In Spatial Voting Theory, distortion is a measure of how good the winner is. It is proved that no deterministic voting mechanism can guarantee a distortion better than 3, even for simple metrics such as a line. In this study, we wish to answer the following question: how does the distortion value change if we allow less motivated agents to abstain from the election?We consider an election with two candidates and suggest an abstention model, which is a more general form of the abstention model proposed by Kirchgässner [15]. We define the concepts of the expected winner and the expected distortion to evaluate the distortion of an election in our model. Our results fully characterize the distortion value and provide a rather complete picture of the model.

We study the extent to which decentralized cost-sharing protocols can achieve good price of anarchy (PoA) bounds in network cost-sharing games with n agents. We focus on the model of resource-aware protocols, where the designer has prior access to the network structure and can also increase the total cost of an edge (overcharging), and we study classes of games with concave or convex cost functions. We first consider concave cost functions and our main result is a cost-sharing protocol for symmetric games on directed acyclic graphs that achieves a PoA of 2+ε for some arbitrary small positive ε, which improves to 1 + ε for games with at least two players. We also achieve a PoA of 1 for series-parallel graphs and show that no protocol can achieve a PoA better than Ω(√ n) for multicast games. We then also consider convex cost functions and prove analogous results for series-parallel networks and multicast games, as well as a lower bound of Ω(n) for the PoA on directed acyclic graphs without the use of overcharging.

No abstract

Envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) are two well-known extensions of envy-freeness for the case of indivisible items. It is shown that EF1 can always be guaranteed for agents with subadditive valuations. In sharp contrast, it is unknown whether or not an EFX allocation always exists, even for four agents and additive valuations. In addition, the best approximation guarantee for EFX is (φ − 1) ≃ 0.61 by Amanitidis et al.. In order to find a middle ground to bridge this gap, in this paper we suggest another fairness criterion, namely envy-freeness up to a random good or EFR, which is weaker than EFX, yet stronger than EF1. For this notion, we provide a polynomial-time 0.73-approximation allocation algorithm. For our algorithm we introduce Nash Social Welfare Matching which makes a connection between Nash Social Welfare and envy freeness.

A fundamental question in social choice and multi-agent systems is aggregating ordinal preferences expressed by agents into a measurably prudent collective choice. A promising line of recent work views ordinal preferences as a proxy for underlying cardinal preferences. It aims to optimize distortion, the worst-case approximation ratio of the (utilitarian) social welfare. When agents rank the set of alternatives, prior work identifies near-optimal voting rules for selecting one or more alternatives. However, ranking all the alternatives is prohibitive when there are many alternatives. In this work, we consider the setting where each agent ranks only her t favorite alternatives and identify almost tight bounds on the best possible distortion when selecting a single alternative or a committee of alternatives of a given size k. Our results also extend to approximating higher moments of social welfare. Along the way, we close a gap left open in prior work by identifying asymptotically tight distortion bounds for committee selection given full rankings.