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

Uriel Feige

Uriel Feige contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer Science and Game TheoryData Structures and Algorithmsecon.THArtificial IntelligenceInformation Theorymath.IT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
10works
0followers
6topics
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

10 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Are Gross Substitutes a Substitute for Submodular Valuations?

The class of gross substitutes (GS) set functions plays a central role in Economics and Computer Science. GS belongs to the hierarchy of {\em complement free} valuations introduced by Lehmann, Lehmann and Nisan, along with other prominent classes: $GS \subsetneq Submodular \subsetneq XOS \subsetneq Subadditive$. The GS class has always been more enigmatic than its counterpart classes, both in its definition and in its relation to the other classes. For example, while it is well understood how closely the Submodular, XOS and Subadditive classes (point-wise) approximate one another, approximability of these classes by GS remained wide open. Our main result is the existence of a submodular valuation (one that is also budget additive) that cannot be approximated by GS within a ratio better than $Ω(\frac{\log m}{\log\log m})$, where $m$ is the number of items. En route, we uncover a new symmetrization operation that preserves GS, which may be of independent interest. We show that our main result is tight with respect to budget additive valuations. Additionally, for a class of submodular functions that we refer to as {\em concave of Rado} valuations (this class greatly extends budget additive valuations), we show approximability by GS within an $O(\log^2m)$ factor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Best-of-Both-Worlds Fair-Share Allocations

We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items among $n$ agents with additive valuations, when agents have equal entitlements to the goods, and there are no transfers. Best-of-Both-Worlds (BoBW) fairness mechanisms aim to give all agents both an ex-ante guarantee (such as getting the proportional share in expectation) and an ex-post guarantee. Prior BoBW results have focused on ex-post guarantees that are based on the "up to one item" paradigm, such as envy-free up to one item (EF1). In this work we attempt to give every agent a high value ex-post, and specifically, a constant fraction of his maximin share (MMS). The up to one item paradigm fails to give such a guarantee, and it is not difficult to present examples in which previous BoBW mechanisms give agents only a $\frac{1}{n}$ fraction of their MMS. Our main result is a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that computes a distribution over allocations that is ex-ante proportional, and ex-post, every allocation gives every agent at least his proportional share up to one item, and more importantly, at least half of his MMS. Moreover, this last ex-post guarantee holds even with respect to a more demanding notion of a share, introduced in this paper, that we refer to as the truncated proportional share (TPS). Our guarantees are nearly best possible, in the sense that one cannot guarantee agents more than their proportional share ex-ante, and one cannot guarantee agents more than a $\frac{n}{2n-1}$ fraction of their TPS ex-post.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Fair Shares: Feasibility, Domination and Incentives

We consider fair allocation of a set $M$ of indivisible goods to $n$ equally-entitled agents, with no monetary transfers. Every agent $i$ has a valuation $v_i$ from some given class of valuation functions. A share $s$ is a function that maps a pair $(v_i,n)$ to a value, with the interpretation that if an allocation of $M$ to $n$ agents fails to give agent $i$ a bundle of value at least equal to $s(v_i,n)$, this serves as evidence that the allocation is not fair towards $i$. For such an interpretation to make sense, we would like the share to be feasible, meaning that for any valuations in the class, there is an allocation that gives every agent at least her share. The maximin share was a natural candidate for a feasible share for additive valuations. However, Kurokawa, Procaccia and Wang [2018] show that it is not feasible. We initiate a systematic study of the family of feasible shares. We say that a share is \emph{self maximizing} if truth-telling maximizes the implied guarantee. We show that every feasible share is dominated by some self-maximizing and feasible share. We seek to identify those self-maximizing feasible shares that are polynomial time computable, and offer the highest share values. We show that a SM-dominating feasible share -- one that dominates every self-maximizing (SM) feasible share -- does not exist for additive valuations (and beyond). Consequently, we relax the domination property to that of domination up to a multiplicative factor of $ρ$ (called $ρ$-dominating). For additive valuations we present shares that are feasible, self-maximizing and polynomial-time computable. For $n$ agents we present such a share that is $\frac{2n}{3n-1}$-dominating. For two agents we present such a share that is $(1 - ε)$-dominating. Moreover, for these shares we present poly-time algorithms that compute allocations that give every agent at least her share.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Improved maximin fair allocation of indivisible items to three agents

