Among the many deployment areas of Stackelberg Security games, a major area involves games played out in space and time, which includes applications in multiple mobile defender resources protecting multiple mobile targets. Previous algorithms for such spatio-temporal security games fail to scale-up and little is known ofthe computational complexity properties of these problems.This paper provides a novel oracle-based algorithmic framework for a systematic study of different problem variants of computing optimal (minimax) strategies in spatio-temporal security games. Our framework enables efficient computation of a minimax strategy when the problem admits a polynomial-time oracle. Furthermore,for the cases in which efficient oracles are difficultto find, we propose approximations or prove hardness results.

Many multi-agent coordination problems can be represented as DCOPs. Motivated by task allocation in disaster response, we extend standard DCOP models to consider uncertain task rewards where the outcome of completing a task depends on its current state, which is randomly drawn from unknown distributions. The goal of solving this problem is to find a solution for all agents that minimizes the overall worst-case loss. This is a challenging problem for centralized algorithms because the search space grows exponentially with the number of agents and is nontrivial for existing algorithms for standard DCOPs. To address this, we propose a novel decentralized algorithm that incorporates Max-Sum with iterative constraint generation to solve the problem by passing messages among agents. By so doing, our approach scales well and can solve instances of the task allocation problem with hundreds of agents and tasks.

Recent work has shown that diverse teams can outperform a uniform team made of copies of the best agent. However, there are fundamental questions that were not asked before. When should we use diverse or uniform teams? How does the performance change as the action space or the teams get larger? Hence, we present a new model of diversity for teams, that is more general than previous models. We prove that the performance of a diverse team improves as the size of the action space gets larger. Concerning the size of the diverse team, we show that the performance converges exponentially fast to the optimal one as we increase the number of agents. We present synthetic experiments that allow us to gain further insights: even though a diverse team outperforms a uniform team when the size of the action space increases, the uniform team will eventually again play better than the diverse team for a large enough action space. We verify our predictions in a system of Go playing agents, where we show a diverse team that improves in performance as the board size increases, and eventually overcomes a uniform team.

We formulate an approach to multiagent metareasoning that uses organizational design to focus each agent's reasoning on the aspects of its local problem that let it make the most worthwhile contributions to joint behavior. By employing the decentralized Markov decision process framework, we characterize an organizational design problem that explicitly considers the quantitative impact that a design has on both the quality of the agents' behaviors and their reasoning costs. We describe an automated organizational design process that can approximately solve our organizational design problem via incremental search, and present techniques that efficiently estimate the incremental impact of a candidate organizational influence. Our empirical evaluation confirms that our process generates organizational designs that impart a desired metareasoning regime upon the agents.

This paper presents a theoretical as well as empirical study on the evolution of cooperation on complex social networks, following the continuous action iterated prisoner's dilemma (CAIPD) model. In particular, convergence to network-wide agreement is proven for both evolutionary networks with fixed interaction dynamics, as well as for coevolutionary networks where these dynamics change over time. Moreover, an extension to the CAIPD model is proposed that allows to model influence on the evolution of cooperation in social networks. As such, this work contributes to a better understanding of behavioral change on social networks, and provides a first step towards their active control.

Vendors of all types face the problem of selecting a slate of product offerings—their assortment or catalog—that will maximize their profits. The profitability of a catalog is determined by both customer preferences and the offerings of their competitors. We develop a game-theoretic model for analyzing the vendor catalog optimization problem in the face of competing vendors. We show that computing a best response is intractable in general, but can be solved by dynamic programming given certain informational or structural assumptions about consumer preferences. We also analyze conditions under which pure Nash equilibria exist and provide several price of anarchy/stability results

We consider a classic social choice problem in an online setting. In each round, a decision maker observes a single agent's preferences overa set of $m$ candidates, and must choose whether to irrevocably add a candidate to a selection set of limited cardinality $k$. Each agent's (positional) score depends on the candidates in the set when he arrives, and the decision-maker's goal is to maximize average (over all agents) score. We prove that no algorithm (even randomized) can achieve an approximationfactor better than $O(\frac{\log\log m}{\log m})$. In contrast, if the agents arrive in random order, we present a $(1 - \frac{1}{e} - o(1))$-approximatealgorithm, matching a lower bound for the off-line problem.We show that improved performance is possible for natural input distributionsor scoring rules. Finally, if the algorithm is permitted to revoke decisions at a fixedcost, we apply regret-minimization techniques to achieve approximation $1 - \frac{1}{e} - o(1)$ even for arbitrary inputs.

Stability is a central concept in exchange-based mechanismdesign. It imposes a fundamental requirement that no subsetof agents could beneficially deviate from the outcome pre-scribed by the mechanism. However, deployment of stabilityin an exchange mechanism presents at least two challenges.First, it reduces social welfare and sometimes prevents themechanism from producing a solution. Second, it might incurcomputational cost to clear the mechanism.In this paper, we propose an alternative notion of stability,coined internal stability, under which we analyze the socialwelfare bounds and computational complexity. Our contribu-tions are as follows: for both pairwise matchings and limited-length exchanges, for both unweighted and weighted graph-s, (1) we prove desirable tight social welfare bounds; (2) weanalyze the computational complexity for clearing the match-ings and exchanges. Extensive experiments on the kidney ex-change domain demonstrate that the optimal welfare underinternal stability is very close to the unconstrained optimal.

Open list proportional representation is an election mechanism used in many elections, including the 2012 Hong Kong Legislative Council Geographical Constituencies election. In this paper, we assume that there are just two parties in the election, and that the number of votes that a list would get is the sum of the numbers of votes that the candidates in the list would get if each of them would go alone in the election. Under these assumptions, we formulate the election as a mostly zero-sum game, and show that while the game always has a pure Nash equilibrium, it is NP-hard to compute it.

Kidney exchange, where candidates with organ failure trade incompatible but willing donors, is a life-saving alternative to the deceased donor waitlist, which has inadequate supply to meet demand. While fielded kidney exchanges see huge benefit from altruistic kidney donors (who give an organ without a paired needy candidate), a significantly higher medical risk to the donor deters similar altruism with livers. In this paper, we begin by proposing the idea of liver exchange, and show on demographically accurate data that vetted kidney exchange algorithms can be adapted to clear such an exchange at the nationwide level. We then explore cross-organ donation where kidneys and livers can be bartered for each other. We show theoretically that this multi-organ exchange provides linearly more transplants than running separate kidney and liver exchanges; this linear gain is a product of altruistic kidney donors creating chains that thread through the liver pool. We support this result experimentally on demographically accurate multi-organ exchanges. We conclude with thoughts regarding the fielding of a nationwide liver or joint liver-kidney exchange from a legal and computational point of view.