Tzeh Yuan Neoh

Edith Elkind, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh

We investigate a model of sequential decision-making where a single alternative is chosen at each round. We focus on two objectives -- utilitarian welfare (Util) and egalitarian welfare (Egal) -- and consider the computational complexity of maximizing these objectives, as well as their compatibility with strategyproofness and proportionality. We observe that maximizing Util is easy, but the corresponding decision problem for Egal is NP-complete even in restricted cases. We complement this hardness result for Egal with parameterized complexity analysis and an approximation algorithm. Additionally, we show that, while a mechanism that outputs an outcome that maximizes Util is strategyproof, all deterministic mechanisms for computing outcomes that maximize Egal fail a very weak variant of strategyproofness, called non-obvious manipulability (NOM). However, we show that when agents have non-empty approval sets at each timestep, choosing an Egal-maximizing outcome while breaking ties lexicographically satisfies NOM. Regarding proportionality, we prove that a proportional (PROP) outcome can be computed efficiently, but finding an outcome that maximizes Util while guaranteeing PROP is NP-hard. We also derive upper and lower bounds on the (strong) price of proportionality with respect to Util and Egal. Some of our results extend to $p$-mean welfare measures other than Egal and Util.

Thanh-Son Nguyen, Hong Yang, Tzeh Yuan Neoh et al.

We introduce PKR-QA (Procedural Knowledge Reasoning Question Answering), a new benchmark for question answering over procedural tasks that require structured reasoning. PKR-QA is constructed semi-automatically using a procedural knowledge graph (PKG), which encodes task-specific knowledge across diverse domains. The PKG is built by curating and linking information from the COIN instructional video dataset and the ontology, enriched with commonsense knowledge from ConceptNet and structured outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs), followed by manual verification. To generate question-answer pairs, we design graph traversal templates where each template is applied systematically over PKG. To enable interpretable reasoning, we propose a neurosymbolic approach called Knowledge Module Learning (KML), which learns procedural relations via neural modules and composes them for structured reasoning with LLMs. Experiments demonstrate that this paradigm improves reasoning performance on PKR-QA and enables step-by-step reasoning traces that facilitate interpretability. Code and dataset will be released soon https://github.com/LUNAProject22/KML.

Cheol Woo Kim, Davin Choo, Tzeh Yuan Neoh et al.

As AI systems grow more capable and autonomous, ensuring their safety and reliability requires not only model-level alignment but also strategic oversight of the humans and institutions involved in their development and deployment. Existing safety frameworks largely treat alignment as a static optimization problem (e.g., tuning models to desired behavior) while overlooking the dynamic, adversarial incentives that shape how data are collected, how models are evaluated, and how they are ultimately deployed. We propose a new perspective on AI safety grounded in Stackelberg Security Games (SSGs): a class of game-theoretic models designed for adversarial resource allocation under uncertainty. By viewing AI oversight as a strategic interaction between defenders (auditors, evaluators, and deployers) and attackers (malicious actors, misaligned contributors, or worst-case failure modes), SSGs provide a unifying framework for reasoning about incentive design, limited oversight capacity, and adversarial uncertainty across the AI lifecycle. We illustrate how this framework can inform (1) training-time auditing against data/feedback poisoning, (2) pre-deployment evaluation under constrained reviewer resources, and (3) robust multi-model deployment in adversarial environments. This synthesis bridges algorithmic alignment and institutional oversight design, highlighting how game-theoretic deterrence can make AI oversight proactive, risk-aware, and resilient to manipulation.

Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh, Je Qin Chooi et al.

Organizations increasingly deploy multiple AI systems across task domains, but selecting a small, high-performing ensemble can require costly model calls, benchmark runs, and human evaluation. We study this selection problem as a distributional variant of multiwinner voting: tasks are drawn from an unknown domain distribution, each task induces feedback over candidate experts, and a committee's value on a task is determined by its best-performing member. We analyze both binary feedback, for tasks with correct/incorrect outcomes, and pairwise feedback, for tasks where candidate outputs are compared by preference. In the binary setting, the induced objective is coverage. We give exhaustive-elicitation baselines and matching worst-case query lower bounds, and we design a failure-conditioned greedy algorithm that preserves the standard $(1-1/e)$ guarantee while obtaining instance-dependent query savings. In the pairwise setting, we study $θ$-winning committees. We show that full-information optimization admits a PTAS but no EPTAS under Gap-ETH, and that the objective is monotone but not submodular. This motivates a weighted ordinal coverage relaxation, which is submodular and supports a failure-conditioned greedy oracle under pairwise feedback. We then convert this oracle back into $θ$-type guarantees through finite-family auditing or a minimax wrapper. We also provide small-scale LLM experiments illustrating the predicted query savings and the role of complementarity in committee selection.

