Peer prediction mechanisms allow the truthful elicitation of private signals (e.g., experiences, or opinions) in regard to a true world state when this ground truth is unobservable. The original peer prediction method is incentive compatible for any number of agents n >= 2, but relies on a common prior, shared by all agents and the mechanism. The Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS) relaxes this assumption. While BTS still assumes that agents share a common prior, this prior need not be known to the mechanism. However, BTS is only incentive compatible for a large enough number of agents, and the particular number of agents required is uncertain because it depends on this private prior. In this paper, we present a robust BTS for the elicitation of binary information which is incentive compatible for every n >= 3, taking advantage of a particularity of the quadratic scoring rule. The robust BTS is the first peer prediction mechanism to provide strict incentive compatibility for every n >= 3 without relying on knowledge of the common prior. Moreover, and in contrast to the original BTS, our mechanism is numerically robust and ex post individually rational.

In many mechanisms (especially online mechanisms), a strategic agent can influence the outcome by creating multiple false identities. We consider voting settings where the mechanism designer cannot completely prevent false-name manipulation, but may use false-name-limiting methods such as CAPTCHAs to influence the amount and characteristics of such manipulation. Such a designer would prefer, first, a high probability of obtaining the “correct” outcome, and second, a statistical method for evaluating the correctness of the outcome. In this paper, we focus on settings with two alternatives. We model voters as independently drawing a number of identities from a distribution that may be influenced by the choice of the false-name-limiting method. We give a criterion for the evaluation and comparison of these distributions. Then, given the results of an election in which false-name manipulation may have occurred, we propose and justify a statistical test for evaluating the outcome.

Stackelberg games increasingly influence security policies deployed in real-world settings. Much of the work to date focuses on devising a fixed randomized strategy for the defender, accounting for an attacker who optimally responds to it. In practice, defense policies are often subject to constraints and vary over time, allowing an attacker to infer characteristics of future policies based on current observations. A defender must therefore account for an attacker's observation capabilities in devising a security policy. We show that this general modeling framework can be captured using stochastic Stackelberg games (SSGs), where a defender commits to a dynamic policy to which the attacker devises an optimal dynamic response. We then offer the following contributions. 1) We show that Markov stationary policies suffice in SSGs, 2) present a finite-time mixed-integer non-linear program for computing a Stackelberg equilibrium in SSGs, and 3) present a mixed-integer linear program to approximate it. 4) We illustrate our algorithms on a simple SSG representing an adversarial patrolling scenario, where we study the impact of attacker patience and risk aversion on optimal defense policies.

This research is motivated by large scale problems in urban transportation and labor mobility where there is congestion for resources and uncertainty in movement. In such domains, even though the individual agents do not have an identity of their own and do not explicitly interact with other agents, they effect other agents. While there has been much research in handling such implicit effects, it has primarily assumed de- terministic movements of agents. We address the issue of decision support for individual agents that are identical and have involuntary movements in dynamic environments. For instance, in a taxi fleet serving a city, when a taxi is hired by a customer, its movements are uncontrolled and depend on (a) the customers requirement; and (b) the location of other taxis in the fleet. Towards addressing decision support in such problems, we make two key contributions: (a) A framework to represent the decision problem for selfish individuals in a dynamic population, where there is transitional uncertainty (involuntary movements); and (b) Two techniques (Fictitious Play for Symmetric Agent Populations, FP-SAP and Soft- max based Flow Update, SMFU) that converge to equilibrium solutions. We show that our techniques (apart from providing equilibrium strategies) outperform “driver” strategies with re- spect to overall availability of taxis and the revenue obtained by the taxi drivers. We demonstrate this on a real world data set with 8,000 taxis and 83 zones (representing the entire area of Singapore).

Many strategic actions carry a ‘contagious’ component beyond the immediate locale of the effort itself. Viral marketing and peacekeeping operations have both been observed to have a spreading effect. In this work, we use counterinsurgency as our illustrative domain. Defined as the effort to block the spread of support for an insurgency, such operations lack the manpower to defend the entire population and must focus onthe opinions of a subset of local leaders. As past researchers of security resource allocation have done, we propose using game theory to develop such policies and model the interconnected network of leaders as a graph. Unlike this past work in security games, actions in these domains possess a probabilistic, non-local impact. To address this new class of security games, we combine recent research in influence blocking maximization with a double oracle approach and create novel heuristic oracles to generate mixed strategies for a real-world leadership network from Afghanistan, synthetic leadership networks, and a real social network. We find that leadership networks that exhibit highly interconnected clusters can be solved equally well by our heuristic methods, but our more sophisticated heuristics outperform simpler ones in less interconnected social networks.