We consider the problem of approximate maximin share (MMS) allocation of indivisible items among three agents with additive valuation functions. For goods, we show that an $\frac{11}{12}$ - MMS allocation always exists, improving over the previously known bound of $\frac{8}{9}$ . Moreover, in our allocation, we can prespecify an agent that is to receive her full proportional share (PS); we also present examples showing that for such allocations the ratio of $\frac{11}{12}$ is best possible. For chores, we show that a $\frac{19}{18}$-MMS allocation always exists. Also in this case, we can prespecify an agent that is to receive no more than her PS, and we present examples showing that for such allocations the ratio of $\frac{19}{18}$ is best possible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On allocations that give intersecting groups their fair share

We consider item allocation to individual agents who have additive valuations, in settings in which there are protected groups, and the allocation needs to give each protected group its "fair" share of the total welfare. Informally, within each protected group we consider the total welfare that the allocation gives the members of the group, and compare it to the maximum possible welfare that an allocation can give to the group members. An allocation is fair towards the group if the ratio between these two values is no worse then the relative size of the group. For divisible items, our formal definition of fairness is based on the proportional share, whereas for indivisible items, it is based on the anyprice share. We present examples in which there are no fair allocations, and even not allocations that approximate the fairness requirement within a constant multiplicative factor. We then attempt to identify sufficient conditions for fair or approximately fair allocations to exist. For example, for indivisible items, when agents have identical valuations and the family of protected groups is laminar, we show that if the items are chores, then an allocation that satisfies every fairness requirement within a multiplicative factor no worse than two exists and can be found efficiently, whereas if the items are goods, no constant approximation can be guaranteed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

How to hide a clique?

In the well known planted clique problem, a clique (or alternatively, an independent set) of size $k$ is planted at random in an Erdos-Renyi random $G(n, p)$ graph, and the goal is to design an algorithm that finds the maximum clique (or independent set) in the resulting graph. We introduce a variation on this problem, where instead of planting the clique at random, the clique is planted by an adversary who attempts to make it difficult to find the maximum clique in the resulting graph. We show that for the standard setting of the parameters of the problem, namely, a clique of size $k = \sqrt{n}$ planted in a random $G(n, \frac{1}{2})$ graph, the known polynomial time algorithms can be extended (in a non-trivial way) to work also in the adversarial setting. In contrast, we show that for other natural settings of the parameters, such as planting an independent set of size $k=\frac{n}{2}$ in a $G(n, p)$ graph with $p = n^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, there is no polynomial time algorithm that finds an independent set of size $k$, unless NP has randomized polynomial time algorithms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Quantitative Group Testing and the rank of random matrices

Given a random Bernoulli matrix $ A\in \{0,1\}^{m\times n} $, an integer $ 0< k < n $ and the vector $ y:=Ax $, where $ x \in \{0,1\}^n $ is of Hamming weight $ k $, the objective in the {\em Quantitative Group Testing} (QGT) problem is to recover $ x $. This problem is more difficult the smaller $m$ is. For parameter ranges of interest to us, known polynomial time algorithms require values of $m$ that are much larger than $k$. In this work, we define a seemingly easier problem that we refer to as {\em Subset Select}. Given the same input as in QGT, the objective in Subset Select is to return a subset $ S \subseteq [n] $ of cardinality $ m $, such that for all $ i\in [n] $, if $ x_i = 1 $ then $ i\in S $. We show that if the square submatrix of $A$ defined by the columns indexed by $S$ has nearly full rank, then from the solution of the Subset Select problem we can recover in polynomial-time the solution $x$ to the QGT problem. We conjecture that for every polynomial time Subset Select algorithm, the resulting output matrix will satisfy the desired rank condition. We prove the conjecture for some classes of algorithms. Using this reduction, we provide some examples of how to improve known QGT algorithms. Using theoretical analysis and simulations, we demonstrate that the modified algorithms solve the QGT problem for values of $ m $ that are smaller than those required for the original algorithms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Searching Trees with Permanently Noisy Advice: Walking and Query Algorithms

