Abstract

We consider the problem of recovering the ground truth ordering (ranking, top-k, or others) over a large number of alternatives. The wisdom of crowd is a heuristic approach based on Condorcet's Jury theorem to address this problem through collective opinions. This approach fails to recover the ground truth when the majority of the crowd is misinformed. The surprisingly popular (SP) algorithm is an alternative approach that is able to recover the ground truth even when experts are in minority. The SP algorithm requires the voters to predict other voters' report in the form of a full probability distribution over all rankings of alternatives. However, when the number of alternatives, m, is large, eliciting the prediction report or even the vote over m alternatives might be too costly. In this paper, we design a scalable alternative of the SP algorithm which only requires eliciting partial preferences from the voters, and propose new variants of the SP algorithm. In particular, we propose two versions---Aggregated-SP and Partial-SP---that ask voters to report vote and prediction on a subset of size k (<< m) in terms of top alternative, partial rank, or an approval set. Through a large-scale crowdsourcing experiment on MTurk, we show that both of our approaches outperform conventional preference aggregation algorithms for the recovery of ground truth rankings, when measured in terms of Kendall-Tau distance and Spearman's $\rho$. We further analyze the collected data and demonstrate that voters' behavior in the experiment, including the minority of the experts, and the SP phenomenon, can be correctly simulated by a concentric mixtures of Mallows model. Finally, we provide theoretical bounds on the sample complexity of SP algorithms with partial rankings to demonstrate the theoretical guarantees of the proposed methods.

Abstract

Two-sided matching markets describe a large class of problems wherein participants from one side of the market must be matched to those from the other side according to their preferences. In many real-world applications (e.g. content matching or online labor markets), the knowledge about preferences may not be readily available and must be learned, i.e., one side of the market (aka agents) may not know their preferences over the other side (aka arms). Recent research on online settings has focused primarily on welfare optimization aspects (i.e. minimizing the overall regret) while paying little attention to the game-theoretic properties such as the stability of the final matching. In this paper, we exploit the structure of stable solutions to devise algorithms that improve the likelihood of finding stable solutions. We initiate the study of the sample complexity of finding a stable matching, and provide theoretical bounds on the number of samples needed to reach a stable matching with high probability. Finally, our empirical results demonstrate intriguing tradeoffs between stability and optimality of the proposed algorithms, further complementing our theoretical findings.

Abstract

We initiate the study of fair distribution of delivery tasks among a set of agents wherein delivery jobs are placed along the vertices of a graph. Our goal is to fairly distribute delivery costs (modeled as a submodular function) among a fixed set of agents while satisfying some desirable notions of economic efficiency. We adopt well-established fairness concepts---such as envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) and minimax share (MMS)---to our setting and show that fairness is often incompatible with the efficiency notion of social optimality. Yet, we characterize instances that admit fair and socially optimal solutions by exploiting graph structures.We further show that achieving fairness along with Pareto optimality is computationally intractable. Nonetheless, we design an XP algorithm (parameterized by the number of agents) for finding MMS and Pareto optimal solutions on every instance, and show that the same algorithm can be modified to find efficient solutions along with EF1, when such solutions exist. We complement our theoretical results by experimentally analyzing the price of fairness on randomly generated graph structures.

Abstract

The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has profoundly reshaped decision-making in social, political, and commercial contexts. This paper explores the critical issue of fairness in AI-driven decision-making, particularly in allocating resources and tasks. By examining recent advancements and key questions in computational social choice, I highlight challenges and prospects in designing fair systems in collective decision-making that are scalable, adaptable to intricate environments, and are aligned with complex and diverse human preferences.

Abstract

Matching markets consist of two disjoint sets of agents, where each agent has a preference list over agents on the other side. The primary objective is to find a stable matching between the agents such that no unmatched pair of agents prefer each other to their matched partners. The incompatibility between stability and strategy-proofness in this domain gives rise to a variety of strategic behavior of agents, which in turn may influence the resulting matching. In this paper, we discuss fundamental properties of stable matchings, review essential structural observations, survey key results in manipulation algorithms and their game-theoretical aspects, and more importantly, highlight a series of open research questions.

