Georgios Birmpas

Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Philip Lazos et al.

Constrained maximization of submodular functions is a central problem in combinatorial optimization. In many realistic scenarios, multiple agents each need to maximize their own submodular objective over a common ground set, subject to individual constraints, with the requirement that their solutions be disjoint. We study this setting through the lens of algorithmic fairness and constrained fair division. Inspired by the fair division literature, we propose and analyze a simple Round-Robin protocol in which agents take turns building their solutions one item at a time; each agent is free to use any internal algorithm, and the protocol itself performs no computation. We show that agents following simple greedy policies enjoy solid guarantees for both monotone and non-monotone objectives subject to constraints as general as $p$-systems. For monotone objectives, a greedy agent $i$ with a $p_i$-system constraint achieves a $1/(n+p_i)$ fraction of the best value available when they first get to choose. On instances that are robust to competition -- where no agent's optimal value is greatly affected by losing some items to others -- these guarantees improve to a $1/Θ(p_i)$ approximation of the unconstrained optimum, which is asymptotically best-possible in polynomial time. We further establish novel fairness guarantees: greedy agents produce approximately feasible-envy-free-up-to-one-item (FEF1) and approximately feasible-envy-free-towards-unallocated-items (FEFu) allocations for monotone and non-monotone objectives. Via a simple augmented protocol and a self-contained polynomial-time proxy algorithm, we also obtain the first $Θ(1/p_i)$-approximate feasible maximin share (FMMS) guarantees for submodular agents with combinatorial constraints. Finally, although greedy policies may not be individually optimal, consistently improving upon them is NP-hard even in the simplest settings.

Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser

With strong evidence in the literature showing that fairness and truthfulness are incompatible, there is a recent line of work focusing on the fairness properties of equilibria of simple fair division mechanisms, especially Round-Robin. We consider the Envy Cycle Elimination (E-C-E) procedure of Lipton et al. [23], one of the most versatile tools in fair division. While this simple and intuitive algorithm achieves allocations that are envy-free up to one item (EF1) for any number of agents and general monotone valuation functions, surprisingly little is known about its behavior when agents act strategically. We demonstrate how the presence of incentives, although highly natural and relevant for the majority of applications, completely removes the intuitive clarity in the algorithm's execution, even for a few agents and very simple valuation functions. Additionally, while in the standard algorithmic setting there is great flexibility in how the details of E-C-E are implemented, here additional specifications are needed before the procedure is clearly defined, the choice of which has a potentially huge impact on the agents' behavior. Despite these obstacles, for various natural versions of E-C-E, we give the first results on the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria of the resulting mechanisms, and show there exist versions where fairness guarantees are approximately preserved for agents who play best responses.

Eleni Batziou, Georgios Birmpas, Georgios Chionas et al.

Sponsored search auctions are commonly modeled as an assignment of a fixed set of slots (positions) to a set of advertisers, with welfare maximization being reducible to a standard matching problem. Motivated by modern ad formats, we study a richer variant of the classical position auctions model, in which ads have heterogeneous sizes and the platform must jointly select and assign a subset of ads to positions subject to a global space constraint. We formulate this as a matching problem with a capacity constraint, and propose an algorithmic technique that goes beyond simple greedy methods while achieving constant factor approximation guarantees. Our allocation rule augments density-based ordering with capacity-aware local improvements, which allow for re-allocations that improve welfare, while respecting the capacity constraint. Applied in the context of position auctions, we analyze this mechanism under the assumption of single-parameter agents and position-dependent click-through-rates (CTRs). We show that a minor modification to our approach yields a universally truthful randomized mechanism with a constant factor approximation guarantee. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first truthful constant-approximation mechanism for this variant of capacity-constrained matching.

Georgios Birmpas, Georgios Chionas, Efthyvoulos Drousiotis et al.

