Alexandros Psomas

Christos Boutsikas, Petros Drineas, Marios Mertzanidis et al.

We consider the problem of a revenue-maximizing seller with a large number of items $m$ for sale to $n$ strategic bidders, whose valuations are drawn independently from high-dimensional, unknown prior distributions. It is well-known that optimal and even approximately-optimal mechanisms for this setting are notoriously difficult to characterize or compute, and, even when they can be found, are often rife with various counter-intuitive properties. In this paper, following a model introduced recently by Cai and Daskalakis~\cite{cai2022recommender}, we consider the case that bidders' prior distributions can be well-approximated by a topic model. We design an active learning component, responsible for interacting with the bidders and outputting low-dimensional approximations of their types, and a mechanism design component, responsible for robustifying mechanisms for the low-dimensional model to work for the approximate types of the former component. On the active learning front, we cast our problem in the framework of Randomized Linear Algebra (RLA) for regression problems, allowing us to import several breakthrough results from that line of research, and adapt them to our setting. On the mechanism design front, we remove many restrictive assumptions of prior work on the type of access needed to the underlying distributions and the associated mechanisms. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to formulate connections between mechanism design, and RLA for active learning of regression problems, opening the door for further applications of randomized linear algebra primitives to mechanism design.

Kshipra Bhawalkar, Alexandros Psomas, Di Wang

Online platforms connect users with relevant products and services using ads. A key challenge is that a user's search query often leaves their true intent ambiguous. Typically, platforms passively predict relevance based on available signals and in some cases offer query refinements. The shift from traditional search to conversational AI provides a new approach. When a user's query is ambiguous, a Large Language Model (LLM) can proactively offer several clarifying follow-up prompts. In this paper we consider the following: what if some of these follow-up prompts can be ``sponsored,'' i.e., selected for their advertising potential. How should these ``suggestion slots'' be allocated? And, how does this new mechanism interact with the traditional ad auction that might follow? This paper introduces a formal model for designing and analyzing these interactive platforms. We use this model to investigate a critical engineering choice: whether it is better to build an end-to-end pipeline that jointly optimizes the user interaction and the final ad auction, or to decouple them into separate mechanisms for the suggestion slots and another for the subsequent ad slot. We show that the VCG mechanism can be adopted to jointly optimize the sponsored suggestion and the ads that follow; while this mechanism is more complex, it achieves outcomes that are efficient and truthful. On the other hand, we prove that the simple-to-implement modular approach suffers from strategic inefficiency: its Price of Anarchy is unbounded.

Marios Mertzanidis, Alexandros Psomas, Paritosh Verma

Food waste and food insecurity are two closely related pressing global issues. Food rescue organizations worldwide run programs aimed at addressing the two problems. In this paper, we partner with a non-profit organization in the state of Indiana that leads \emph{Food Drop}, a program that is designed to redirect rejected truckloads of food away from landfills and into food banks. The truckload to food bank matching decisions are currently made by an employee of our partner organization. In addition to this being a very time-consuming task, as perhaps expected from human-based matching decisions, the allocations are often skewed: a small percentage of the possible recipients receives the majority of donations. Our goal in this partnership is to completely automate Food Drop. In doing so, we need a matching algorithm for making real-time decisions that strikes a balance between ensuring fairness for the food banks that receive the food and optimizing efficiency for the truck drivers. In this paper, we describe the theoretical guarantees and experiments that dictated our choice of algorithm in the platform we built and deployed for our partner organization. Our work also makes contributions to the literature on load balancing and balls-into-bins games, that might be of independent interest. Specifically, we study the allocation of $m$ weighted balls into $n$ weighted bins, where each ball has two non-uniformly sampled random bin choices, and prove upper bounds, that hold with high probability, on the maximum load of any bin.

Tiantian Gong, Ryan Henry, Alexandros Psomas et al.

A long line of research on secure computation has confirmed that anything that can be computed, can be computed securely using a set of non-colluding parties. Indeed, this non-collusion assumption makes a number of problems solvable, as well as reduces overheads and bypasses computational hardness results, and it is pervasive across different privacy-enhancing technologies. However, it remains highly susceptible to covert, undetectable collusion among computing parties. This work stems from an observation that if the number of available computing parties is much higher than the number of parties required to perform a secure computation task, collusion attempts in privacy-preserving computations could be deterred. We focus on the prominent privacy-preserving computation task of multi-server $1$-private information retrieval (PIR) that inherently assumes no pair-wise collusion. For PIR application scenarios, such as those for blockchain light clients, where the available servers can be plentiful, a single server's deviating action is not tremendously beneficial to itself. We can make deviations undesired via small amounts of rewards and penalties, thus significantly raising the bar for collusion resistance. We design and implement a collusion mitigation mechanism on a public bulletin board with payment execution functions, considering only rational and malicious parties with no honest non-colluding servers. Privacy protection is offered for an extended period after the query executions.

Jonah Brown-Cohen, Arvind Narayanan, Christos-Alexandros Psomas et al.

The security of most existing cryptocurrencies is based on a concept called Proof-of-Work, in which users must solve a computationally hard cryptopuzzle to authorize transactions (`one unit of computation, one vote'). This leads to enormous expenditure on hardware and electricity in order to collect the rewards associated with transaction authorization. Proof-of-Stake is an alternative concept that instead selects users to authorize transactions proportional to their wealth (`one coin, one vote'). Some aspects of the two paradigms are the same. For instance, obtaining voting power in Proof-of-Stake has a monetary cost just as in Proof-of-Work: a coin cannot be freely duplicated any more easily than a unit of computation. However some aspects are fundamentally different. In particular, exactly because Proof-of-Stake is wasteless, there is no inherent resource cost to deviating (commonly referred to as the `Nothing-at-Stake' problem). In contrast to prior work, we focus on incentive-driven deviations (any participant will deviate if doing so yields higher revenue) instead of adversarial corruption (an adversary may take over a significant fraction of the network, but the remaining players follow the protocol). The main results of this paper are several formal barriers to designing incentive-compatible proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies (that don't apply to proof-of-work).