Abstract

Fairness is one of the most desirable societal principles in collective decision-making. It has been extensively studied in the past decades for its axiomatic properties and has received substantial attention from the multiagent systems community in recent years for its theoretical and computational aspects in algorithmic decision-making. However, these studies are often not sufficiently rich to capture the intricacies of human perception of fairness in the ambivalent nature of the real-world problems. We argue that not only fair solutions should be deemed desirable by social planners (designers), but they should be governed by human and societal cognition, consider perceived outcomes based on human judgement, and be verifiable. We discuss how achieving this goal requires a broad transdisciplinary approach ranging from computing and AI to behavioral economics and human-AI interaction. In doing so, we identify shortcomings and long-term challenges of the current literature of fair division, describe recent efforts in addressing them, and more importantly, highlight a series of open research directions.

Abstract

The Graphical House Allocation (GHA) problem asks: how can n houses (each with a fixed non-negative value) be assigned to the vertices of an undirected graph G, so as to minimize the sum of absolute differences along the edges of G? This problem generalizes the classical Minimum Linear Arrangement problem, as well as the well-known House Allocation Problem from Economics. Recent work has studied the computational aspects of GHA and observed that the problem is NP-hard and inapproximable even on particularly simple classes of graphs, such as vertex disjoint unions of paths. However, the dependence of any approximations on the structural properties of the underlying graph had not been studied. In this work, we give a nearly complete characterization of the approximability of GHA. We present algorithms to approximate the optimal envy on general graphs, trees, planar graphs, bounded-degree graphs, and bounded-degree planar graphs. For each of these graph classes, we then prove matching lower bounds, showing that in each case, no significant improvement can be attained unless P = NP. We also present general approximation ratios as a function of structural parameters of the underlying graph, such as treewidth; these match the tight upper bounds in general, and are significantly better approximations for many natural subclasses of graphs. Finally, we investigate the special case of bounded-degree trees in some detail. We first refute a conjecture by Hosseini et al. [2023] about the structural properties of exact optimal allocations on binary trees by means of a counterexample on a depth-3 complete binary tree. This refutation, together with our hardness results on trees, might suggest that approximating the optimal envy even on complete binary trees is infeasible. Nevertheless, we present a linear-time algorithm that attains a 3-approximation on complete binary trees.

Abstract

Fair distribution of indivisible tasks with non-positive valuations (aka chores) has given rise to a large body of work in recent years. A popular approximate fairness notion is envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), which requires that any pairwise envy can be eliminated by the removal of a single item. While an EF1 and Pareto optimal (PO) allocation of goods always exists and can be computed via several well-known algorithms, even the existence of such solutions for chores remains open, to date. We take an epistemic approach utilizing information asymmetry by introducing dubious chores -- items that inflict no cost on receiving agents, but are perceived costly by others. On a technical level, dubious chores provide a more fine-grained approximation of envy-freeness -- compared to relaxations such as EF1 -- which enables progress towards addressing open problems on the existence and computation of EF1 and PO. In particular, we show that finding allocations with optimal number of dubious chores is computationally hard even for highly restricted classes of valuations. Nonetheless, we prove the existence of envy-free and PO allocations for n agents with only 2n−2 dubious chores and strengthen it to n−1 dubious chores in four special classes of valuations. Our experimental analysis demonstrate that baseline algorithms only require a relatively small number of dubious chores to achieve envy-freeness in practice.

Abstract

The classic house allocation problem is primarily concerned with finding a matching between a set of agents and a set of houses that guarantees some notion of economic efficiency (e.g. utilitarian welfare). While recent works have shifted focus on achieving fairness (e.g. minimizing the number of envious agents), they often come with notable costs on efficiency notions such as utilitarian or egalitarian welfare. We investigate the trade-offs between these welfare measures and several natural fairness measures that rely on the number of envious agents, the total (aggregate) envy of all agents, and maximum total envy of an agent. In particular, by focusing on envy-free allocations, we first show that, should one exist, finding an envy-free allocation with maximum utilitarian or egalitarian welfare is computationally tractable. We highlight a rather stark contrast between utilitarian and egalitarian welfare by showing that finding utilitarian welfare maximizing allocations that minimize the aforementioned fairness measures can be done in polynomial time while their egalitarian counterparts remain intractable (for the most part) even under binary valuations. We complement our theoretical findings by giving insights into the relationship between the different fairness measures and conducting empirical analysis.

