Highly targeted spear phishing attacks are increasingly common, and have been implicated in many major security breeches. Email filtering systems are the first line of defense against such attacks. These filters are typically configured with uniform thresholds for deciding whether or not to allow a message to be delivered to a user. However, users have very significant differences in both their susceptibility to phishing attacks as well as their access to critical information and credentials that can cause damage. Recent work has considered setting personalized thresholds for individual users based on a Stackelberg game model. We consider two important extensions of the previous model. First, in our model user values can be substitutable, modeling cases where multiple users provide access to the same information or credential. Second, we consider attackers who make sequential attack plans based on the outcome of previous attacks. Our analysis starts from scenarios where there is only one credential and then extends to more general scenarios with multiple credentials. For single-credential scenarios, we demonstrate that the optimal defense strategy can be found by solving a binary combinatorial optimization problem called PEDS. For multiple-credential scenarios, we formulate it as a bilevel optimization problem for finding the optimal defense strategy and then reduce it to a single level optimization problem called PEMS using complementary slackness conditions. Experimental results show that both PEDS and PEMS lead to significant higher defender utilities than two existing benchmarks in different parameter settings. Also, both PEDS and PEMS are more robust than the existing benchmarks considering uncertainties.

Hedonic games are a well-studied model of coalition formation, in which selfish agents are partitioned into disjoint sets and agents care about the make-up of the coalition they end up in. The computational problems of finding stable, optimal, or fair outcomes tend to be computationally intractable in even severely restricted instances of hedonic games. We introduce the notion of a graphical hedonic game and show that, in contrast, on classes of graphical hedonic games whose underlying graphs are of bounded treewidth and degree, such problems become easy. In particular, problems that can be specified through quantification over agents, coalitions, and (connected) partitions can be decided in linear time. The proof is by reduction to monadic second order logic. We also provide faster algorithms in special cases, and show that the extra condition of the degree bound cannot be dropped. Finally, we note that the problem of allocating indivisible goods can be modelled as a hedonic game, so that our results imply tractability of finding fair and efficient allocations on appropriately restricted instances.

Over the past two decades, water markets have been successfully fielded in countries such as Australia, the United states, Chile, China, etc. Water users, mainly irrigators, have benefited immensely from water markets. However, the current water market design also faces certain serious barriers. It has been pointed out that transaction costs, which exists in most markets, induce great welfare loss. For example, for water markets in western China discussed in this paper, the influence of transaction costs is significant. Another important barrier is the locality of trades due to geographical constraints. Based on the water market at Xiying Irrigation, one of the most successful water market in western China, we model the water market as a graph with minimum transaction thresholds on edges. Our goal is to maximize the transaction volume or welfare. We prove that the existence of transaction costs results in no polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) to maximize social welfare (MAX SNP-hard). The complexities on special graphs are also presented. From a practical point of view, however, optimal social welfare can be obtained via a well-designed mixed integer linear program and can be approximated near optimally at a large scale via a heuristic algorithm. Both algorithms are tested on data sets generated from real historical trading data. Our study also suggests the importance of reducing transaction costs, for example, institutional costs in water market design. Our work opens a potentially important avenue of market design within the agenda of computational sustainability.

A single-elimination (SE) tournament is a popular way to select a winner in both sports competitions and in elections. A natural and well-studied question is the tournament fixing problem (TFP): given the set of all pairwise match outcomes, can a tournament organizer rig an SE tournament by adjusting the initial seeding so that their favorite player wins? We prove new sufficient conditions on the pairwise match outcome information and the favorite player, under which there is guaranteed to be a seeding where the player wins the tournament. Our results greatly generalize previous results. We also investigate the relationship between the set of players that can win an SE tournament under some seeding (so called SE winners) and other traditional tournament solutions. In addition, we generalize and strengthen prior work on probabilistic models for generating tournaments. For instance, we show that every player in an n player tournament generated by the Condorcet Random Model will be an SE winner even when the noise is as small as possible, p = Θ(ln n/n); prior work only had such results for p ≥ Ω( ln n/n). We also establish new results for significantly more general generative models.

