BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Reshef Meir

Reshef Meir appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computer Science and Game TheoryArtificial IntelligenceComputational ComplexityDiscrete Mathematicsecon.THMachine Learningmath.COMultiagent Systems

Catalog footprint

What is connected

16works
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

16 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Empirical Bayes approach to Truth Discovery problems

When aggregating information from conflicting sources, one's goal is to find the truth. Most real-value \emph{truth discovery} (TD) algorithms try to achieve this goal by estimating the competence of each source and then aggregating the conflicting information by weighing each source's answer proportionally to her competence. However, each of those algorithms requires more than a single source for such estimation and usually does not consider different estimation methods other than a weighted mean. Therefore, in this work we formulate, prove, and empirically test the conditions for an Empirical Bayes Estimator (EBE) to dominate the weighted mean aggregation. Our main result demonstrates that EBE, under mild conditions, can be used as a second step of any TD algorithm in order to reduce the expected error.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Welfare vs. Representation in Participatory Budgeting

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process for allocating funds to projects based on the votes of members of the community. Different rules have been used to aggregate participants' votes. Past research has studied the trade-off between notions of social welfare and fairness in the multi-winner setting (a special case of participatory budgeting with identical project costs) by Lackner and Skowron (2020). But there is little understanding of this trade-off in the more general PB setting. This paper provides a theoretical and empirical study of the worst-case guarantees of several common rules to better understand the trade-off between social welfare, representation. We show that many of the guarantees from the multi-winner setting do not generalize to the PB setting, and that the introduction of costs leads to substantially worse guarantees, thereby exacerbating the welfare-representation trade-off. We extend our theoretical analysis to studying how the requirement of proportionality over voting rules affects this trade-off. We further study how the requirement of proportionality over voting rules effects the guarantees on social welfare and representation. We study the latter point also empirically, both on real and synthetic datasets. We show that variants of the recently suggested voting rule Rule-X (which satisfies proportionality) do very well in practice both with respect to social welfare and representation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Strategyproof Facility Location Mechanisms on Discrete Trees

We address the problem of strategyproof (SP) facility location mechanisms on discrete trees. Our main result is a full characterization of onto and SP mechanisms. In particular, we prove that when a single agent significantly affects the outcome, the trajectory of the facility is almost contained in the trajectory of the agent, and both move in the same direction along the common edges. We show tight relations of our characterization to previous results on discrete lines and on continuous trees. We then derive further implications of the main result for infinite discrete lines.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bidding in Spades

We present a Spades bidding algorithm that is superior to recreational human players and to publicly available bots. Like in Bridge, the game of Spades is composed of two independent phases, \textit{bidding} and \textit{playing}. This paper focuses on the bidding algorithm, since this phase holds a precise challenge: based on the input, choose the bid that maximizes the agent's winning probability. Our \emph{Bidding-in-Spades} (BIS) algorithm heuristically determines the bidding strategy by comparing the expected utility of each possible bid. A major challenge is how to estimate these expected utilities. To this end, we propose a set of domain-specific heuristics, and then correct them via machine learning using data from real-world players. The \BIS algorithm we present can be attached to any playing algorithm. It beats rule-based bidding bots when all use the same playing component. When combined with a rule-based playing algorithm, it is superior to the average recreational human.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Cumulative subtraction games

We study zero-sum games, a variant of the classical combinatorial Subtraction games (studied for example in the monumental work "Winning Ways", by Berlekamp, Conway and Guy), called Cumulative Subtraction (CS). Two players alternate in moving, and get points for taking pebbles out of a joint pile. We prove that the outcome in optimal play (game value) of a CS with a finite number of possible actions is eventually periodic, with period $2s$, where $s$ is the size of the largest available action. This settles a conjecture by Stewart in his Ph.D. thesis (2011). Specifically, we find a quadratic bound, in the size of $s$, on when the outcome function must have become periodic. In case of two possible actions, we give an explicit description of optimal play. We generalize the periodicity result to games with a so-called reward function, where at each stage of game, the change of `score' does not necessarily equal the number of pebbles you collect.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Distance-based Equilibria in Normal-Form Games