Abheek Ghosh, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh et al.

We study a model of subscription-based platforms where users pay a fixed fee for unlimited access to content, and creators receive a share of the revenue. Existing approaches to detecting fraud predominantly rely on machine learning methods, engaging in an ongoing arms race with bad actors. We explore revenue division mechanisms that inherently disincentivize manipulation. We formalize three types of manipulation-resistance axioms and examine which existing rules satisfy these. We show that a mechanism widely used by streaming platforms, not only fails to prevent fraud, but also makes detecting manipulation computationally intractable. We also introduce a novel rule, ScaledUserProp, that satisfies all three manipulation-resistance axioms. Finally, experiments with both real-world and synthetic streaming data support ScaledUserProp as a fairer alternative compared to existing rules.

Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Davin Choo, Mengchu Yue et al.

Many real-world resource allocation systems, such as humanitarian logistics and vaccine distribution, must preposition limited supply across multiple locations before demand is realized while stockouts incur irreversible service losses. To study this, we introduce the Online Shared Supply Allocation (OSSA) problem, a stateful online model in which a central hub allocates a finite, unknown supply to multiple sites facing sequential demand under fixed-charge transportation costs and lost-sales penalties. Unlike classical make-to-stock or make-to-order inventory models, OSSA precludes backlogging and replenishment only hedges against future demand. To tackle OSSA, we propose a deterministic threshold-proportional policy GPA and prove that it achieves a $4/3$-approximation to the offline optimum up to an additive term independent of the total supply. We complement this with matching lower bounds showing that the $4/3$ ratio is tight and that the additive-error dependence is unavoidable, even for randomized algorithms that know the total supply upfront. Finally, we develop a learning-augmented extension to GPA that principally incorporates imperfect forecasts (e.g., from human experts or ML models) commonly available in practice, enabling us to exploit high-quality advice while being robust against arbitrary bad ones. Synthetic and real-world experiments show that GPA outperforms natural baselines with global supply is scarce.

Edith Elkind, Alexander Lam, Mohamad Latifian et al.

We study a fair division model where indivisible items arrive sequentially, and must be allocated immediately and irrevocably. Previous work on online fair division has shown impossibility results in achieving approximate envy-freeness under these constraints. In contrast, we consider an informed setting where the algorithm has complete knowledge of future items, and aim to ensure that the cumulative allocation at each round satisfies approximate envy-freeness -- which we define as temporal envy-freeness up to one item (TEF1). We focus on settings where items can be exclusively goods or exclusively chores. For goods, while TEF1 allocations may not always exist, we identify several special cases where they do -- two agents, two item types, generalized binary valuations, unimodal preferences -- and provide polynomial-time algorithms for these cases. We also prove that determining the existence of a TEF1 allocation is NP-hard. For chores, we establish analogous results for the special cases, but present a slightly weaker intractability result. We also establish the incompatibility between TEF1 and Pareto-optimality, with the implication that it is intractable to find a TEF1 allocation that maximizes any $p$-mean welfare, even for two agents.

Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Jannik Peters, Nicholas Teh

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to agents in an online setting, where goods arrive sequentially and must be allocated irrevocably to agents. Focusing on the popular fairness notions of envy-freeness, proportionality, and maximin share fairness (and their approximate variants), we ask how the availability of information on future goods influences the existence and approximability of fair allocations. In the absence of any such information, we establish strong impossibility results, demonstrating the inherent difficulty of achieving even approximate fairness guarantees. In contrast, we demonstrate that knowledge of additional information -- such as aggregate of each agent's total valuations (equivalently, normalized valuations) or the multiset of future goods values (frequency predictions) -- would enable the design of fairer online algorithms. Given normalization information, we propose an algorithm that achieves stronger fairness guarantees than previously known results. Given frequency predictions, we introduce a meta-algorithm that leverages frequency predictions to match the best-known offline guarantees for a broad class of ''share-based'' fairness notions. Our complementary impossibility results in each setting underscore both the limitations imposed by uncertainty about future goods and the potential of leveraging structured information to achieve fairer outcomes in online fair division.

