BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David Sarne

David Sarne contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Multiagent SystemsComputer Science and Game TheoryArtificial IntelligenceData Structures and Algorithms

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Negotiating Strategy for a Hybrid Goal Function in Multilateral Negotiation

In various multi-agent negotiation settings, a negotiator's utility depends, either partially or fully, on the sum of negotiators' utilities (i.e., social welfare). While the need for effective negotiating-agent designs that take into account social welfare has been acknowledged in recent work, and even established as a category in automated negotiating agent competitions, very few designs have been proposed to date. In this paper, we present the design principles and results of an extensive evaluation of agent HerbT+, a negotiating agent aiming to maximize a linear tradeoff between individual and social welfare. Our evaluation framework relies on the automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC) and includes a thorough comparison of performance with the top 15 agents submitted between 2015-2018 based on negotiations involving 63 agents submitted to these competitions. We find that, except for a few minor exceptions, when social-welfare plays a substantial role in the agent's goal function, our agent outperforms all other tested designs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Explainability in Mechanism Design: Recent Advances and the Road Ahead

Designing and implementing explainable systems is seen as the next step towards increasing user trust in, acceptance of and reliance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. While explaining choices made by black-box algorithms such as machine learning and deep learning has occupied most of the limelight, systems that attempt to explain decisions (even simple ones) in the context of social choice are steadily catching up. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of explainability in mechanism design, a domain characterized by economically motivated agents and often having no single choice that maximizes all individual utility functions. We discuss the main properties and goals of explainability in mechanism design, distinguishing them from those of Explainable AI in general. This discussion is followed by a thorough review of the challenges one may face when working on Explainable Mechanism Design and propose a few solution concepts to those.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Justifying Social-Choice Mechanism Outcome for Improving Participant Satisfaction

In many social-choice mechanisms the resulting choice is not the most preferred one for some of the participants, thus the need for methods to justify the choice made in a way that improves the acceptance and satisfaction of said participants. One natural method for providing such explanations is to ask people to provide them, e.g., through crowdsourcing, and choosing the most convincing arguments among those received. In this paper we propose the use of an alternative approach, one that automatically generates explanations based on desirable mechanism features found in theoretical mechanism design literature. We test the effectiveness of both of the methods through a series of extensive experiments conducted with over 600 participants in ranked voting, a classic social choice mechanism. The analysis of the results reveals that explanations indeed affect both average satisfaction from and acceptance of the outcome in such settings. In particular, explanations are shown to have a positive effect on satisfaction and acceptance when the outcome (the winning candidate in our case) is the least desirable choice for the participant. A comparative analysis reveals that the automatically generated explanations result in similar levels of satisfaction from and acceptance of an outcome as with the more costly alternative of crowdsourced explanations, hence eliminating the need to keep humans in the loop. Furthermore, the automatically generated explanations significantly reduce participants' belief that a different winner should have been elected compared to crowdsourced explanations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Practical Power of Automata in Pattern Matching

The classical pattern matching paradigm is that of seeking occurrences of one string - the pattern, in another - the text, where both strings are drawn from an alphabet set $Σ$. Assuming the text length is $n$ and the pattern length is $m$, this problem can naively be solved in time $O(nm)$. In Knuth, Morris and Pratt's seminal paper of 1977, an automaton, was developed that allows solving this problem in time $O(n)$ for any alphabet. This automaton, which we will refer to as the {\em KMP-automaton}, has proven useful in solving many other problems. A notable example is the {\em parameterized pattern matching} model. In this model, a consistent renaming of symbols from $Σ$ is allowed in a match. The parameterized matching paradigm has proven useful in problems in software engineering, computer vision, and other applications. It has long been suspected that for texts where the symbols are uniformly random, the naive algorithm will perform as well as the KMP algorithm. In this paper we examine the practical efficiency of the KMP algorithm vs. the naive algorithm on a randomly generated text. We analyse the time under various parameters, such as alphabet size, pattern length, and the distribution of pattern occurrences in the text. We do this for both the original exact matching problem and parameterized matching. While the folklore wisdom is vindicated by these findings for the exact matching case, surprisingly, the KMP algorithm works significantly faster than the naive in the parameterized matching case. We check this hypothesis for DNA texts, and observe a similar behaviour as in the random text. We also show a very structured case where the automaton is much more efficient.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Obtaining Costly Unverifiable Valuations from a Single Agent

We consider the problem of a principal who needs to elicit the true worth of an object she owns from an agent who has a unique ability to compute this information. The correctness of the information cannot be verified by the principal, so it is important to incentivize the agent to report truthfully. Previous works coped with this unverifiability by employing two or more information agents and awarding them according to the correlation between their reports. In this paper we show that even with only one information agent truthful information can be elicited, as long as the object is valuable for the agent too. In particular the paper introduces a mechanism that, under mild realistic assumptions, is proved to elicit the information truthfully, even when computing the information is costly for the agent. Moreover, using this mechanism, the principal obtains the truthful information incurring an arbitrarily small expense beyond whatever unavoidable costs the setting dictates.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access