Georgios Amanatidis
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Georgios Amanatidis has a total of 64 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Georgios Birmpas
Sapienza University of Rome
8 shared publicationsEvangelos Markakis
7 shared publications- Evangelos Markakis
Athens University of Economics and Business
7 shared publications - Alexandros A. Voudouris
University of Southern Denmark
6 shared publications - Georgios Birmpas
Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, United Kingdom
6 shared publications - Philip Lazos
University of Edinburgh IOHK United Kingdom
6 shared publications
Latest Publications
- 13 October 2026
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 39-56
Improved Approximation Guarantees for Groupwise Maximin Share Fairness
- 13 October 2026
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 39-56
Improved Approximation Guarantees for Groupwise Maximin Share Fairness
- Open Access
- 23 September 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Theoretical Computer Science
- Vol. 1087
Online budget-feasible mechanism design with predictions
- 23 September 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Theoretical Computer Science
- Vol. 1087
Open AccessOnline budget-feasible mechanism design with predictions
- 19 November 2025
- Published by Elsevier in Theoretical Computer Science
- Vol. 1060
Submodular maximization subject to a knapsack constraint: Combinatorial algorithms with near-optimal adaptive complexity
- 19 November 2025
- Published by Elsevier in Theoretical Computer Science
- Vol. 1060
Submodular maximization subject to a knapsack constraint: Combinatorial algorithms with near-optimal adaptive complexity
- 1 November 2025
- Published by Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) in Mathematics of Operations Research
- Vol. 50 (4) , 2717-2737
Round-Robin Beyond Additive Agents: Existence and Fairness of Approximate Equilibria
Fair allocation of indivisible goods has attracted extensive attention over the last two decades, yielding numerous elegant algorithmic results and producing challenging open questions. The problem becomes much harder in the presence of strategic agents. Ideally, one would want to design truthful mechanisms that produce allocations with fairness guarantees. However, in the standard setting without monetary transfers, it is generally impossible to have truthful mechanisms that provide nontrivial fairness guarantees. Recently, Amanatidis et al. [Amanatidis G, Birmpas G, Fusco F, Lazos P, Leonardi S, Reiffenhäuser R (2023) Allocating indivisible goods to strategic agents: Pure Nash equilibria and fairness. Math. Oper. Res., ePub ahead of print November 30, https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2022.0058 ] suggested the study of mechanisms that produce fair allocations in their equilibria. Specifically, when the agents have additive valuation functions, the simple Round-Robin algorithm always has pure Nash equilibria, and the corresponding allocations are envy-free up to one good (EF1) with respect to the agents’ true valuation functions. Following this agenda, we show that this outstanding property of the Round-Robin mechanism extends much beyond the above default assumption of additivity. In particular, we prove that for agents with cancelable valuation functions (a natural class that contains, e.g., additive and budget-additive functions), this simple mechanism always has equilibria, and even its approximate equilibria correspond to approximately EF1 allocations with respect to the agents’ true valuation functions. Furthermore, we show that the approximate EF1 fairness of approximate equilibria surprisingly holds for the important class of submodular valuation functions as well, even though exact equilibria fail to exist. Funding: This work was supported by the Horizon 2020 European Research Council Advanced Grant “AMDROMA: Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” [Grant 788893], the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Research project of national interest (PRIN) “ALGADIMAR: Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets,” the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Veni Project “Algorithmic Fair Division in Dynamic, Socially Constrained Environments” [Grant VI.Veni.192.153], and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan Greece 2.0 funded by the European Union under the NextGenerationEU Program [Grant MIS 5154714].
