election rule. Round by round, a profile of ranked-choice ballots is reinterpreted to determine which decision to make next, and candidates are seated or eliminated until a full winner set emerges. This algorithmic nature makes STV theoretically more brittle than other election rules: uncertainty about an early round of the election might percolate irreversibly into the rest. For this reason, a generalized non-trivial Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA) framework has remained elusive for STV. Such a framework must concoct a set of null hypotheses, or assertions, whose rejection would bound the probability that the outcome of the election was incorrectly reported. We present audit graphs as a solution to design the assertions needed for RLAs of arbitrary STV elections, as well as quantitatively describe the uncertainty (or lack thereof) of their outcomes. These audit graphs explore election paths that are “close” to the recorded one by considering the alternative decisions the STV algorithm might have made if a small number of ballots were perturbed.

Society constantly has to determine the boundaries of what it deems acceptable, from legislative decisions to the guardrails governing autonomous systems. We initiate the axiomatic study of collective consent: given individuals' attitudes toward options, which options should receive societal consent? We organize our analysis around three principles: sufficient support, minority protection, and dominance by decisively better options. Each captures a distinct reason for withholding societal consent from an option. For each principle, we develop a corresponding solution concept that transparently implements the principle and is canonical in a mathematically precise sense. For example, for minority protection, the resulting concept is a consent-adapted version of Moulin's Proportional Veto Core. Balancing multiple principles simultaneously is more challenging. To address this, we develop a game-theoretic characterization of our veto core that naturally gives rise to a family of related concepts. From this family, we identify the Approval-Weighted Veto Core as particularly desirable. By making minorities' blocking power depend on the approval support of the options being challenged, it smoothly interpolates between proportional minority protection and majority support. Experiments on five datasets spanning high-stakes decision-making (such as political elections, ethical AI evaluations, and moral decision-making) show that solution concepts violating a principle in theory also violate it empirically.

We study pairwise maximin share (PMMS) fairness for indivisible items with additive preferences. We give a polynomial-time reduction from chores to goods that preserves the existence of a PMMS allocation. Together with known nonexistence results for chores, this yields nonexistence for additive goods. In addition, we show that deciding if a given instance admits a PMMS allocation is NP-hard. We also give explicit instances whose PMMS factors are $226/227$ for goods and $1.102065$ for chores, certified by exact enumeration. Complementing these impossibility results, we prove that every additive-chore instance admits a $4/3$-PMMS allocation.

Online gradient descent is usually studied through external regret, where the learner competes with fixed alternatives. Recent work shows that first-order methods control richer action-dependent deviations. We ask for a geometric characterization of the deviations with respect to which online gradient descent, mirror descent, and follow-the-regularized-leader (FTRL) achieve no regret. We identify exactness as the common principle. Exactness means that the relevant displacement field is generated by a scalar potential, or equivalently that the associated one-form is exact in the geometry used by the algorithm. This geometry depends on the algorithm. For gradient descent it is Euclidean geometry, for mirror descent it is the geometry induced by the regularizer, and for FTRL it is the cumulative dual state. Under mild regularity conditions, exactness yields sublinear regret, while nonzero circulation provides the complementary obstruction and leads to linear regret. This gives a unified geometric framework for understanding the deviation classes controlled by these algorithms and reveals that different first-order methods can control genuinely different classes of deviations. These deviation classes have direct consequences for learning, particularly in games. We study the equilibrium notions induced by exact-form deviations and introduce conservative correlated equilibrium, reflecting both the conservative geometry of the underlying displacement fields and the restricted family of deviations available to the players. We characterize its relation to correlated equilibrium, determine when the resulting equilibrium notions coincide and when they separate, and show how these relationships depend on the geometry and the learning algorithm. Overall, this work gives a unified geometric account of what first-order online learning algorithms are no-regret with respect to, beyond fixed comparators.

We study feasible stable equilibria of Lotka-Volterra systems and their higher-order extensions. We complete the classification of impossible ecological interaction networks with at most four species and extend several of these impossibility results to families with arbitrarily many species. We then show that these sign-pattern obstructions are specific to the pairwise Lotka-Volterra model: arbitrary prescribed growth rates and pairwise coefficients can be supplemented by higher-order interactions so as to admit a feasible asymptotically stable equilibrium. Through the correspondence with replicator dynamics, we interpret feasible equilibria of higher-order Lotka-Volterra systems as totally mixed symmetric Nash equilibria of symmetric multiplayer games, derive bounds on their number, and study their robustness under perturbations of the payoff tensors. We conclude by showing that every impossible ecology determines a nonempty open class of symmetric two-player games with no totally mixed evolutionarily stable strategy.