We consider a search problem on trees in which the goal is to find an adversarially placed treasure, while relying on local, partial information. Specifically, each node in the tree holds a pointer to one of its neighbors, termed \emph{advice}. A node is faulty with probability $q$. The advice at a non-faulty node points to the neighbor that is closer to the treasure, and the advice at a faulty node points to a uniformly random neighbor. Crucially, the advice is {\em permanent}, in the sense that querying the same node again would yield the same answer. Let $Δ$ denote the maximal degree. Roughly speaking, when considering the expected number of {\em moves}, i.e., edge traversals, we show that a phase transition occurs when the {\em noise parameter} $q$ is about $1/\sqrtΔ$. Below the threshold, there exists an algorithm with expected move complexity $O(D\sqrtΔ)$, where $D$ is the depth of the treasure, whereas above the threshold, every search algorithm has expected number of moves which is both exponential in $D$ and polynomial in the number of nodes~$n$. In contrast, if we require to find the treasure with probability at least $1-δ$, then for every fixed $\varepsilon > 0$, if $q<1/Δ^{\varepsilon}$ then there exists a search strategy that with probability $1-δ$ finds the treasure using $(δ^{-1}D)^{O(\frac 1 \varepsilon)}$ moves. Moreover, we show that $(δ^{-1}D)^{Ω(\frac 1 \varepsilon)}$ moves are necessary. Besides the number of moves, we also study the number of advice {\em queries} required to find the treasure. Roughly speaking, for this complexity, we show similar threshold results to those previously stated, where the parameter $D$ is replaced by $\log n$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Detecting High Log-Densities -- an O(n^1/4) Approximation for Densest k-Subgraph

In the Densest k-Subgraph problem, given a graph G and a parameter k, one needs to find a subgraph of G induced on k vertices that contains the largest number of edges. There is a significant gap between the best known upper and lower bounds for this problem. It is NP-hard, and does not have a PTAS unless NP has subexponential time algorithms. On the other hand, the current best known algorithm of Feige, Kortsarz and Peleg, gives an approximation ratio of n^(1/3-epsilon) for some specific epsilon > 0 (estimated at around 1/60). We present an algorithm that for every epsilon > 0 approximates the Densest k-Subgraph problem within a ratio of n^(1/4+epsilon) in time n^O(1/epsilon). In particular, our algorithm achieves an approximation ratio of O(n^1/4) in time n^O(log n). Our algorithm is inspired by studying an average-case version of the problem where the goal is to distinguish random graphs from graphs with planted dense subgraphs. The approximation ratio we achieve for the general case matches the distinguishing ratio we obtain for this planted problem. At a high level, our algorithms involve cleverly counting appropriately defined trees of constant size in G, and using these counts to identify the vertices of the dense subgraph. Our algorithm is based on the following principle. We say that a graph G(V,E) has log-density alpha if its average degree is Theta(|V|^alpha). The algorithmic core of our result is a family of algorithms that output k-subgraphs of nontrivial density whenever the log-density of the densest k-subgraph is larger than the log-density of the host graph.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Oblivious Algorithms for the Maximum Directed Cut Problem

This paper introduces a special family of randomized algorithms for Max DICUT that we call oblivious algorithms. Let the bias of a vertex be the ratio between the total weight of its outgoing edges and the total weight of all its edges. An oblivious algorithm selects at random in which side of the cut to place a vertex v, with probability that only depends on the bias of v, independently of other vertices. The reader may observe that the algorithm that ignores the bias and chooses each side with probability 1/2 has an approximation ratio of 1/4, whereas no oblivious algorithm can have an approximation ratio better than 1/2 (with an even directed cycle serving as a negative example). We attempt to characterize the best approximation ratio achievable by oblivious algorithms, and present results that are nearly tight. The paper also discusses natural extensions of the notion of oblivious algorithms, and extensions to the more general problem of Max 2-AND.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access