They concluded that UCT quickly finds Self-play Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) has a good but suboptimal policy, while Outcome Sampling initially been successful in many perfect-information twoplayer learns more slowly but converges to the optimal policy games. Although these methods have been over time. In this paper, we address the question whether the extended to imperfect-information games, so far inability of UCT to converge to a Nash equilibrium can be they have not achieved the same level of practical overcome while retaining UCT's fast initial learning rate. We success or theoretical convergence guarantees focus on the full-game MCTS setting, which is an important as competing methods. In this paper we step towards developing sound variants of online MCTS in introduce Smooth UCT, a variant of the established imperfect-information games. Upper Confidence Bounds Applied to Trees In particular, we introduce Smooth UCT, which combines (UCT) algorithm.

Allocation games are coalitional games defined in the literature as a way to analyze fair division problems of indivisible goods. The prototypical solution concepts for them are the Shapley value and the Banzhaf value. Unfortunately, their computation is intractable, formally #P-hard. Motivated by this bad news, structural requirements are investigated which can be used to identify islands of tractability. The main result is that, over the class of allocation games, the Shapley value and the Banzhaf value can be computed in polynomial time when interactions among agents can be formalized as graphs of bounded treewidth. This is shown by means of technical tools that are of interest in their own and that can be used for analyzing different kinds of coalitional games. Tractability is also shown for games where each good can be assigned to at most two agents, independently of their interactions.

We study voting games on binary issues, where voters might hold an objective over some issues at stake, while willing to strike deals on the remaining ones, and can influence one another’s voting decision before the vote takes place. We analyse voters’ rational behaviour in the resulting two-phase game, showing under what conditions undesirable equilibria can be removed as an effect of the pre-vote phase.

The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem implies the ubiquity of manipulators — voters who could change the election outcome in their favor by unilaterally modifying their vote. In this paper, we ask what happens if a given profile admits several such voters. We model strategic interactions among Gibbard–Satterthwaite manipulators as a normal-form game. We classify the 2-by-2 games that can arise in this setting for two simple voting rules, namely Plurality and Borda, and study the complexity of determining whether a given manipulative vote weakly dominates truth-telling, as well as existence of Nash equilibria.

Preventing attacks in a computer network is the core problem in network security. We introduce a new game-theoretic model of the interaction between a network administrator who uses limited resource to harden a network and an attacker who follows a multi-stage plan to attack the network. The possible plans of the attacker are compactly represented using attack graphs, while the defender adds fake targets (honeypots) to the network to deceive the attacker. The compact representation of the attacker's strategies presents a computational challenge and finding the best response of the attacker is NP-hard. We present a solution method that first translates an attack graph into an MDP and solves it using policy search with a set of pruning techniques. We present an empirical evaluation of the model and solution algorithms, evaluating scalability, the types of solutions that are generated for realistic cases, and sensitivity analysis.

A dataset has been classified by some unknown classifier into two types of points. What were the most important factors in determining the classification outcome? In this work, we employ an axiomatic approach in order to uniquely characterize an influence measure: a function that, given a set of classified points, outputs a value for each feature corresponding to its influence in determining the classification outcome. We show that our influence measure takes on an intuitive form when the unknown classifier is linear. Finally, we employ our influence measure in order to analyze the effects of user profiling on Google’s online display advertising.

In Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) TA resources are limited; most MOOCs use peer assessments to grade assignments. Students have to divide up their time between working on their own homework and grading others. If there is no risk of being caught and penalized, students have no reason to spend any time grading others Course staff want to incentivize students to balance their time between course work and peer grading. They may do so by auditing students, ensuring that they perform grading correctly. One would not want students to invest too much time on peer grading, as this would result in poor course performance. We present the first model of strategic auditing in peer grading, modeling the student's choice of effort in response to a grader's audit levels as a Stackelberg game with multiple followers. We demonstrate that computing the equilibrium for this game is computationally hard. We then provide a PTAS in order to compute an approximate solution to the problem of allocating audit levels. However, we show that this allocation does not necessarily maximize social welfare; in fact, there exist settings where course auditor utility is arbitrarily far from optimal under an approximately optimal allocation. To circumvent this issue, we present a natural condition that guarantees that approximately optimal TA allocations guarantee approximately optimal welfare for the course auditors.

A key challenge in solving extensive-form games is dealing with large, or even infinite, action spaces. In games of imperfect information, the leading approach is to find a Nash equilibrium in a smaller abstract version of the game that includes only a few actions at each decision point, and then map the solution back to the original game. However, it is difficult to know which actions should be included in the abstraction without first solving the game, and it is infeasible to solve the game without first abstracting it. We introduce a method that combines abstraction with equilibrium finding by enabling actions to be added to the abstraction at run time. This allows an agent to begin learning with a coarse abstraction, and then to strategically insert actions at points that the strategy computed in the current abstraction deems important. The algorithm can quickly add actions to the abstraction while provably not having to restart the equilibrium finding. It enables anytime convergence to a Nash equilibrium of the full game even in infinite games. Experiments show it can outperform fixed abstractions at every stage of the run: early on it improves as quickly as equilibrium finding in coarse abstractions, and later it converges to a better solution than does equilibrium finding in fine-grained abstractions.

We consider discrete protocols for the classical Steinhaus cake cutting problem. Under mild technical conditions, we show that any deterministic strategy-proof protocol for two agents in the standard Robertson-Webb query model is dictatorial, that is, there is a fixed agent to which the protocol allocates the entire cake. For n > 2 agents, a similar impossibility holds, namely there always exists an agent that gets the empty piece (i.e. no cake). In contrast, we exhibit randomized protocols that are truthful in expectation and compute approximately fair allocations.

We introduce one-way games, a framework motivated by applications in large-scale power restoration, humanitarian logistics, and integrated supply-chains. The distinguishable feature of the games is that the payoff of some player is determined only by her own strategy and does not depend on actions taken by other players. We show that the equilibrium outcome in one-way games without payments and the social cost of any ex-post efficient mechanism, can be far from the optimum. We also show that it is impossible to design a Bayes-Nash incentive-compatible mechanism for one-way games that is budget-balanced, individually rational, and efficient. Finally, we propose a privacy-preserving mechanism that is incentive-compatible and budget-balanced, satisfies ex-post individual rationality conditions, and produces an outcome which is more efficient than the equilibrium without payments.