This note gives an instance demonstrating that the pairwise maximin share (PMMS) property cannot be satisfied by any allocation in certain fair division problems with indivisible goods and additive valuations. The instance requires only $n=3$ agents and $m=9$ goods, and is accompanied by a proof that no PMMS allocation exists. A separate instance shows (certified by exhaustive enumeration with a computer) that PMMS cannot be approximated within a ratio above $78/79 \approx 0.987$.

Proportional representation is a central goal in participatory budgeting, where voters select public projects subject to a shared budget. Full justified representation (FJR) accounts for groups whose members may value different projects, but computing an FJR outcome is strongly NP-hard for additive utilities. We show that FJR up to one project can be achieved in polynomial time for arbitrary nonnegative additive utilities and project costs. Our approach extends Residual-Budget Greedy and satisfies a stronger fractional axiom that can also be verified in polynomial time. For approval utilities, this axiom coincides with FJR+, providing exact FJR in that setting. We further show that every feasible completion of the algorithm's selected set preserves the representation guarantee, providing flexibility in allocating the remaining budget. In particular, we give a completion that ensures priceability at the original budget. For unit-cost projects, we strengthen the representation guarantee to the Droop quota and combine it with priceability whenever there are enough positively valued projects to fill the budget.

Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) chooses committees that maximize a sum of harmonic utilities. We study the set of maximizing committees: whether a candidate belongs to some or all of them, whether the optimum is unique, and how many optima exist. When the committee size is part of the input, the three decision problems are $\Delta_2^\mathrm{P}$-complete. Uniqueness remains hard for instances with at most two optimal committees. Counting optimal committees is $\#\!\cdot\!\mathrm{OptP}$-complete under metric reductions: every function $f$ in this class reduces to an election with exactly $f(x)+1$ optimal committees. The reductions encode satisfying assignments directly as committees and use harmonic marginal rewards to realize binary objectives with polynomially many voters. Each satisfying assignment has a unique committee representation, and fixed clause ballots give these representations the same clause score. We also prove Turing equivalence with $\#\mathrm{SAT}$ and show that membership of the counting problem in $\#\mathrm{P}$ would imply $\\mathrm{NP}=\mathrm{coNP}$.

We initiate the study of a new model of approval-based multiwinner voting in which each candidate carries an exogenous quality score, capturing, for instance, the reliability of the candidate or their relevance to the context of the selection. Quality scores break with the standard assumption of approval-based multiwinner voting that candidates are fully defined by the set of their supporters. We rethink what proportional representation means in the presence of quality scores. For this, we introduce a threshold-based and a value-based family of axioms, analyze their relationships, satisfiability, and computational complexity, and present rules that achieve the strongest jointly satisfiable combinations of our proportionality axioms. We then analyze the compatibility of proportionality with the natural goal of maximizing the summed quality of the selected candidates. While imposing standard proportionality notions can lead to an almost complete loss of quality, we show that under a new class of reciprocal axioms, which scale a group's entitlement by the quality of its commonly approved candidate(s), there always exist proportional committees retaining at least 3/4 of the optimal summed quality, and such committees can be computed by our voting rules at no additional computational cost.

Solving Nash equilibria for general multi-player Markov games is computationally intractable, while two-player zero-sum Markov games admit fast last-iterate policy-optimization methods. Zero-sum networked separable Markov games occupy an important middle ground: they retain global multi-player competition structure through pairwise interactions, while preserving computational tractability of Nash equilibria (NE) in the finite-horizon setting. Existing algorithms for this class either proceed through equilibrium-collapse arguments for a simplified setting where a single controller determines the transition probability, or backward dynamic programming that relies on equilibrium solvers at each stage. However, the design and analysis of direct policy-update approaches remain inadequate. To address this issue, we propose the entropy-regularized optimistic multiplicative weights update (ER-OMWU), a complementary single-loop policy dynamic that updates players' policies symmetrically and returns an approximate NE in the last iteration. We provide the first last-iterate convergence analysis of policy dynamics in the games of interest: after $\widetilde O\left(1/{\epsilon}\right)$ iterations, the returned policy is an $\epsilon$-approximate Nash equilibrium. The result preserves the near-linear convergence rate achieved by policy optimization in two-player zero-sum Markov games, but extends the policy-dynamics viewpoint to a more complicated but structured multi-player setting.