We propose a simple uncertainty modification for the agent model in normal-form games; at any given strategy profile, the agent can access only a set of "possible profiles" that are within a certain distance from the actual action profile. We investigate the various instantiations in which the agent chooses her strategy using well-known rationales e.g., considering the worst case, or trying to minimize the regret, to cope with such uncertainty. Any such modification in the behavioral model naturally induces a corresponding notion of equilibrium; a distance-based equilibrium. We characterize the relationships between the various equilibria, and also their connections to well-known existing solution concepts such as Trembling-hand perfection. Furthermore, we deliver existence results, and show that for some class of games, such solution concepts can actually lead to better outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Penalty Bidding Mechanisms for Allocating Resources and Overcoming Present Bias

From skipped exercise classes to last-minute cancellation of dentist appointments, underutilization of reserved resources abounds. Likely reasons include uncertainty about the future, further exacerbated by present bias. In this paper, we unite resource allocation and commitment devices through the design of contingent payment mechanisms, and propose the two-bid penalty-bidding mechanism. This extends an earlier mechanism proposed by Ma et al. (2019), assigning the resources based on willingness to accept a no-show penalty, while also allowing each participant to increase her own penalty in order to counter present bias. We establish a simple dominant strategy equilibrium, regardless of an agent's level of present bias or degree of "sophistication". Via simulations, we show that the proposed mechanism substantially improves utilization and achieves higher welfare and better equity in comparison with mechanisms used in practice and mechanisms that optimize welfare in the absence of present bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Representative Committees of Peers

A population of voters must elect representatives among themselves to decide on a sequence of possibly unforeseen binary issues. Voters care only about the final decision, not the elected representatives. The disutility of a voter is proportional to the fraction of issues, where his preferences disagree with the decision. While an issue-by-issue vote by all voters would maximize social welfare, we are interested in how well the preferences of the population can be approximated by a small committee. We show that a k-sortition (a random committee of k voters with the majority vote within the committee) leads to an outcome within the factor 1+O(1/k) of the optimal social cost for any number of voters n, any number of issues $m$, and any preference profile. For a small number of issues m, the social cost can be made even closer to optimal by delegation procedures that weigh committee members according to their number of followers. However, for large m, we demonstrate that the k-sortition is the worst-case optimal rule within a broad family of committee-based rules that take into account metric information about the preference profile of the whole population.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Proxy Voting for Better Outcomes

We consider a social choice problem where only a small number of people out of a large population are sufficiently available or motivated to vote. A common solution to increase participation is to allow voters use a proxy, that is, transfer their voting rights to another voter. Considering social choice problems on metric spaces, we compare voting with and without the use of proxies to see which mechanism better approximates the optimal outcome, and characterize the regimes in which proxy voting is beneficial. When voters' opinions are located on an interval, both the median mechanism and the mean mechanism are substantially improved by proxy voting. When voters vote on many binary issues, proxy voting is better when the sample of active voters is too small to provide a good outcome. Our theoretical results extend to situations where available voters choose strategically whether to participate. We support our theoretical findings with empirical results showing substantial benefits of proxy voting on simulated and real preference data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Local-Dominance Theory of Voting Equilibria

It is well known that no reasonable voting rule is strategyproof. Moreover, the common Plurality rule is particularly prone to strategic behavior of the voters and empirical studies show that people often vote strategically in practice. Multiple game-theoretic models have been proposed to better understand and predict such behavior and the outcomes it induces. However, these models often make unrealistic assumptions regarding voters' behavior and the information on which they base their vote. We suggest a new model for strategic voting that takes into account voters' bounded rationality, as well as their limited access to reliable information. We introduce a simple behavioral heuristic based on \emph{local dominance}, where each voter considers a set of possible world states without assigning probabilities to them. This set is constructed based on prospective candidates' scores (e.g., available from an inaccurate poll). In a \emph{voting equilibrium}, all voters vote for candidates not dominated within the set of possible states. We prove that these voting equilibria exist in the Plurality rule for a broad class of local dominance relations (that is, different ways to decide which states are possible). Furthermore, we show that in an iterative setting where voters may repeatedly change their vote, local dominance-based dynamics quickly converge to an equilibrium if voters start from the truthful state. Weaker convergence guarantees in more general settings are also provided. Using extensive simulations of strategic voting on generated and real preference profiles, we show that convergence is fast and robust, that emerging equilibria are consistent across various starting conditions, and that they replicate widely known patterns of human voting behavior such as Duverger's law. Further, strategic voting generally improves the quality of the winner compared to truthful voting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Plurality Voting under Uncertainty

