Recently, in the social choice literature, much attention has been given to the question of avoiding underrepresentation in approval-based multi-winner voting. In this paper, we explore the largely overlooked complementary question of avoiding overrepresentation. This has not been explored systematically, despite being a desirable property with concrete applications. Intuitively, overrepresentation happens when a group determines a disproportionately large part of the committee, thereby exceeding the group's quota. We formulate a strong and appealing axiom for avoiding overrepresentation, called justifiable upper quota (JUQ). We introduce a generalization of Thiele rules, composite Thiele rules, and characterize the unique rule in this class satisfying our axiom. This rule, Adams-AV, which naturally extends Adams' apportionment method, has not been studied before. Additionally, we introduce a polynomial-time rule that satisfies JUQ. Furthermore, we introduce justified near quota, an axiom that balances avoiding under- and overrepresentation. It characterizes the unique Thiele rule extending the Sainte-Laguë apportionment method. Finally, we analyze the compatibility of our axioms with established proportionality notions such as EJR+.

The Determinant Mutual Information (DMI) mechanism of Kong (2020, 2024) is dominantly truthful within the class of *consistent* reporting strategies, those that apply the same single-task strategy to every task. In settings where agents see multiple tasks before reporting, such as peer grading or peer review, it is natural to consider *joint-task* strategies that may condition reports on the full signal vector. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that the DMI mechanism preserves truthful reporting as a best response among all joint-task strategies when other agents play consistent strategies, so that truthfulness remains a Bayes--Nash equilibrium in the joint-task class. Without the restriction of peers to consistent strategies, however, both dominant truthfulness and informed truthfulness fail against joint-task peer strategies.

Paper A defines a time-consistent actuarial runtime that prices each side-effect-bearing action against a contractually fixed safe default and gates execution against a reserve budget. It treats the operator as passive. This paper makes the operator strategic. We characterise a five-attack space for autonomous AI-agent insurance contracts and prove when the actuarial runtime is gaming-resistant. Two attack surfaces -- post-toll safe-default selection and within-boundary action splitting -- are closed by Paper A's minimal-authority and no-splitting clauses. The remaining three require new contract clauses. First, common-control aggregation prevents cross-boundary re-routing from reducing toll below the boundary potential applied to total exposure. Second, interface failures such as invalid JSON are contract-relevant events, not safety wins: treating them as zero-toll safe defaults can reward unreliable models, while escalation fees reverse the incentive. We validate this interface-compliance theorem on committed cross-model traces from the companion empirical paper. Third, a model-identity menu with a componentwise-minimum penalty schedule makes truthful reporting of the deployed model weakly dominant. We then compose these clauses with Paper A's runtime guarantees to obtain joint incentive compatibility over the five-attack space. Finally, a two-parameter premium family discharges operator individual rationality and weak budget balance at the truthful equilibrium. The result is an incentive-compatibility layer for actuarial control of autonomous-agent side effects.

This paper investigates mobile target search under imperfect perceptions caused by sensor limitations, malicious jamming, or communication noise. Searchers and targets operate in a grid-shaped area with bounded mobility, leading to a dynamic interplay between search and evasion. To capture this adversarial interaction under imperfect perceptions, we adopt the partially observable stochastic game (POSG) approach, which generalizes partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) by incorporating target intelligence. To handle false alarms and missed detections caused by perceptual uncertainties, we propose a novel detectability concept to determine whether a search strategy guarantees eventual detection, and provide sufficient detectability criteria based on stochastic recurrence analysis. We further develop a server-assisted distributed algorithm that utilizes the aggregative potential game structure for searchers and a KL-divergence-based reduction for target prediction. Numerical simulations validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm and support the detectability analysis.

We consider an intrusion detection task in which a defender must jointly optimize sensor placement locations and orientations to minimize the probability of missed detection of an intruder traversing a protected environment. We decompose this problem into a meta problem, termed SensorPlacement, and an embedded subproblem, termed OrientationScheduling. The OrientationScheduling subproblem, for a fixed sensor placement, is modeled as a 2-player zero-sum game between the defender and the intruder, where the defender seeks an orientation strategy for the deployed sensors to minimize the probability of missed detection, while the intruder seeks a path selection strategy to maximize it. Since the defender's strategy space grows combinatorially with the number of sensors and orientations, solving the game via standard linear programming becomes prohibitive. To this end, we develop an iterative and efficient equilibrium-seeking algorithm that exploits the structure of the game's payoff function and establishes theoretical guarantees for convergence to the Nash equilibrium (NE) of the game. This NE value is then used as a utility measure in the SensorPlacement meta problem. We show that this game-value-based utility function is weakly submodular over the set of sensor placements and propose a greedy placement algorithm with near-optimality guarantees. To our knowledge, this is the first unified framework to integrate game-theoretic utility design with (weak) submodular optimization, enabling principled joint optimization of sensor placement and orientation scheduling. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves near-optimal detection performance while significantly reducing computation time compared to baselines.