We investigate the query complexity of fairly allocating $m$ indivisible chores among $n$ agents with additive cost functions. We depart from the standard cardinal model and assume only comparison access: an algorithm may ask an agent which of two bundles is less costly, but never observes numerical costs. Our first results concern proportionality up to one item (PROP1). We design comparison-based algorithms that compute PROP1 allocations using $O(n^3\log m)$ comparison queries. When the chores are arranged in a fixed order and allocations are required to be contiguous, we compute a contiguous PROP1 allocation using $O(n^3 \log^2 m)$ comparison queries. Our main result concerns the maximin share (MMS) guarantee. We show that for any fixed number of agents $n$ and constant $\varepsilon>0$, a $\left(13/11 +\varepsilon\right)$-MMS allocation can be computed with a comparison complexity logarithmic in $m$. Remarkably, comparison access suffices to match the state-of-the-art $13/11$ cardinal-access guarantee of Huang and Segal-Halevi up to an arbitrarily small loss. Furthermore, our result implies that the MMS distortion of comparison access (i.e., the worst-case multiplicative loss in MMS fairness incurred by observing only comparisons rather than numerical costs) is at most $13/11$. Finally, we show that, for three agents, an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) can be computed using $O(\log m)$ comparison queries.

We study risk-sensitive evolutionary learning dynamics and their long-run equilibrium selection behaviors in coordination games. Agents' risk attitudes enter through the classical entropic risk measure, which evaluates opponent-induced payoff uncertainty and feeds into noisy best responses under two standard revision protocols: best response with mutations and logit choice. We first analyze $2\times 2$ coordination games in both single-population symmetric and two-population asymmetric settings. In the single-population setting, unlike the risk-neutral case where the dynamics are known to favor the risk-dominant equilibrium, we show that risk sensitivity can change the stochastically stable outcome: a greater risk-seeking attitude favors the payoff-dominant equilibrium, while a greater risk-averse attitude favors the maximin equilibrium. Thus, the population's risk attitude may act as a control knob for long-run equilibrium selection. In both population settings, we also identify a robust regime: any super-dominant equilibrium is stochastically stable for all risk attitudes, under both protocols, and across populations. We further extend the single-population analysis to symmetric $k$-action games, which include symmetric $k$-action coordination games as a special case, under risk-sensitive best response with mutations. In this setting, we show that, for sufficiently large populations, sufficiently risk-seeking agents uniquely select the strongly payoff-dominant equilibrium when it exists, whereas sufficiently risk-averse agents uniquely select the strongly maximin equilibrium when it exists. These results show that entropic risk sensitivity may serve as a systematic mechanism for steering equilibrium selection in evolutionary games, beyond the classical risk-neutral benchmark.

We propose a new approach for synthesizing large sets of winning strategies in stochastic parity games (2.5-player games) with quantitative objectives. Instead of computing a single, fully specified winning strategy, we introduce Actionable Strategy Certificates (ASCerts) as a local and permissive representation of a large class of system player winning strategies. To this end, we extend known certificates for stochastic invariants to the setting of games. Our certificates prove that synthesized strategies remain within a safe region of the game with probability at least $\lambda \in [0,1]$. As such, the certificates enhance the trustworthiness of synthesized strategies. The crux of our approach is to reinterpret and leverage the certificates as concise, local, and permissive representation of (possibly infinitely many) strategies. By carefully combining our certificates for stochastic invariants with strategy templates for almost-sure winning, we obtain a novel local representation of quantitatively winning strategies in stochastic parity games. This enables efficient synthesis, adaptation, and runtime strategy extraction, making ASCerts well suited for logical control in uncertain and adversarial environments. We provide a proof-of-concept implementation and demonstrate the potential of applying ASCerts in runtime adaptation in a case study.