Understanding the nature of strategic voting is the holy grail of social choice theory, where game-theory, social science and recently computational approaches are all applied in order to model the incentives and behavior of voters. In a recent paper, Meir et al.[EC'14] made another step in this direction, by suggesting a behavioral game-theoretic model for voters under uncertainty. For a specific variation of best-response heuristics, they proved initial existence and convergence results in the Plurality voting system. In this paper, we extend the model in multiple directions, considering voters with different uncertainty levels, simultaneous strategic decisions, and a more permissive notion of best-response. We prove that a voting equilibrium exists even in the most general case. Further, any society voting in an iterative setting is guaranteed to converge. We also analyze an alternative behavior where voters try to minimize their worst-case regret. We show that the two behaviors coincide in the simple setting of Meir et al., but not in the general case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Equilibrium in Labor Markets with Few Firms

We study competition between firms in labor markets, following a combinatorial model suggested by Kelso and Crawford [1982]. In this model, each firm is trying to recruit workers by offering a higher salary than its competitors, and its production function defines the utility generated from any actual set of recruited workers. We define two natural classes of production functions for firms, where the first one is based on additive capacities (weights), and the second on the influence of workers in a social network. We then analyze the existence of pure subgame perfect equilibrium (PSPE) in the labor market and its properties. While neither class holds the gross substitutes condition, we show that in both classes the existence of PSPE is guaranteed under certain restrictions, and in particular when there are only two competing firms. As a corollary, there exists a Walrasian equilibrium in a corresponding combinatorial auction, where bidders' valuation functions belong to these classes. While a PSPE may not exist when there are more than two firms, we perform an empirical study of equilibrium outcomes for the case of weight-based games with three firms, which extend our analytical results. We then show that stability can in some cases be extended to coalitional stability, and study the distribution of profit between firms and their workers in weight-based games.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Solving Cooperative Reliability Games

Cooperative games model the allocation of profit from joint actions, following considerations such as stability and fairness. We propose the reliability extension of such games, where agents may fail to participate in the game. In the reliability extension, each agent only "survives" with a certain probability, and a coalition's value is the probability that its surviving members would be a winning coalition in the base game. We study prominent solution concepts in such games, showing how to approximate the Shapley value and how to compute the core in games with few agent types. We also show that applying the reliability extension may stabilize the game, making the core non-empty even when the base game has an empty core.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Stability Scores: Measuring Coalitional Stability

We introduce a measure for the level of stability against coalitional deviations, called \emph{stability scores}, which generalizes widely used notions of stability in non-cooperative games. We use the proposed measure to compare various Nash equilibria in congestion games, and to quantify the effect of game parameters on coalitional stability. For our main results, we apply stability scores to analyze and compare the Generalized Second Price (GSP) and Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) ad auctions. We show that while a central result of the ad auctions literature is that the GSP and VCG auctions implement the same outcome in one of the equilibria of GSP, the GSP outcome is far more stable. Finally, a modified version of VCG is introduced, which is group strategy-proof, and thereby achieves the highest possible stability score.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

The Cost of Stability in Coalitional Games

A key question in cooperative game theory is that of coalitional stability, usually captured by the notion of the \emph{core}--the set of outcomes such that no subgroup of players has an incentive to deviate. However, some coalitional games have empty cores, and any outcome in such a game is unstable. In this paper, we investigate the possibility of stabilizing a coalitional game by using external payments. We consider a scenario where an external party, which is interested in having the players work together, offers a supplemental payment to the grand coalition (or, more generally, a particular coalition structure). This payment is conditional on players not deviating from their coalition(s). The sum of this payment plus the actual gains of the coalition(s) may then be divided among the agents so as to promote stability. We define the \emph{cost of stability (CoS)} as the minimal external payment that stabilizes the game. We provide general bounds on the cost of stability in several classes of games, and explore its algorithmic properties. To develop a better intuition for the concepts we introduce, we provide a detailed algorithmic study of the cost of stability in weighted voting games, a simple but expressive class of games which can model decision-making in political bodies, and cooperation in multiagent settings. Finally, we extend our model and results to games with coalition structures.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access