Motivated by applications to crowdsourcing, we study voting rules that output a correct ranking of alternatives by quality from a large collection of noisy input rankings. We seek voting rules that are supremely robust to noise, in the sense of being correct in the face of any "reasonable" type of noise. We show that there is such a voting rule, which we call the modal ranking rule. Moreover, we establish that the modal ranking rule is the unique rule with the preceding robustness property within a large family of voting rules, which includes a slew of well-studied rules.

We present a novel extension of normal form games that we call biased games. In these games, a player's utility is influenced by the distance between his mixed strategy and a given base strategy. We argue that biased games capture important aspects of the interaction between software agents. Our main result is that biased games satisfying certain mild conditions always admit an equilibrium. We also tackle the computation of equilibria in biased games.

Decomposition, i.e. independently analyzing possible subgames, has proven to be an essential principle for effective decision-making in perfect information games. However, in imperfect information games, decomposition has proven to be problematic. To date, all proposed techniques for decomposition in imperfect information games have abandoned theoretical guarantees. This work presents the first technique for decomposing an imperfect information game into subgames that can be solved independently, while retaining optimality guarantees on the full-game solution. We can use this technique to construct theoretically justified algorithms that make better use of information available at run-time, overcome memory or disk limitations at run-time, or make a time/space trade-off to overcome memory or disk limitations while solving a game. In particular, we present an algorithm for subgame solving which guarantees performance in the whole game, in contrast to existing methods which may have unbounded error. In addition, we present an offline game solving algorithm, CFR-D, which can produce a Nash equilibrium for a game that is larger than available storage.

Regret matching is a widely-used algorithm for learning how to act. We begin by proving that regrets on actions in one setting (game) can be transferred to warm start the regrets for solving a different setting with same structure but different payoffs that can be written as a function of parameters. We prove how this can be done by carefully discounting the prior regrets. This provides, to our knowledge, the first principled warm-starting method for no-regret learning. It also extends to warm-starting the widely-adopted counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) algorithm for large incomplete-information games; we show this experimentally as well. We then study optimizing a parameter vector for a player in a two-player zero-sum game (e.g., optimizing bet sizes to use in poker). We propose a custom gradient descent algorithm that provably finds a locally optimal parameter vector while leveraging our warm-start theory to significantly save regret-matching iterations at each step. It optimizes the parameter vector while simultaneously finding an equilibrium. We present experiments in no-limit Leduc Hold'em and no-limit Texas Hold'em to optimize bet sizing. This amounts to the first action abstraction algorithm (algorithm for selecting a small number of discrete actions to use from a continuum of actions---a key preprocessing step for solving large games using current equilibrium-finding algorithms) with convergence guarantees for extensive-form games.

An important subclass of social choice functions, so-called majoritarian (or C1) functions, only take into account the pairwise majority relation between alternatives. In the absence of majority ties--e.g., when there is an odd number of agents with linear preferences--the majority relation is antisymmetric and complete and can thus conveniently be represented by a tournament. Tournaments have a rich mathematical theory and many formal results for majoritarian functions assume that the majority relation constitutes a tournament. Moreover, most majoritarian functions have only been defined for tournaments and allow for a variety of generalizations to unrestricted preference profiles, none of which can be seen as the unequivocal extension of the original function. In this paper, we argue that restricting attention to tournaments is justified by the existence of a conservative extension, which inherits most of the commonly considered properties from its underlying tournament solution.

Most work building on the Stackelberg security games model assumes that the attacker can perfectly observe the defender's randomized assignment of resources to targets. This assumption has been challenged by recent papers, which designed tailor-made algorithms that compute optimal defender strategies for security games with limited surveillance. We analytically demonstrate that in zero-sum security games, lazy defenders, who simply keep optimizing against perfectly informed attackers, are almost optimal against diligent attackers, who go to the effort of gathering a reasonable number of observations. This result implies that, in some realistic situations, limited surveillance may not need to be explicitly addressed.

We introduce the simultaneous model for cake cutting (the fair allocation of a divisible good), in which agents simultaneously send messages containing a sketch of their preferences over the cake. We show that this model enables the computation of divisions that satisfy proportionality -- a popular fairness notion -- using a protocol that circumvents a standard lower bound via parallel information elicitation. Cake divisions satisfying another prominent fairness notion, envy-freeness, are impossible to compute in the simultaneous model, but admit arbitrarily good approximations.

The probabilistic serial rule is one of the most well-established and desirable rules for the random assignment problem. We present the egalitarian simultaneous reservation social decision scheme – an extension of probabilistic serial to the more general setting of randomized social choice. We consider various desirable fairness, efficiency, and strategic properties of social decision schemes and show that egalitarian simultaneous reservation compares favorably against existing rules. Finally, we define a more general class of social decision schemes called simultaneous reservation, that contains egalitarian simultaneous reservation as well as the serial dictatorship rules. We show that outcomes of simultaneous reservation characterize efficiency with respect to a natural refinement of stochastic dominance.

Balanced knockout tournaments are one of the most common formats for sports competitions, and are also used in elections and decision-making. We consider the computational problem of finding the optimal draw for a particular player in such a tournament. The problem has generated considerable research within AI in recent years. We prove that checking whether there exists a draw in which a player wins is NP-complete, thereby settling an outstanding open problem. Our main result has a number of interesting implications on related counting and approximation problems. We present a memoization-based algorithm for the problem that is faster than previous approaches. Moreover, we highlight two natural cases that can be solved in polynomial time. All of our results also hold for the more general problem of counting the number of draws in which a given player is the winner.

Game designs often center on the game mechanics - rules governing the logical evolution of the game. We seek to develop an intelligent system that generates computer games. As first steps towards this goal we present a composable and cross-domain representation for game mechanics that draws from AI planning action representations. We use a constraint solver to generate mechanics subject to design requirements on the form of those mechanics - what they do in the game. A planner takes a set of generated mechanics and tests whether those mechanics meet playability requirements - controlling how mechanics function in a game to affect player behavior. We demonstrate our system by modeling and generating mechanics in a role-playing game, platformer game, and combined role-playing-platformer game.