Abstract

We study the fair allocation of mixtures of indivisible goods and chores under lexicographic preferences---a subdomain of additive preferences. A prominent fairness notion for allocating indivisible items is envy-freeness up to any item (EFX). Yet, its existence and computation has remained a notable open problem. By identifying a class of instances with ``terrible chores'', we show that determining the existence of an EFX allocation is NP-complete. This result immediately implies the intractability of EFX under additive preferences. Nonetheless, we propose a natural subclass of lexicographic preferences for which an EFX and Pareto optimal (PO) allocation is guaranteed to exist and can be computed efficiently for any mixed instance. Focusing on two weaker fairness notions, we investigate finding EF1 and PO allocations for special instances with terrible chores, and show that MMS and PO allocations can be computed efficiently for any mixed instance with lexicographic preferences.

Abstract

In fair division of indivisible goods, l-out-of-d maximin share (MMS) is the value that an agent can guarantee by partitioning the goods into $d$ bundles and choosing the l least preferred bundles. Most existing works aim to guarantee to all agents a constant fraction of their 1-out-of-n MMS. But this guarantee is sensitive to small perturbation in agents' cardinal valuations. We consider a more robust approximation notion, which depends only on the agents' ordinal rankings of bundles. We prove the existence of l-out-of-(l+1/2)n MMS allocations of goods for any integer l ≥ 1, and present a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a 1-out-of-3n/2 MMS allocation when l = 1. We further develop an algorithm that provides a weaker ordinal approximation to MMS for any l > 1.

Abstract

We study fair allocation of indivisible goods and chores among agents with lexicographic preferences -- a subclass of additive valuations. In sharp contrast to the goods-only setting, we show that an allocation satisfying envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) could fail to exist for a mixture of objective goods and chores. To our knowledge, this negative result provides the first counterexample for EFX over (any subdomain of) additive valuations. To complement this non-existence result, we identify a class of instances with (possibly subjective) mixed items where an EFX and Pareto optimal allocation always exists and can be efficiently computed. When the fairness requirement is relaxed to maximin share (MMS), we show positive existence and computation for any mixed instance. More broadly, our work examines the existence and computation of fair and efficient allocations both for mixed items as well as chores-only instances, and highlights the additional difficulty of these problems vis-à-vis their goods-only counterparts.

Abstract

The classical house allocation problem involves assigning n houses (or items) to n agents according to their preferences. A key criteria in such problems is satisfying some fairness constraints such as envy-freeness. We consider a generalization of this problem wherein the agents are placed along the vertices of a graph (corresponding to a social network), and each agent can only experience envy towards its neighbors. Our goal is to minimize the aggregate envy among the agents as a natural fairness objective, i.e., the sum of all pairwise envy values over all edges in a social graph. When agents have identical and evenly spaced valuations, our problem reduces to the well-studied problem of linear arrangements. For identical valuations with possibly uneven spacing, we show a number of deep and surprising ways in which our setting is a departure from this classical problem. More broadly, we contribute several structural and computational results for various classes of graphs, including NP-hardness results for disjoint unions of paths or cliques, and fixed-parameter tractable (and, in some cases, polynomial-time) algorithms for paths, cycles, stars, cliques, and their disjoint unions. Additionally, a conceptual contribution of our work is the formulation of a structural property for disconnected graphs that we call separability which results in efficient parameterized algorithms for finding optimal allocations.

Abstract

We initiate the study of fairness among classes of agents in online bipartite matching where there is a given set of offline vertices (aka agents) and another set of vertices (aka items) that arrive online and must be matched irrevocably upon arrival. In this setting, agents are partitioned into a set of classes and the matching is required to be fair with respect to the classes. We adopt popular fairness notions (e.g. envy-freeness, proportionality, and maximin share) and their relaxations to this setting and study deterministic and randomized algorithms for matching indivisible items (leading to integral matchings) and for matching divisible items (leading to fractional matchings). For matching indivisible items, we propose an adaptive-priority-based algorithm, MATCH-AND-SHIFT, prove that it achieves (1/2)-approximation of both class envy-freeness up to one item and class maximin share fairness, and show that each guarantee is tight. For matching divisible items, we design a water-filling-based algorithm, EQUAL-FILLING, that achieves (1-1/e)-approximation of class envy-freeness and class proportionality; we prove (1-1/e) to be tight for class proportionality and establish a 3/4 upper bound on class envy-freeness.