Designing revenue-optimal auctions for various settings is perhaps the most important, yet sometimes most elusive, problem in mechanism design. Spiteful bidders have been intensely studied recently, especially because spite occurs in many applications in multiagent system and electronic commerce. We derive the optimal auction for such bidders (as well as bidders that are altruistic). It is a generalization of Myerson’s (1981) auction. It chooses an allocation that maximizes agents’ virtual valuations, but for a generalized definition of virtual valuation. The payment rule is less intuitive. For one, it takes each bidder’s own report into consideration when determining his payment. Moreover, bidders pay even if the seller keeps the item; a similar phenomenon has been shown in other settings with neg- ative externalities (Jehiel, Moldovanu, and Stacchetti 1996; Deng and Pekec 2011). On the other hand, a novel aspect of our auction is that it sometimes subsidizes losers when the item is sold to some other bidder. We also derive a revenue equivalence theorem for this setting. Using it, we generate a short proof of (a slight generalization of) the previously known result that, in two-bidder settings with independently uniformly drawn valuations, second-price auctions yield greater expected revenue than first-price auctions. Finally, we present a template for comparing the expected revenues of any two auction mechanisms that have the same allocation rule (for the valuations distributions at hand).

This paper studies repetitive negotiation over the execution of an exploration process between two self-interested, fully rational agents in a full information environmentwith side payments. A key aspect of the protocolis that the exploration’s execution may interleaves ith the negotiation itself, inflicting some degradationon the exploration’s flexibility. The advantage of this form of negotiation is in enabling the agents supervising that the exploration’s execution takes place in its agreedform as negotiated. We show that in many cases, much of the computational complexity of the new protocol can be eliminated by solving an alternative negotiation scheme according to which the parties first negotiate theexploration terms as a whole and then execute it. As demonstrated in the paper, the solution characteristics of the new protocol are somehow different from thoseof legacy negotiation protocols where the execution of the agreement reached through the negotiation is completely separated from the negotiation process. Furthermore, if the agents are given the option to control some of the negotiation protocol parameters, the resulting exploration may be suboptimal. In particular we show that the increase in an agent’s expected utility in such casesis unbounded and so is the resulting decrease in the social welfare. Surprisingly, we show that further increasingone of the agents’ level of control in some of thenegotiation parameters enables bounding the resultingdecrease in the social welfare.

The current state-of-the-art algorithm for optimal coalition structure generation is IDP-IP — an algorithm that combines IDP (a dynamic programming algorithm due to Rahwan and Jennings, AAAI'08) with IP (a tree-search algorithm due to Rahwan et al., JAIR'09). In this paper we analyse IDP-IP, highlight its limitations, and then develop a new approach for combining IDP with IP that overcomes these limitations.

Supply Chain Formation (SCF) is the process of determining the participants in a supply chain, who will exchange what with whom, and the terms of the exchanges. Decentralized SCF appears as a highly intricate task because agents only possess local information and have limited knowledge about the capabilities of other agents. The decentralized SCF problem has been recently cast as an optimization problem that can be efficiently approximated using max-sum loopy belief propagation. Along this direction, in this paper we propose a novel encoding of the problem into a binary factor graph (containing only binary variables) as well as an alternative algorithm. We empirically show that our approach allows to significantly increase scalability, hence allowing to form supply chains in market scenarios with a large number of participants and high competition.

Schulze's rule and ranked pairs are two Condorcet methods that both satisfy many natural axiomatic properties. Schulze's rule is used in the elections of many organizations, including the Wikimedia Foundation, the Pirate Party of Sweden and Germany, the Debian project, and the Gento Project. Both rules are immune to control by cloning alternatives, but little is otherwise known about their strategic robustness, including resistance to manipulation by one or more voters, control by adding or deleting alternatives, adding or deleting votes, and bribery. Considering computational barriers, we show that these types of strategic behavior are NP-hard for ranked pairs (both constructive, in making an alternative a winner, and destructive, in precluding an alternative from being a winner). Schulze's rule, in comparison, remains vulnerable at least to constructive manipulation by a single voter and destructive manipulation by a coalition. As the first such polynomial-time rule known to resist all such manipulations, and considering also the broad axiomatic support, ranked pairs seems worthwhile to consider for practical applications.