Efficient Allocation of Free Stuff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study online matching settings with selfish agents when everything is free. Inconsiderate agents break ties arbitrarily amongst equal maximal value available choices, even if the maximal value is equal to zero. \par Even for the simplest case of zero/one valuations, where agents arrive online in an arbitrary order, and agents are restricted to taking at most one item, the resulting social welfare may be negligible for a deterministic algorithm. This may be surprising when contrasted with the 1/2 approximation of the greedy algorithm, analogous to this setting, except that agents are considerate (i.e., they don't take zero-valued items). \par We overcome this challenge by introducing a new class of algorithms, which we refer to as prioritization algorithms. We show that upgrading a random subset of the agents to "business class" already improves the approximation to a constant. For more general valuations, we achieve a constant approximation using $łog n$ priority classes, when the valuations are known in advance. We extend these results to settings where agents have additive valuations and are restricted to taking up to some $q\geq 1$ items. Our results are tight up to a constant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".