Abstract

With the advent of online educational platforms and the advances in pedagogical technologies, self-directed learning has emerged as one of the most popular modes of learning. Distance education---elevated by the COVID-19 pandemic---involves methods of instruction through a variety of remote activities which often rely on educational videos for mastery. In the absence of direct student engagement, the asynchronous nature of remote activities may deteriorate the quality of education for learners. Students often have an illusion of skill acquisition after watching videos, which results in overestimation of abilities and skills. We focus on the efficacy of skill acquisition through interactive technologies and assess their impact on computational thinking in comparison with delivery through other traditional media (e.g. videos and texts). In particular, we investigate the relationship between actual learning, perception of learning, and learners' confidence in adult learners. Our results reveal intriguing observations about the role of interactivity and visualization and their implications on the pedagogical design for self-directed learning modules.

Abstract

Strategic behavior in two-sided matching markets has been traditionally studied in a "one-sided" manipulation setting where the agent who misreports is also the intended beneficiary. Our work investigates "two-sided" manipulation of the deferred acceptance algorithm where the misreporting agent and the manipulator (or beneficiary) are on different sides. Specifically, we generalize the recently proposed accomplice manipulation model (where a man misreports on behalf of a woman) along two complementary dimensions: (a) the two for one model, with a pair of misreporting agents (man and woman) and a single beneficiary (the misreporting woman), and (b) the one for all model, with one misreporting agent (man) and a coalition of beneficiaries (all women). Our main contribution is to develop polynomial-time algorithms for finding an optimal manipulation in both settings. We obtain these results despite the fact that an optimal one for all strategy fails to be inconspicuous, while it is unclear whether an optimal two for one strategy satisfies the inconspicuousness property. We also study the conditions under which stability of the resulting matching is preserved. Experimentally, we show that two-sided manipulations are more frequently available and offer better quality matches than their one-sided counterparts.

Abstract

We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of m indivisible chores (items with non-positive value) to n agents. We consider the desirable fairness notion of 1-out-of-d maximin share (MMS) -- the minimum value that an agent can guarantee by partitioning items into d bundles and receiving the least valued bundle -- and focus on ordinal approximation of MMS that aims at finding the largest d <= n for which 1-out-of-d MMS allocation exists. Our main contribution is a polynomial-time algorithm for 1-out-of-floor(2n/3) MMS allocation, and a proof of existence of 1-out-of-floor(3n/4) MMS allocation of chores. Furthermore, we show how to use recently-developed algorithms for bin-packing to approximate the latter bound up to a logarithmic factor in polynomial time.

Abstract

The stable matching problem sets the economic foundation of several practical applications ranging from school choice and medical residency to ridesharing and refugee placement. It is concerned with finding a matching between two disjoint sets of agents wherein no pair of agents prefer each other to their matched partners. The Deferred Acceptance (DA) algorithm is an elegant procedure that guarantees a stable matching for any input; however, its outcome may be unfair as it always favors one side by returning a matching that is optimal for one side (say men) and pessimal for the other side (say women). A desirable fairness notion is minimizing the sex-equality cost, i.e. the difference between the total rankings of both sides. Computing such stable matchings is a strongly NP-hard problem, which raises the question of what tractable algorithms to adopt in practice. We conduct a series of empirical evaluations on the properties of sex-equal stable matchings when preferences of agents on both sides are correlated. Our empirical results suggest that under correlated preferences, the DA algorithm returns stable matchings with low sex-equality cost, which further confirms its broad use in many practical applications.