- 1 November 2025
- Published by Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) in Mathematics of Operations Research
- Vol. 50 (4) , 2717-2737
Round-Robin Beyond Additive Agents: Existence and Fairness of Approximate Equilibria
Fair allocation of indivisible goods has attracted extensive attention over the last two decades, yielding numerous elegant algorithmic results and producing challenging open questions. The problem becomes much harder in the presence of strategic agents. Ideally, one would want to design truthful mechanisms that produce allocations with fairness guarantees. However, in the standard setting without monetary transfers, it is generally impossible to have truthful mechanisms that provide nontrivial fairness guarantees. Recently, Amanatidis et al. [Amanatidis G, Birmpas G, Fusco F, Lazos P, Leonardi S, Reiffenhäuser R (2023) Allocating indivisible goods to strategic agents: Pure Nash equilibria and fairness. Math. Oper. Res., ePub ahead of print November 30, https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2022.0058 ] suggested the study of mechanisms that produce fair allocations in their equilibria. Specifically, when the agents have additive valuation functions, the simple Round-Robin algorithm always has pure Nash equilibria, and the corresponding allocations are envy-free up to one good (EF1) with respect to the agents’ true valuation functions. Following this agenda, we show that this outstanding property of the Round-Robin mechanism extends much beyond the above default assumption of additivity. In particular, we prove that for agents with cancelable valuation functions (a natural class that contains, e.g., additive and budget-additive functions), this simple mechanism always has equilibria, and even its approximate equilibria correspond to approximately EF1 allocations with respect to the agents’ true valuation functions. Furthermore, we show that the approximate EF1 fairness of approximate equilibria surprisingly holds for the important class of submodular valuation functions as well, even though exact equilibria fail to exist. Funding: This work was supported by the Horizon 2020 European Research Council Advanced Grant “AMDROMA: Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” [Grant 788893], the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Research project of national interest (PRIN) “ALGADIMAR: Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets,” the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Veni Project “Algorithmic Fair Division in Dynamic, Socially Constrained Environments” [Grant VI.Veni.192.153], and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan Greece 2.0 funded by the European Union under the NextGenerationEU Program [Grant MIS 5154714].
- 6 October 2025
- Published by Elsevier in Artificial Intelligence
- Vol. 349
Pandora's box problem with time constraints
- 6 October 2025
- Published by Elsevier in Artificial Intelligence
- Vol. 349
Pandora's box problem with time constraints
- 1 September 2025
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 402-421
Online Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design with Predictions
- 1 September 2025
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 402-421
Online Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design with Predictions
- 1 September 2025
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 209-227
Online Fair Division for Personalized 2-Value Instances
- 1 September 2025
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 209-227
Online Fair Division for Personalized 2-Value Instances
- Open Access
- 10 April 2025
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
- Vol. 13 (2) , 1-28
Partial Allocations in Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design: Bridging Multiple Levels of Service and Divisible Agents
Budget-feasible procurement has been a major paradigm in mechanism design since its introduction by Singer [ 28 ]. An auctioneer (buyer) with a strict budget constraint is interested in buying goods or services from a group of strategic agents (sellers). In many scenarios, it makes sense to allow the auctioneer to only partially buy what an agent offers, e.g., an agent might have multiple copies of an item to sell, might offer multiple levels of a service, or may be available to perform a task for any fraction of a specified time interval. Nevertheless, the focus of the related literature has been on settings in which each agent’s services are either fully acquired or not at all. A reason for this is that in settings with partial allocations, such as the ones mentioned, there are strong inapproximability results (see, e.g., Anari et al. [ 5 ], Chan and Chen [ 10 ]). Under the mild assumption of being able to afford each agent entirely, we are able to circumvent such results. We design a polynomial-time, deterministic, truthful, budget-feasible, \((2+\sqrt {3})\) -approximation mechanism for the setting in which each agent offers multiple levels of service and the auctioneer has a valuation function that is separable concave, i.e., it is the sum of concave functions. We then use this result to design a deterministic, truthful, and budget-feasible O (1)-approximation mechanism for the setting in which any fraction of a service can be acquired, again for separable concave objectives. For the special case in which the objective is the sum of linear valuation functions, we improve the best known approximation ratio for the problem from \((3+\sqrt {5})/2\) (by Klumper and Schäfer [ 19 ]) to 2. This establishes a separation between this setting and its indivisible counterpart.- 10 April 2025
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
- Vol. 13 (2) , 1-28
Open AccessPartial Allocations in Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design: Bridging Multiple Levels of Service and Divisible Agents
