Papers for

online platform engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Truthful mechanism guarantees fair share of indivisible goods for agents

Truthful-in-Expectation Mechanism with Constant Maximin-Share Guarantee

Abstract: We study the truthful and fair allocation of indivisible goods to $n$ strategic agents with additive valuations. Babaioff, Feige, and Manaker Morag [FOCS 2026] gave a randomized mechanism that uses only the agents' rankings of the goods, is truthful in expectation (TIE), and guarantees every agent $1/(H_{n-1}+2)=Θ(1/\log n)$ of her maximin share (MMS) in every realized allocation, where $H_{n-1}$ is the $(n-1)$th harmonic number; this is nearly the best possible with rankings alone. They conjectured that cardinal information allows TIE mechanisms to achieve a constant ex-post MMS guarantee. We confirm this conjecture: our TIE mechanism guarantees every agent at least $1/7$ of her MMS in every realized allocation; moreover, the mechanism is ex-ante envy-free and can be implemented in polynomial time. Our mechanism has two key technical ingredients, both of which may be of independent interest. The first is a truthful fractional allocation rule specifying each agent's probability of receiving each good: it favors each agent on her top $n-1$ goods and reduces her probability of receiving a good for each other agent who also ranks it among her top $n-1$ goods. The second is the balanced edge coloring: we decompose these probabilities into equally likely matchings from agents to high-value goods, those that alone meet an agent's guarantee, and balance these matchings in a fine-grained way without changing any marginal probability, so that every agent who receives no high-value good can obtain sufficient value from the remaining goods without over-allocating any good.

Mon 28 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
The paper studies how to fairly divide indivisible items among people who value them differently and may act strategically. Previous work showed it’s possible to guarantee each person a fair share based only on their rankings, but that share decreases as the group grows. The authors confirm a prediction that knowing exact values lets you do better: their method ensures everyone gets at least one-seventh of their fair share, and no one envies others before the division. This method runs efficiently and uses randomness cleverly to be truthful and fair.
Open → 2609.35670v1

Matching markets achieve most trade gains with simple rules

From Bilateral Trade to Matching Markets: Sharp Gains from Trade

Abstract: We study gains from trade in matching markets with independent private values and costs, Bayesian incentive compatibility, interim individual rationality, and no expected budget deficit. A second-best guarantee for finite bilateral trade extends without loss to matching markets with independent Borel priors, arbitrary downward-closed feasibility, and finite expected first-best gains. For bounded buyers with monotone hazard rates and arbitrary bounded sellers, we determine the exact worst-case ratio of second-best to first-best gains, approximately $0.72490721$. For binary buyers and sellers with at most $m$ types, we determine the exact ratio for every $m$, including $8/9$ when $m=2$ and a limit of $4/5$ as $m$ grows. Both families of bounds are tight already in bilateral trade.

Fri 25 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
This paper explores how much benefit can be gained from trading things when many buyers and sellers match up, each with their own private values. The authors find exact limits on how efficient trade can be under certain fairness and incentive constraints, even when there are many types of buyers and sellers. Their results expand known insights from simple one-on-one trades to complex markets where multiple matches happen. They measure precisely how close practical trade outcomes come to the best possible trade outcomes.
Open → 2609.30702v1

Thompson sampling method improves bandit decisions with changing baselines

Odds-Ratio Thompson Sampling: A Specification and Design Guide for Contrast-Based Multi-Armed Bandits

Abstract: Batched multi-armed bandits update on a service's own schedule, and the usual implementation carries each arm's absolute reward rate from one update to the next. When the shared level moves between batches, that memory goes stale even though the comparisons between arms may not have. Odds-Ratio Thompson Sampling (OR-TS) instead carries the joint posterior over log-odds contrasts and fits the common level afresh in every batch, marginalizing it out. This paper specifies that update, places it inside a Bayesian bandit agent with two controls, decay for how much past evidence survives an update and aggressiveness for how sharply belief becomes allocation, and evaluates it against absolute-rate memory. Across 86 public A/B series the level varies about twenty-five times more than the contrast. In prespecified synthetic environments a moving level costs absolute-rate memory five times the regret and leaves the best arm below a majority of traffic in 7 of 20 runs, against none for OR-TS. In a policy simulation built from 71 real experiments, where the contrasts are too small to resolve, expected-click differences stay within 0.1% for 58 of them, yet contrast memory still ends on the better arm more than twice as often. Where the contrasts themselves move, the bet fails, and that case is reported too.

Thu 17 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
This paper looks at how computers decide between multiple options when the overall success rate changes over time. The usual methods remember each option’s absolute performance, which can get outdated if conditions shift. The authors propose a new method called Odds-Ratio Thompson Sampling that focuses on comparing differences between options instead, refreshing the shared baseline regularly. Their tests show this new method makes better decisions when conditions vary and avoids misleading memory problems. However, when the differences between options themselves change a lot, this method does not help.
Open → 2609.19709v1

Optimistic hedge achieves lower regret in multiplayer games

A Logarithmic Regret Bound for Optimistic Hedge in General-Sum Games

Abstract: Can simple no-regret dynamics attain smaller regret in self-play than against arbitrary adversaries? In $n$-player general-sum games, Daskalakis et al. 2021 proved an $O(n\log d_i\log^4 T)$ individual regret bound for Optimistic Hedge, which improves upon the classical $O(\sqrt T)$ adversarial regret bound. In this work, we show that Optimistic Hedge with a constant step size can further achieve $O(\sqrt n\log d_i\log T)$ individual external regret under expected loss-vector feedback. The time-averaged play consequently enjoys a coarse correlated equilibrium gap $O(\sqrt n\log d\log T/T)$, where $d=\max_i d_i$. The improvement comes from a larger admissible step size $η=Θ(1/(\sqrt n\log T))$. Our analysis proves factorial bounds on high-order differences of probability-weighted pairwise loss gaps, then applies finite-difference interpolation in a fixed Euclidean norm. These estimates sharpen the analysis of Daskalakis et al. 2021 and yield a logarithmic regret bound.

Thu 17 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
This work looks at how players can get better at making decisions in games where multiple people compete and cooperate. It shows that a specific learning method called Optimistic Hedge can learn faster and make fewer mistakes over time compared to previous approaches. The authors prove this by using a new mathematical analysis that allows the method to use a larger learning step. This improvement means players’ average strategies stabilize closer to an equilibrium faster than before.
Open → 2609.19677v1