We study instant-runoff voting (IRV) under metric preferences induced by an unweighted graph where each vertex hosts a voter, candidates occupy some vertices (with a single candidate allowed in such a vertex), and voters rank candidates by shortest-path distance with fixed deterministic tie-breaking. We focus on exclusion zones, vertex sets S such that whenever some candidate lies in S, the IRV winner must also lie in S. While testing whether a given set S is an exclusion zone is co-NP-Complete and finding the minimum exclusion zone is NP-hard in general graphs, we show here that both problems can be solved in polynomial time on trees. Our approach solves zone testing by designing a Kill membership test (can a designated candidate be forced to lose using opponents from a restricted set?) and shows that Kill can be decided in polynomial time on trees via a bottom-up dynamic program that certifies whether the designated candidate can be eliminated in round 1. A greedy shrinking process then recovers the minimum zone under a standard nesting assumption. To clarify the limits of tractability beyond trees, we also identify a rule level property (Strong Forced Elimination) that abstracts the key IRV behavior used in prior reductions, and show that both exclusion-zone verification and minimum- zone computation remain co-NP-complete and NP-hard, respectively, for any deterministic rank-based elimination rule satisfying this property. Finally, we relate IRV to utilitarian distortion in this discrete setting, and we present upper and lower bounds with regard to the distortion of IRV for several scenarios, including perfect binary trees and unweighted graphs.

Georgios Amanatidis, Georgios Birmpas, Federico Fusco et al.

We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of strategic agents with additive valuation functions. We assume no monetary transfers and, therefore, a mechanism in our setting is an algorithm that takes as input the reported -- rather than the true -- values of the agents. Our main goal is to explore whether there exist mechanisms that have pure Nash equilibria for every instance and, at the same time, provide fairness guarantees for the allocations that correspond to these equilibria. We focus on two relaxations of envy-freeness, namely envy-freeness up to one good (EF1), and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), and we positively answer the above question. In particular, we study two algorithms that are known to produce such allocations in the non-strategic setting: Round-Robin (EF1 allocations for any number of agents) and a cut-and-choose algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden [SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 2020] (EFX allocations for two agents). For Round-Robin we show that all of its pure Nash equilibria induce allocations that are EF1 with respect to the underlying true values, while for the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden we show that the corresponding allocations not only are EFX but also satisfy maximin share fairness, something that is not true for this algorithm in the non-strategic setting! Further, we show that a weaker version of the latter result holds for any mechanism for two agents that always has pure Nash equilibria which all induce EFX allocations.

Georgios Birmpas, Jiarui Gan, Alexandros Hollender et al.

Recent results in the ML community have revealed that learning algorithms used to compute the optimal strategy for the leader to commit to in a Stackelberg game, are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. Such a learning algorithm operates by querying the best responses or the payoffs of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by responding as if his payoffs were much different than what they actually are. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the payoffs that would make the learning algorithm compute a commitment so that best responding to it maximizes the follower's utility, according to his true payoffs. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature only focused on the simplified scenario in which the payoff space is finite, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill in this gap, by showing that it is always possible for the follower to compute (near-)optimal payoffs for various scenarios about the learning interaction between leader and follower.

Georgios Birmpas, Elias Koutsoupias, Philip Lazos et al.

Bitcoin is a decentralised digital currency that serves as an alternative to existing transaction systems based on an external central authority for security. Although Bitcoin has many desirable properties, one of its fundamental shortcomings is its inability to process transactions at high rates. To address this challenge, many subsequent protocols either modify the rules of block acceptance (longest chain rule) and reward, or alter the graphical structure of the public ledger from a tree to a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Motivated by these approaches, we introduce a new general framework that captures ledger growth for a large class of DAG-based implementations. With this in hand, and by assuming honest miner behaviour, we (experimentally) explore how different DAG-based protocols perform in terms of fairness, i.e., if the block reward of a miner is proportional to their hash power, as well as efficiency, i.e. what proportion of user transactions a ledger deems valid after a certain length of time. Our results demonstrate fundamental structural limits on how well DAG-based ledger protocols cope with a high transaction load. More specifically, we show that even in a scenario where every miner on the system is honest in terms of when they publish blocks, what they point to, and what transactions each block contains, fairness and efficiency of the ledger can break down at specific hash rates if miners have differing levels of connectivity to the P2P network sustaining the protocol.