Budget-feasible procurement has been a major paradigm in mechanism design since its introduction by Singer [ 28 ]. An auctioneer (buyer) with a strict budget constraint is interested in buying goods or services from a group of strategic agents (sellers). In many scenarios, it makes sense to allow the auctioneer to only partially buy what an agent offers, e.g., an agent might have multiple copies of an item to sell, might offer multiple levels of a service, or may be available to perform a task for any fraction of a specified time interval. Nevertheless, the focus of the related literature has been on settings in which each agent’s services are either fully acquired or not at all. A reason for this is that in settings with partial allocations, such as the ones mentioned, there are strong inapproximability results (see, e.g., Anari et al. [ 5 ], Chan and Chen [ 10 ]). Under the mild assumption of being able to afford each agent entirely, we are able to circumvent such results. We design a polynomial-time, deterministic, truthful, budget-feasible, \((2+\sqrt {3})\) -approximation mechanism for the setting in which each agent offers multiple levels of service and the auctioneer has a valuation function that is separable concave, i.e., it is the sum of concave functions. We then use this result to design a deterministic, truthful, and budget-feasible O (1)-approximation mechanism for the setting in which any fraction of a service can be acquired, again for separable concave objectives. For the special case in which the objective is the sum of linear valuation functions, we improve the best known approximation ratio for the problem from \((3+\sqrt {5})/2\) (by Klumper and Schäfer [ 19 ]) to 2. This establishes a separation between this setting and its indivisible counterpart. - 1 November 2024
- Published by Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) in Mathematics of Operations Research
- Vol. 49 (4) , 2425-2445
Allocating Indivisible Goods to Strategic Agents: Pure Nash Equilibria and Fairness
We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of strategic agents with additive valuation functions. We assume no monetary transfers, and therefore, a mechanism in our setting is an algorithm that takes as input the reported—rather than the true—values of the agents. Our main goal is to explore whether there exist mechanisms that have pure Nash equilibria for every instance and, at the same time, provide fairness guarantees for the allocations that correspond to these equilibria. We focus on two relaxations of envy-freeness, namely, envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), and we positively answer the preceding question. In particular, we study two algorithms that are known to produce such allocations in the nonstrategic setting: round-robin (EF1 allocations for any number of agents) and a cut-and-choose algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden (EFX allocations for two agents). For round-robin, we show that all of its pure Nash equilibria induce allocations that are EF1 with respect to the underlying true values, whereas for the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden, we show that the corresponding allocations not only are EFX, but also satisfy maximin share fairness, something that is not true for this algorithm in the nonstrategic setting! Further, we show that a weaker version of the latter result holds for any mechanism for two agents that always has pure Nash equilibria, which all induce EFX allocations. Funding: This work was supported by the Horizon 2020 European Research Council Advanced “Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” [Grant 788893], the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Research project of national interest (PRIN) “Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets,” the Future Artificial Intelligence Research project funded by the NextGenerationEU program within the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR-PE-AI) scheme [M4C2, investment 1.3, line on Artificial Intelligence], the National Recovery and Resilience Plan-Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (PNRR-MUR) project IR0000013-SoBigData.it, the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Veni Project [Grant VI.Veni.192.153], and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan Greece 2.0 funded by the European Union under the NextGenerationEU Program [Grant MIS 5154714].
- 1 November 2024
- Published by Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) in Mathematics of Operations Research
- Vol. 49 (4) , 2425-2445
Allocating Indivisible Goods to Strategic Agents: Pure Nash Equilibria and Fairness
We consider the problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a set of strategic agents with additive valuation functions. We assume no monetary transfers, and therefore, a mechanism in our setting is an algorithm that takes as input the reported—rather than the true—values of the agents. Our main goal is to explore whether there exist mechanisms that have pure Nash equilibria for every instance and, at the same time, provide fairness guarantees for the allocations that correspond to these equilibria. We focus on two relaxations of envy-freeness, namely, envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any good (EFX), and we positively answer the preceding question. In particular, we study two algorithms that are known to produce such allocations in the nonstrategic setting: round-robin (EF1 allocations for any number of agents) and a cut-and-choose algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden (EFX allocations for two agents). For round-robin, we show that all of its pure Nash equilibria induce allocations that are EF1 with respect to the underlying true values, whereas for the algorithm of Plaut and Roughgarden, we show that the corresponding allocations not only are EFX, but also satisfy maximin share fairness, something that is not true for this algorithm in the nonstrategic setting! Further, we show that a weaker version of the latter result holds for any mechanism for two agents that always has pure Nash equilibria, which all induce EFX allocations. Funding: This work was supported by the Horizon 2020 European Research Council Advanced “Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” [Grant 788893], the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Research project of national interest (PRIN) “Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets,” the Future Artificial Intelligence Research project funded by the NextGenerationEU program within the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR-PE-AI) scheme [M4C2, investment 1.3, line on Artificial Intelligence], the National Recovery and Resilience Plan-Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (PNRR-MUR) project IR0000013-SoBigData.it, the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Veni Project [Grant VI.Veni.192.153], and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan Greece 2.0 funded by the European Union under the NextGenerationEU Program [Grant MIS 5154714].