Abstract

The deferred acceptance algorithm is an elegant solution to the stable matching problem that guarantees optimality and truthfulness for one side of the market. Despite these desirable guarantees, it is susceptible to strategic misreporting of preferences by the agents on the other side. We study a novel model of strategic behavior under the deferred acceptance algorithm: manipulation through an accomplice. Here, an agent on the proposed-to side (say, a woman) partners with an agent on the proposing side---an accomplice---to manipulate on her behalf (possibly at the expense of worsening his match). We show that the optimal manipulation strategy for an accomplice comprises of promoting exactly one woman in his true list (i.e., an inconspicuous manipulation). This structural result immediately gives a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an optimal accomplice manipulation. We also study the conditions under which the manipulated matching is stable with respect to the true preferences. Our experimental results show that accomplice manipulation outperforms self manipulation both in terms of the frequency of occurrence as well as the quality of matched partners.

Abstract

The maximin share (MMS) guarantee is a desirable fairness notion for allocating indivisible goods. While MMS allocations do not always exist, several approximation techniques have been developed to ensure that all agents receive a fraction of their maximin share. We focus on an alternative approximation notion, based on the population of agents, that seeks to guarantee MMS for a fraction of agents. We show that no optimal approximation algorithm can satisfy more than a constant number of agents, and discuss the existence and computation of MMS for all but one agent and its relation to approximate MMS guarantees. We then prove the existence of allocations that guarantee MMS for 2/3 of agents, and devise a polynomial time algorithm that achieves this bound for up to nine agents. A key implication of our result is the existence of allocations that guarantee the value that an agent receives by partitioning the goods into 3n/2 bundles, improving the best known guarantee when goods are partitioned into 2n-2 bundles. Finally, we provide empirical experiments using synthetic data.

Abstract

The wisdom of the crowd has long become the de facto approach for eliciting information from individuals or experts in order to predict the ground truth. However, classical democratic approaches for aggregating individual votes only work when the opinion of the majority of the crowd is relatively accurate. A clever recent approach, surprisingly popular voting, elicits additional information from the individuals, namely their prediction of other individuals' votes, and provably recovers the ground truth even when experts are in minority. This approach works well when the goal is to pick the correct option from a small list, but when the goal is to recover a true ranking of the alternatives, a direct application of the approach requires eliciting too much information. We explore practical techniques for extending the surprisingly popular algorithm to ranked voting by partial votes and predictions and designing robust aggregation rules. We experimentally demonstrate that even a little prediction information helps surprisingly popular voting outperform classical approaches.

Abstract

Envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) provides a strong and intuitive guarantee of fairness in the allocation of indivisible goods. But whether such allocations always exist or whether they can be efficiently computed remains an important open question. We study the existence and computation of EFX in conjunction with various other economic properties under lexicographic preferences--a well-studied preference model in artificial intelligence and economics. In sharp contrast to the known results for additive valuations, we not only prove the existence of EFX and Pareto optimal allocations, but in fact provide an algorithmic characterization of these two properties. We also characterize the mechanisms that are, in addition, strategyproof, non-bossy, and neutral. When the efficiency notion is strengthened to rank-maximality, we obtain non-existence and computational hardness results, and show that tractability can be restored when EFX is relaxed to another well-studied fairness notion called maximin share guarantee (MMS).

Abstract

We study the classic problem of matching n agents to n objects, where the agents have ranked preferences over the objects. We focus on two popular desiderata from the matching literature: Pareto optimality and rank-maximality. Instead of asking the agents to report their complete preferences, our goal is to learn a desirable matching from partial preferences, specifically a matching that is necessarily Pareto optimal (NPO) or necessarily rank-maximal (NRM) under any completion of the partial preferences. We focus on the top-k model in which agents reveal a prefix of their preference rankings. We design efficient algorithms to check if a given matching is NPO or NRM, and to check whether such a matching exists given top-k partial preferences. We also study online algorithms to elicit partial preferences adaptively, and prove bounds on their competitive ratio.

Abstract

Stable matching models are widely used in market design, school admission, and donor organ exchange. The classic Deferred Acceptance (DA) algorithm guarantees a stable matching that is optimal for one side (say men) and pessimal for the other (say women). A sex-equal stable matching aims at providing a fair solution to this problem. We demonstrate that under a class of correlated preferences, the DA algorithm either returns a sex-equal solution or has a very low sex-equality cost.