We study the problem of fair online resource allocation, motivated by applications such as refugee resettlement and airline scheduling, where agents arrive sequentially and must be assigned to facilities with limited capacities. We introduce a model that maximizes the overall welfare subject to resource constraints and a Lipschitz fairness requirement, which ensures that similar agents arriving in the same batch receive similar expected outcomes. We first analyze the offline problem, proving that the value of the optimal fair allocation is at least an $Ω(1/γ)$ fraction of the optimal unfair allocation, where $γ$ is the fairness coefficient, thereby bounding the price of fairness. For the online setting, we propose an algorithm based on dual mirror descent that enforces fairness constraints within batches while estimating optimal dual variables. We prove that this algorithm achieves sublinear regret relative to the optimal offline fluid benchmark. Finally, we validate our theoretical results using real-world data from the Refugee Economies Programme, demonstrating the algorithm's performance and examining the trade-offs between welfare maximization and fairness enforcement.

We study the problem of computing a competitive equilibrium with approximately optimal bundles in Fisher markets with separable piecewise-linear concave (SPLC) utility functions, meaning that every buyer receives a $(1-δ)$-optimal bundle, instead of a perfectly optimal one. We establish the first intractability result for the problem by showing that it is PPAD-hard for some constant $δ> 0$, assuming the PCP-for-PPAD conjecture. This hardness result holds even if all buyers have identical budgets (competitive equilibrium with equal incomes), linear capped utilities, and even if we also allow $\varepsilon$-approximate clearing instead of perfect clearing, for any constant $\varepsilon < 1/9$. Importantly, we show that the PCP-for-PPAD conjecture is in fact required to show hardness for constant $δ$: showing PPAD-hardness for finding such approximate market equilibria in a broad class of markets encompassing those generated by our hardness result would prove the conjecture. This is the first natural problem where the conjecture is provably required to establish hardness for it.

In many matching markets--such as athlete recruitment or academic admissions--participants on one side are evaluated by attribute vectors known to the other side, which in turn applies individual \emph{salience vectors} to assign relative importance to these attributes. Since saliences are known to change in practice, a central question arises: how robust is a stable matching to such perturbations? We address several fundamental questions in this context. First, we formalize robustness as a radius within which a stable matching remains immune to blocking pairs under any admissible perturbation of salience vectors (which are assumed to be normalized). Given a stable matching and a radius, we present a polynomial-time algorithm to verify whether the matching is stable within the specified radius. We also give a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the maximum robustness radius of a given stable matching. Further, we design an anytime search algorithm that uses certified lower and upper bounds to approximate the most robust stable matching, and we characterize the robustness-cost relationship through efficiently computable bounds that delineate the achievable tradeoff between robustness and cost. Finally, we show that for each stable matching, the set of salience profiles that preserve its stability factors is a product of low-dimensional polytopes within the simplex. This geometric structure precisely characterizes the polyhedral shape of each robustness region; its volume can then be computed efficiently, with approximate methods available as the dimension grows, thereby linking robustness analysis in matching markets with classical tools from convex geometry.

Achieving consensus among self-interested agents remains challenging in decentralized multi-agent systems, where agents often have conflicting preferences. Existing coordination methods enable agents to reach consensus without a centralized coordinator, but do not provide formal guarantees on system-level objectives such as efficiency or fairness. To address this limitation, we propose a regulated decentralized negotiation framework that augments a decentralized negotiation mechanism with limited regulatory oversight. The framework builds upon the trading auction for consensus, enabling self-interested agents with conflicting preferences to negotiate through asset trading while avoiding direct disclosure of private asset valuations. We introduce an oversight mechanism, which implements a taxation-like intervention that guides decentralized negotiation toward system-efficient and equitable outcomes while also regulating how fast the framework converges. We establish theoretical guarantees of finite-time termination and derive bounds linking system efficiency and convergence rate to the level of regulatory intervention. A case study based on the collaborative trajectory options program, a rerouting initiative in U.S. air traffic management, demonstrates that the framework can reliably achieve consensus among self-interested airspace sector managers, and reveals how the level of regulatory intervention regulates the relationship between system efficiency and convergence speed. Taken together, the theoretical and experimental results indicate that the proposed framework provides a mechanism for regulated decentralized coordination that preserves noncooperative final selection while safeguarding system-level objectives.

In this paper, we explore mission assignment and task offloading in an Open Radio Access Network (Open RAN)-based intelligent transportation system (ITS), where autonomous vehicles leverage mobile edge computing for efficient processing. Existing studies often overlook the intricate interdependencies between missions and the costs associated with offloading tasks to edge servers, leading to suboptimal decision-making. To bridge this gap, we introduce Oranits, a novel system model that explicitly accounts for mission dependencies and offloading costs while optimizing performance through vehicle cooperation. To achieve this, we propose a twofold optimization approach. First, we develop a metaheuristic-based evolutionary computing algorithm, namely the Chaotic Gaussian-based Global ARO (CGG-ARO), serving as a baseline for one-slot optimization. Second, we design an enhanced reward-based deep reinforcement learning (DRL) framework, referred to as the Multi-agent Double Deep Q-Network (MA-DDQN), that integrates both multi-agent coordination and multi-action selection mechanisms, significantly reducing mission assignment time and improving adaptability over baseline methods. Extensive simulations reveal that CGG-ARO improves the number of completed missions and overall benefit by approximately 7.1% and 7.7%, respectively. Meanwhile, MA-DDQN achieves even greater improvements of 11.0% in terms of mission completions and 12.5% in terms of the overall benefit. These results highlight the effectiveness of Oranits in enabling faster, more adaptive, and more efficient task processing in dynamic ITS environments.