Ioannis Anagnostides

Ioannis Anagnostides, Kshipra Bhawalkar, Christopher Liaw et al.

We introduce compensation design, the problem of designing payment rules that incentivize high-quality contributions in decentralized environments. Here, a budget-constrained principal with a monotone submodular value function aims to design a payment rule, while agents decide whether to opt in or out depending on their private cost. We show that a simple cost-oblivious and anonymous marginal-contribution payment rule guarantees that pure Nash equilibria always exist and attain a price of anarchy (PoA) of at most $2+o_λ(1)$ in the large-market regime ($λ\to 0$) where each individual cost is at most a $λ$ fraction of the budget. We further show that the factor $2$ is unavoidable among deterministic cost-oblivious rules. Surprisingly, we identify a counterexample showing that a payment rule based on the Shapley value may admit no pure Nash equilibria. We then extend our scope to coarse correlated equilibria. This is further motivated by our intractability result: although a pure Nash equilibrium always exists, computing one is PLS-complete. We establish that coarse correlated equilibria also attain a PoA bound of at most $2+o_λ(1)$, and this guarantee in fact extends even under the payment rule induced by the Shapley value. Moreover, we move beyond monotone submodular value functions and binary actions. First, for (monotone) XOS valuations, we show that no oracle-efficient payment rule can attain a PoA bound of $O(n^{1/2 - ε})$. Second, for submodular but non-monotone valuations, we show that a broad class of natural payment rules fails to guarantee a bounded PoA. Finally, we extend compensation design to the setting where each agent has a combinatorial action set. We provide randomized payment rules with logarithmic PoA guarantees for subadditive values, and matching lower bounds that apply even in the single-agent additive-value setting.

Ioannis Anagnostides, Constantinos Daskalakis, Gabriele Farina et al.

Correlated equilibria are a fundamental solution concept in game theory. However, despite decades of research, the complexity beyond games of polynomial type -- such as extensive-form games, congestion or routing games, and more broadly concave games -- has remained a major open problem, first highlighted by Papadimitriou and Roughgarden (JACM '08). In this paper, we resolve several long-standing questions concerning the complexity of correlated equilibria and swap regret minimization. First, we show that computing a correlated equilibrium in concave quadratic games is as hard as computing the fixed point of a contraction mapping (Contr), providing the first strong evidence of intractability. Moreover, we establish an unconditional, information-theoretic lower bound ruling out the existence of a strongly sublinear swap regret minimizer: any online learning algorithm requires exponentially many iterations in the dimension $d$ to guarantee at most $1/\text{poly}(d)$ (average) swap regret. To circumvent these hardness results, we examine the complexity of $Φ$-equilibria -- tractable relaxations of correlated equilibria. We obtain a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) for computing poly-dimensional $Φ$-equilibria in general concave games. We complement this by showing that Contr-hardness persists even under poly-dimensional swap deviations in the regime where the precision $ε$ is exponentially small. Finally, we show that Contr-hardness can be bypassed in the canonical setting of concave \emph{quadratic games}, for which we provide a $\text{poly}(d, \log(1/ε))$-time algorithm for computing poly-dimensional $Φ$-equilibria. As a byproduct, we obtain an algorithm for computing fixed points of a mapping that is contracting with respect to an unknown Mahalanobis norm, which could be of independent interest.

Ioannis Anagnostides, Ioannis Panageas, Tuomas Sandholm et al.

A celebrated consequence of the minimax theorem is that two-player zero-sum games admit a tractable equilibrium characterization. In many central applications, however, each side comprises multiple independent agents who share a common objective but cannot perfectly coordinate their actions. Such settings can be modeled as \emph{team zero-sum games}, a natural generalization of both two-player zero-sum games and potential games -- the two most well-studied classes of games in algorithmic game theory. In this paper, we settle the complexity of team zero-sum games by establishing that computing Nash equilibria is \PPAD-complete. As a result, despite the global adversarial structure, team zero-sum games are as hard as general-sum games. Our hardness result holds even when i) the precision is inverse polynomial, thereby ruling out a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (unless $¶= \PPAD$); ii) each team consists of only two players; and iii) the underlying class of games is polymatrix. As a byproduct, we resolve the complexity of group-wise zero-sum polymatrix games, a class introduced and examined in the seminal work of Cai and Daskalakis (SODA '11), and more recently highlighted by Hollender, Maystre, and Nagarajan (ICLR '25). Moreover, we show that computing a first-order stationary point in min-max optimization is \PPAD-complete even for quadratic (multilinear) objectives. From a technical standpoint, we develop a series of team zero-sum game gadgets that allow us to simulate the breakthrough reduction of Bernasconi and Castiglioni (STOC '26). Moreover, to obtain hardness results for quadratic objectives, we make use of a general technique based on linear local approximation, which is of independent interest.

Itai Zilberstein, Ioannis Anagnostides, Tuomas Sandholm

Machine learning predictors have become essential tools for guiding automated decision making. However, a major misalignment persists: predictive models are typically optimized in terms of standard statistical metrics in isolation from the algorithmic tasks they inform. We highlight this incongruity in the high-stakes domain of organ allocation by demonstrating that any algorithm relying on (even highly accurate) survival predictors optimized for standard metrics -- such as the Concordance index (C-index) -- can yield arbitrarily poor outcomes when used for allocation, failing to guarantee utility better than a uniform random selection. To bridge the gap between survival analysis and policy optimization, we introduce a decision-focused learning approach based on optimizing normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG), a mainstay metric in information retrieval. We establish the utility of NDCG in survival analysis by proving that it translates to guarantees on the performance of allocation. Empirically, we propose a bootstrapping approach to optimize the NDCG of existing survival models. Unlike prior work, we also address the challenge of right censorship when evaluating ranking. On historical heart transplant data from the US, our method dramatically boosts the NDCG of baseline models by 50-100%, which translates to tens of thousands of additional life years gained annually when deployed for transplant allocation. We anticipate that our framework will find broader applications in decision making with predictions.