We introduce a new family of judgment aggregation rules, called the binomial rules, designed to account for hidden dependencies between some of the issues being judged. To place them within the landscape of judgment aggregation rules, we analyse both their axiomatic properties and their computational complexity, and we show that they contain both the well-known distance-based rule and the basic rule returning the most frequent overall judgment as special cases. To evaluate the performance of our rules empirically, we apply them to a dataset of crowdsourced judgments regarding the quality of hotels extracted from the travel website TripAdvisor. In our experiments we distinguish between the full dataset and a subset of highly polarised judgments, and we develop a new notion of polarisation for profiles of judgments for this purpose, which may also be of independent interest.

In a Fisher market game, a market equilibrium is computed in terms of the utility functions and money endowments that agents reported. As a consequence, an individual buyer may misreport his private information to obtain a utility gain. We investigate the extent to which an agent's utility can be increased by unilateral strategic plays and prove that the percentage of this improvement is at most 2 for markets with weak gross substitute utilities. Equivalently, we show that truthfully reporting is a 0.5-approximate Nash equilibrium in this game. To identify sufficient conditions for truthfully reporting being close to Nash equilibrium, we conduct a parameterized study on strategic behaviors and further show that the ratio of utility gain decreases linearly as buyer's initial endowment increases or his maximum share of an item decreases. Finally, we consider collusive behavior of a coalition and prove that the utility gain is bounded by 1/(1 - maximum share of the collusion). Our findings justify the truthful reporting assumption in Fisher markets by a quantitative study on participants incentive, and imply that under large market assumption, the utility gain of a buyer from manipulations diminishes to 0.

We introduce a roommate market model, in which 2n people need to be assigned to n rooms, with two people in each room. Each person has a valuation to each room, as well as a valuation to each of other people as a roommate. Each room has a rent shared by the two people living in the room, and we need to decide who live together in which room and how much each should pay. Various solution concepts on stability and envy-freeness are proposed, with their existence studied and the computational complexity of the corresponding search problems analyzed. In particular, we show that maximizing the social welfare is NP-hard, and we give a polynomial time algorithm that achieves at least 2/3 of the maximum social welfare. Finally, we demonstrate a pricing scheme that can achieve envy-freeness for each room.

Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium (SSE) is a fundamental solution concept in game theory in which one player commits to a strategy, while the other player observes this commitment and plays a best response. We present a new algorithm for computing SSE for two-player extensive-form general-sum games with imperfect information (EFGs) where computing SSE is an NP-hard problem. Our algorithm is based on a correlated version of SSE, known as Stackelberg Extensive-Form Correlated Equilibrium (SEFCE). Our contribution is therefore twofold: (1) we give the first linear program for computing SEFCE in EFGs without chance, (2) we repeatedly solve and modify this linear program in a systematic search until we arrive to SSE. Our new algorithm outperforms the best previous algorithms by several orders of magnitude.

We study an important crowdsourcing setting where agents evaluate one another and, based on these evaluations, a subset of agents are selected. This setting is ubiquitous when peer review is used for distributing awards in a team, allocating funding to scientists, and selecting publications for conferences. The fundamental challenge when applying crowdsourcing in these settings is that agents may misreport their reviews of others to increase their chances of being selected. We propose a new strategyproof (impartial) mechanism called Dollar Partition that satisfies desirable axiomatic properties. We then show, using a detailed experiment with parameter values derived from target real world domains, that our mechanism performs better on average, and in the worst case, than other strategyproof mechanisms in the literature.

We study the Maximum Weighted Matching problem in a partial information setting where the agents' utilities for being matched to other agents are hidden and the mechanism only has access to ordinal preference information. Our model is motivated by the fact that in many settings, agents cannot express the numerical values of their utility for different outcomes, but are still able to rank the outcomes in their order of preference. Specifically, we study problems where the ground truth exists in the form of a weighted graph, and look to design algorithms that approximate the true optimum matching using only the preference orderings for each agent (induced by the hidden weights) as input. If no restrictions are placed on the weights, then one cannot hope to do better than the simple greedy algorithm, which yields a half optimal matching. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that by imposing a little structure on the weights, we can improve upon the trivial algorithm significantly: we design a 1.6-approximation algorithm for instances where the hidden weights obey the metric inequality. Our algorithm is obtained using a simple but powerful framework that allows us to combine greedy and random techniques in unconventional ways. These results are the first non-trivial ordinal approximation algorithms for such problems, and indicate that we can design robust matchings even when we are agnostic to the precise agent utilities.