Abstract

The number of introductory programming learners is increasing worldwide. Delivering feedback to these learners is important to support their progress; however, traditional methods to deliver feedback do not scale to thousands of programs. We identify several opportunities to improve a recent data-driven technique to analyze individual program statements. These statements are grouped based on their semantic intent and usually differ on their actual implementation and syntax. The existing technique groups statements that are semantically close, and considers outliers those statements that reduce the cohesiveness of the clusters. Unfortunately, this approach leads to many statements to be considered outliers. We propose to reduce the number of outliers through a new clustering algorithm that processes vertices based on density. Our experiments over six real-world introductory programming assignments show that we are able to reduce the number of outliers and, therefore, increase the total coverage of the programs that are under evaluation.

Abstract

We initiate the study of multi-layered cake cutting with the goal of fairly allocating multiple divisible resources (layers of a cake) among a set of agents. The key requirement is that each agent can only utilize a single resource at each time interval. Several real-life applications exhibit such restrictions on overlapping pieces; for example, assigning time intervals over multiple facilities and resources or assigning shifts to medical professionals. We investigate the existence and computation of envy-free and proportional allocations. We show that envy-free allocations that are both feasible and contiguous are guaranteed to exist for up to three agents with two types of preferences, when the number of layers is two. We also show that envy-free feasible allocations where each agent receives a polynomially bounded number of intervals exist for any number of agents and layers under mild conditions on agents' preferences. We further devise an algorithm for computing proportional allocations for any number of agents and layers.

Abstract

Envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) is a well-studied fairness notion for indivisible goods that addresses pairwise envy by the removal of at most one good. In the worst case, each pair of agents might require the (hypothetical) removal of a different good, resulting in a weak aggregate guarantee. We study allocations that are nearly envy-free in aggregate, and define a novel fairness notion based on information withholding. Under this notion, an agent can withhold (or hide) some of the goods in its bundle and reveal the remaining goods to the other agents. We observe that in practice, envy-freeness can be achieved by withholding only a small number of goods overall. We show that finding allocations that withhold an optimal number of goods is computationally hard even for highly restricted classes of valuations. In contrast to the worst-case results, our experiments on synthetic and real-world preference data show that existing algorithms for finding EF1 allocations withhold a close-to-optimal amount of information.

Abstract

Fair division is a subfield of multiagent systems related to object distribution. When objects are indivisible, the Maximin Share Guarantee (MMS) is a desirable fairness notion; however, it is not guaranteed to exist. While MMS does not exist, a relaxation of MMS is always guaranteed to exist. We show that there exists a family of instances for which this relaxation fails to guarantee MMS value of all but a small constant number of agents.

Abstract

MatchU is a web-based platform that offers an interactive framework to find how to form mutually-beneficial relationships, decide how to distribute resources, or resolve conflicts through a suite of matching algorithms rooted in economics and artificial intelligence. In this paper, we discuss MatchU's vision, solutions, and future directions.

Abstract

We study the problem of allocating multiple objects to agents without transferable utilities, where each agent may receive more than one object according to a quota. Under lexicographic preferences, we characterize the set of strategyproof, non-bossy, and neutral quota mechanisms and show that under a mild Pareto efficiency condition, serial dictatorship quota mechanisms are the only mechanisms satisfying these properties. We then extend quota mechanisms to randomized settings, and show that the random serial dictatorship quota mechanisms (RSDQ) are envyfree, strategyproof, and ex post efficient for any number of agents and objects and any quota system, proving that the well-studied Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) satisfies envyfreeness when preferences are lexicographic.

Abstract

A complex family is a particular case of family structures in certain animal groups that arises from cooperative breeding. Inspired by this phenomenon, we study the problem of complex family formation from a game-theoretical perspective. While these structures may arise in various domains, such as search and rescue and robotics, the standard types of coalitional games (e.g. simple games) do not capture the observed intricacies of such complex formations. In this paper, we propose a characteristic function game for complex family structures and investigate the stability of coalitions and the existence of the core under various conditions. We provide theoretical bounds on the existence of complex families and the size of coalitions. Furthermore, we empirically examine the proposed framework through an ecological case study and show that our results are consistent with the observed family formations, shedding light on the causes of complex family compositions in the past.

