We study a model of congestible resources, where pricing and scheduling are intertwined. Motivated by the problem of pricing cloud instances, we model a cloud computing service as linked GI/GI/· queuing systems where the provider chooses to offer a fixed pricing service, a dynamic market based service, or a hybrid of both, where jobs can be preempted in the market-based service. Users (jobs), who are heterogeneous in both the value they place on service and their cost for waiting, then choose between the services offered. Combining insights from auction theory with queuing theory we are able to characterize user equilibrium behavior, and show its insensitivity to the precise market design mechanism used. We then provide theoretical and simulation based evidence suggesting that a fixed price typically, though not always, generates a higher expected revenue than the hybrid system for the provider.

Recently fair division theory has emerged as a promising approach for allocation of multiple computational resources among agents. While in reality agents are not all present in the system simultaneously, previous work has studied static settings where all relevant information is known upfront. Our goal is to better understand the dynamic setting. On the conceptual level, we develop a dynamic model of fair division, and propose desirable axiomatic properties for dynamic resource allocation mechanisms. On the technical level, we construct two novel mechanisms that provably satisfy some of these properties, and analyze their performance using real data. We believe that our work informs the design of superior multiagent systems, and at the same time expands the scope of fair division theory by initiating the study of dynamic and fair resource allocation mechanisms.

As kidney exchange programs are growing, manipulation by hospitals becomes more of an issue. Assuming that hospitals wish to maximize the number of their own patients who receive a kidney, they may have an incentive to withhold some of their incompatible donor-patient pairs and match them internally, thus harming social welfare. We study mechanisms for twoway exchanges that are strategyproof, i.e., make it a dominant strategy for hospitals to report all their incompatible pairs.

Recent work has constructed economic mechanisms that are both truthful and differentially private. In these mechanisms, privacy is treated separately from the truthfulness; it is not incorporated in players' utility functions (and doing so has been shown to lead to non-truthfulness in some cases). In this work, we propose a new, general way of modelling privacy in players' utility functions. Specifically, we only assume that if an outcome o has the property that any report of player i would have led to o with approximately the same probability, then o has small privacy cost to player i. We give three mechanisms that are truthful with respect to our modelling of privacy: for an election between two candidates, for a discrete version of the facility location problem, and for a general social choice problem with discrete utilities (via a VCG-like mechanism). As the number n of players increases, the social welfare achieved by our mechanisms approaches optimal (as a fraction of n).

A model of providing service in a P2P network is analyzed. It is shown that by adding a scrip system, a mechanism that admits a reasonable Nash equilibrium that reduces free riding can be obtained. The effect of varying the total amount of money (scrip) in the system on efficiency (i.e., social welfare) is analyzed, and it is shown that by maintaining the appropriate ratio between the total amount of money and the number of agents, efficiency is maximized. The work has implications for many online systems, not only P2P networks but also a wide variety of online forums for which scrip systems are popular, but formal analyses have been lacking.