We study strategyproof mechanisms for building a pathway between two regions of a line segment separated by an obstacle. Each of the $n$ agents has a private location within its region and may use either its original route to a facility or the new pathway, whose traversal cost is a fraction $k\in[0,1)$ of its length. We seek strategyproof (SP) and group-strategyproof (GSP) mechanisms that approximately minimize maximum cost or social cost. After characterizing optimal pathways for both objectives, we establish a tight deterministic maximum-cost approximation ratio of $\frac{2}{1+k}$ and a deterministic social-cost upper bound of $\frac{n}{1+k(n-1)}$, together with complementary lower bounds. Both upper bounds are achieved by GSP mechanisms. We then study randomized mechanisms under strategyproofness in expectation. A power-proportional mechanism achieves a social-cost approximation ratio at most $5$, independent of $n$ and $k$, with a tight guarantee of $3$ for this mechanism when $k=0$. We prove randomized lower bounds of $\frac{3+2k}{2+3k}$ for maximum cost and $\max\big\{1,\frac{285}{263+385k}\big\}$ for social cost, the latter for $n\ge7$. Finally, we improve several bounds for the real-line pathway model of [Chan and Wang, AAMAS 2023]. Our deterministic maximum-cost lower bound of $2$ matches the upper bound obtainable from [Qin, Fang, and Liu, COCOA 2024]. We strengthen the deterministic social-cost lower bound from $\frac32$ to $2$ under SP and to $\max\{2,n-1\}$ under GSP. For randomized social cost, we sharpen the guarantee of Chan and Wang's proportional mechanism from $6$ to $3$ and raise their lower bound from $1.02$ to $\frac{285}{263}\approx1.08365$ for $n\ge7$.

Offline multi-agent payoff models are estimated under a logging distribution but used on distributions induced by learned solutions and unilateral deviations. Standard held-out loss can therefore favor an interaction class that predicts logged play well while distorting strategic incentives. We introduce Selective Interaction-Rank Validation (SIRV) for finite games with known logging distributions. A training split fits nested payoff models and constructs a common union of all candidate deployment and unilateral-replacement distributions; an independent calibration split evaluates every candidate on this same union. SIRV returns the smallest rank whose simultaneous upper worst-target risk is within tolerance of the best upper score, and abstains when a declared target is unsupported or too imprecisely estimated. A common coverage event yields a finite-candidate target-risk bound and a candidate-specific coarse correlated equilibrium (CCE) gap certificate. We also isolate an exact two-point off-support non-identifiability result. In a controlled factorial study with 2,048 independent games per family, empirical-Bernstein bounds reduce the median CCE-gap certificate by 42.5% relative to Hoeffding bounds on common returns, with a 1.36-point reduction in supported return. Under paired rank misspecification and in a separately generated congestion family, the SIRV-EB fallback rule lowers mean true candidate-selection CCE regret relative to ID-Mean, while retaining game-level losses. Across 384 games at $N=3,5,8$, ID-Mean-relative mean CCE-regret effects stay positive while certified return falls sharply under weak coverage. These results separate certifiable model selection from universal strategic improvement.

An open problem in approval-based multiwinner voting concerns whether we can efficiently compute committees that satisfy both justified representation and Pareto optimality. We answer this question negatively by proving that, on the domain of all profiles, outputting a committee satisfying both axioms is NP-hard. An initial proof was found by ChatGPT Astra. This was then verified and rewritten by the author.

We study envy-freeness with subsidies for indivisible items beyond additive valuations. Assuming that every single-item marginal value lies in $[-1,1]$, we prove that a total subsidy of $O(n^{3/2}\sqrt{\log n})$ suffices to achieve envy-freeness among $n$ agents whenever all agents assign nonnegative values to every bundle or all assign nonpositive values to every bundle. These valuation classes include monotone goods and monotone chores, respectively, but do not require monotonicity. Our result establishes the first subquadratic total-subsidy bound for general monotone valuations that holds for every number of agents.

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.

On-demand platforms face the fundamental challenge of fulfilling time-sensitive jobs with independent workers who may decline offers. To minimize delays and unfulfilled jobs, platforms frequently raise the offered wage sequentially following each rejection. However, the interaction between these dynamic price adjustments and the specific sequence in which workers are approached has been overlooked. In particular, if the best-suited workers (e.g., closest to the job) are also ranked earliest in the sequence, then those workers would see the lowest offered wages and may decline, leading to poor system outcomes where less-suited workers end up seeing the raised wages and accepting the job. We study the sequential offering problem to maximize expected welfare or platform profit by jointly optimizing the ranking of workers and the pricing trajectory. Surprisingly, our main result establishes that if the reservation wage distribution exhibits a non-increasing and convex density function (e.g., Uniform, Exponential), welfare is maximized by greedy ranking and wages optimized via backward induction. For arbitrary distributions, we prove that greedy ranking achieves a tight $n/(2n - 1)$ fraction of the prophet benchmark. Numerical results for settings beyond the distributional assumptions find welfare losses well below those allowed by the universal guarantee, even in families where greedy is provably suboptimal. This suggests that rather than sending initial "low ball” offers to worse matches, platforms should stick with greedy ranking and optimize the wage offerings by appropriately taking the continuation value of the downstream offers into consideration.