Abstract

We introduce a new manipulation strategy available to women in the men-proposing stable matching, called manipulation through an accomplice. In this strategy, a woman can team up with a potential male ``accomplice'' who manipulates on her behalf to obtain a better match for her. We investigate the stability of the matching obtained after this manipulation, provide an algorithm to compute such strategies, and show its benefit compared to single-woman manipulation strategies.

Abstract

The use of gameful activities in education has been widely celebrated in recent years as an effective pedagogical method in engaging students, exciting cognitive abilities, and promoting mastery. Despite the popularity of game-based learning, to date, little has been done to analyze the impacts of introducing such interventions on students and instructors alike. We focus on hybrid teaching strategies that blend educational games with instructional scaffolding in introductory computer science teaching. We assess the effectiveness of incorporating these teaching strategies by leveraging various empirical evaluation techniques and study their impacts from three different dimensions: students' point of view, instructors' perspective, and students' performance. In addition, we establish correlations between students' approaches to learning and game-based learning, and further discuss how learning concentration and curiosity relate to students' perception of game-based activities.

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence techniques such as agent-based modeling and probabilistic reasoning have shown promise in modeling complex biological systems and testing ecological hypotheses through simulation. We develop an agent-based model of Arctic foxes from Medniy Island while utilizing Probabilistic Graphical Models to capture the conditional dependencies between the random variables. Such models provide valuable insights in analyzing factors behind catastrophic degradation of this population and in revealing evolutionary mechanisms of its persistence in high-density environment. Using empirical data from studies in Medniy Island, we create a realistic model of Arctic foxes as agents, and study their survival and population dynamics under a variety of conditions.

Abstract

For one-sided matching problems, two widely studied mechanisms are the Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) and the Probabilistic Serial Rule (PS). The induced outcomes of these two mechanisms are often incomparable and thus there are challenges when it comes to deciding which mechanism to adopt in practice. Working in the space of general preferences, we provide empirical results on the (in)comparability of RSD and PS and analyze their economic properties.

Abstract

We consider the problem of allocating indivisible goods using the leading notion of fairness in economics: the competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Focusing on two major classes of valuations, namely perfect substitutes and perfect complements, we establish the computational properties of algorithms operating in this framework. For the class of valuations with perfect complements, our algorithm yields a surprisingly succinct characterization of instances that admit a competitive equilibrium from equal incomes.

Abstract

We consider the problem of repeatedly matching a set of alternatives to a set of agents with dynamic ordinal preferences. Despite a recent focus on designing one-shot matching mechanisms in the absence of monetary transfers, little study has been done on strategic behavior of agents in sequential assignment problems. We formulate a generic dynamic matching problem via a sequential stochastic matching process. We design a mechanism based on random serial dictatorship (RSD) that, given any history of preferences and matching decisions, guarantees global stochastic strategyproofness while satisfying desirable local properties. We further investigate the notion of envyfreeness in such sequential settings.

Abstract

We consider the problem of repeatedly matching a set of alternatives to a set of agents in the absence of monetary transfer. We propose a generic framework for evaluating sequential matching mechanisms with dynamic preferences, and show that unlike single-shot settings, the random serial dictatorship mechanism is manipulable.

Abstract

In certain voting problems, a hidden ground truth is inferred by aggregating the opinions of an electorate. We propose a novel model of these underlying social interactions, and derive maximum likelihood estimators for the ground truth in these models, given the social network and votes. We also evaluate these new estimators, as well as existing ones, on a class of simulated social networks.

Abstract

In certain voting problems, a central authority must infer a hidden ground truth by aggregating the opinions of an electorate. When individual assessments are drawn i.i.d. and are correct with probability p > 0.5, aggregating enough votes will yield the ground truth with high probability. However, in reality voters’ opinions are often influenced by those of their friends. In certain social networks, this interaction may cause the aggregated opinions to be misleading. A center may use the network structure to recover the original distribution of votes from the post-interaction opinions of voters, and so recover the ground truth in spite of confounding discussions. In this paper, we consider a series of novel models of these underlying social interactions, and derive maximum likelihood estimators for the ground truth in these models, given the social network and votes. We also evaluate these new estimators, as well as existing ones, on common classes of social networks, and derive analytical bounds on the estimators’ performance in different environments. In all, we provide important insights into admitting influence from peers during voting.