Edith Elkind, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh

We study a temporal voting model where voters have dynamic preferences over a set of public chores -- projects that benefit society, but impose individual costs on those affected by their implementation. We investigate the computational complexity of optimizing utilitarian and egalitarian welfare. Our results show that while optimizing the former is computationally straightforward, minimizing the latter is computationally intractable, even in very restricted cases. Nevertheless, we identify several settings where this problem can be solved efficiently, either exactly or by an approximation algorithm. We also examine the effects of enforcing temporal fairness and its impact on social welfare, and analyze the competitive ratio of online algorithms. We then explore the strategic behavior of agents, providing insights into potential malfeasance in such decision-making environments. Finally, we discuss a range of fairness measures and their suitability for our setting.

Davin Choo, Winston Fu, Derek Khu et al.

We study the online fair division problem, where indivisible goods arrive sequentially and must be allocated immediately and irrevocably to agents. Prior work has established strong impossibility results for approximating classic fairness notions, such as envy-freeness and maximin share fairness, in this setting. In contrast, we focus on proportionality up to one good (PROP1), a natural relaxation of proportionality whose approximability remains unresolved. We begin by showing that three natural greedy algorithms fail to guarantee any positive approximation to PROP1 in general, against an adaptive adversary. This is surprising because greedy algorithms are commonly used in fair division and a natural greedy algorithm is known to be able to achieve PROP1 under additional information assumptions. This hardness result motivates the study of non-adaptive adversaries and the use of side-information, in the spirit of learning-augmented algorithms. For non-adaptive adversaries, we show that the simple uniformly random allocation can achieve a meaningful PROP1 approximation with high probability. Meanwhile, we present an algorithm that obtain robust approximation ratios against PROP1 when given predictions of the maximum item value (MIV). Interestingly, we also show that stronger fairness notions such as EF1, MMS, and PROPX remain inapproximable even with perfect MIV predictions.

Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh

Envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) is a popular and important fairness property in the fair allocation of indivisible goods, of which its existence in general is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the problem of determining the minimum number of EFX allocations for a given instance, arguing that this approach may yield valuable insights into the existence and computation of EFX allocations. We focus on restricted instances where the number of goods slightly exceeds the number of agents, and extend our analysis to weighted EFX (WEFX) and a novel variant of EFX for general monotone valuations, termed EFX+. In doing so, we identify the transition threshold for the existence of allocations satisfying these fairness notions. Notably, we resolve open problems regarding WEFX by proving polynomial-time computability under binary additive valuations, and establishing the first constant-factor approximation for two agents.

Eugene Lim, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh

Envy-freeness up to any good (EFX) is a central fairness notion for allocating indivisible goods, yet its existence is unresolved in general. In the setting with few surplus items, where the number of goods exceeds the number of agents by a small constant (at most three), EFX allocations are guaranteed to exist, shifting the focus from existence to efficiency and computation. We study how EFX interacts with generalized-mean ($p$-mean) welfare, which subsumes commonly-studied utilitarian ($p=1$), Nash ($p=0$), and egalitarian ($p \rightarrow -\infty$) objectives. We establish sharp complexity dichotomies at $p=0$: for any fixed $p \in (0,1]$, both deciding whether EFX can attain the global $p$-mean optimum and computing an EFX allocation maximizing $p$-mean welfare are NP-hard, even with at most three surplus goods; in contrast, for any fixed $p \leq 0$, we give polynomial-time algorithms that optimize $p$-mean welfare within the space of EFX allocations and efficiently certify when EFX attains the global optimum. We further quantify the welfare loss of enforcing EFX via the price of fairness framework, showing that for $p > 0$, the loss can grow linearly with the number of agents, whereas for $p \leq 0$, it is bounded by a constant depending on the surplus (and for Nash welfare it vanishes asymptotically). Finally we show that requiring Pareto-optimality alongside EFX is NP-hard (and becomes $Σ_2^P$-complete for a stronger variant of EFX). Overall, our results delineate when EFX is computationally costly versus structurally aligned with welfare maximization in the setting with few surplus items.

Eugene Lim, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh

We study a sequential decision-making model where a set of items is repeatedly matched to the same set of agents over multiple rounds. The objective is to determine a sequence of matchings that either maximizes the utility of the least advantaged agent at the end of all rounds (optimal) or at the end of every individual round (anytime optimal). We investigate the computational challenges associated with finding (anytime) optimal outcomes and demonstrate that these problems are generally computationally intractable. However, we provide approximation algorithms, fixed-parameter tractable algorithms, and identify several special cases whereby the problem(s) can be solved efficiently. Along the way, we also establish characterizations of Pareto-optimal/maximum matchings, which may be of independent interest to works in matching theory and house allocation.