Abstract

This paper considers a novel approach to scalable multiagent resource allocation in dynamic settings. We propose an approximate solution in which each resource consumer is represented by an independent MDP-based agent that models expected utility using an average model of its expected access to resources given only limited information about all other agents. A global auction-based mechanism is proposed for allocations based on expected regret. We assume truthful bidding and a cooperative coordination mechanism, as we are considering healthcare scenarios. We illustrate the performance of our coordinated MDP approach against a Monte-Carlo based planning algorithm intended for large-scale applications, as well as other approaches suitable for allocating medical resources. The evaluations show that the global utility value across all consumer agents is closer to optimal when using our algorithms under certain time constraints, with low computational cost. As such, we offer a promising approach for addressing complex resource allocation problems that arise in healthcare settings.

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of norm adaptation using Bayesian reinforcement learning. We are concerned with the effectiveness of adding prior domain knowledge when facing environments with different settings as well as with the speed of adapting to a new environment. Individuals develop their normative framework via interaction with their surrounding environment (including other individuals). An agent acquires the domain-dependent knowledge in a certain environment and later reuses them in different settings. This work is novel in that it represents normative behaviors as probabilities over belief sets. We propose a two-level learning framework to learn the values of normative actions and set them as prior knowledge, when agents are confident about them, to feed them back to their belief sets. Developing a prior belief set about a certain domain can improve an agent’s learning process to adjust its norms to the new environment’s dynamics. Our evaluation shows that a normative agent, having been trained in an initial environment, is able to adjust its beliefs about the dynamics and behavioral norms in a new environment. Therefore, it converges to the optimal policy more quickly, especially in the early stages of learning.

Abstract

Multiagent resource allocation under uncertainty raises various computational challenges in terms of efficiency such as intractability, communication cost, and preference representation. To date most approaches do not provide efficient solutions for dynamic environments where temporal constraints pose particular challenges. We propose two techniques to cope with such settings: auctions to allocate fairly according to preferences, and MDPs to address stochasticity. This research seeks to determine the ideal combination between the two methods to handle wide range of allocation problems with reduced computation and communication cost between agents.

Abstract

Multiagent resource allocation under uncertainty raises various computational challenges in terms of efficiency such as intractability, communication cost, and preference representation. To date most approaches do not provide efficient solutions for dynamic environments where temporal constraints pose particular challenges. We propose two techniques to cope with such settings: auctions to allocate fairly according to preferences, and MDPs to address stochasticity. This research seeks to determine the ideal combination between the two methods to handle wide range of allocation problems with reduced computation and communication cost between agents.

Abstract

Bug assignment in large software projects is typically a time-consuming and tedious task, effective assignment requires that bug triagers hold significant contextual information about both the reported bugs and the pool of available developers. In this paper, we propose an auction-based multiagent mechanism for assigning bugs to developers that is intended to minimize backlogs and overall bug lifetime. In this approach, developers and triagers are both modeled as intelligent software agents working on behalf of individuals in a multiagent environment. Upon receiving a bug report, triager agents auction off the bug and collect the requests. Developer agents compute their bids as a function of the developer's profile, preferences, current schedule of assigned bugs, and estimated time-to-fix of the bug. This value is then sent to the triager agent for the final decision. We use the Eclipse and Fire fox bug repositories to validate our approach, our studies suggest that the proposed auction-based multiagent mechanism can improve the bug assignment process compared to currently practiced methods. In particular, we found a 16% improvement in the number of fixed bugs compared to the historic data, based on a sample size of 213,000 bug reports over a period of 6 years.

Abstract

In this paper we review the Billiard Ball Model (BBM) introduced by Toffoli and Fredkin. The analysis of a previous approach to design reversible networks based on BBM it shown to ignored physical realities. We prove that some logic function cannot be realized without additional control balls. For example, to realize the logical OR operation, at least three control balls are needed. We show how reversible Toffoli gates can be constructed with this model. Finally, a Toffoli gate module is proposed that can be used in a cascade of gates and thus implement arbitrary reversible functions.

Abstract