While voting schemes provide an effective means for aggregating preferences, methods for the effective elicitation of voter preferences have received little attention. We address this problem by first considering approximate winner determination when incomplete voter preferences are provided. Exploiting natural scoring metrics, we use max regret to measure the quality or robustness of proposed winners, and develop polynomial time algorithms for computing the alternative with minimax regret for several popular voting rules. We then show how minimax regret can be used to effectively drive incremental preference/vote elicitation and devise several heuristics for this process. Despite worst-case theoretical results showing that most voting protocols require nearly complete voter preferences to determine winners, we demonstrate the practical effectiveness of regret-based elicitation for determining both approximate and exact winners on several real-world data sets.

We develop a general framework for social choice problems in which a limited number of alternatives can be recommended to an agent population. In our budgeted social choice model, this limit is determined by a budget, capturing problems that arise naturally in a variety of contexts, and spanning the continuum from pure consensus decision making (i.e., standard social choice) to fully personalized recommendation. Our approach applies a form of segmentation to social choice problems— requiring the selection of diverse options tailored to different agent types—and generalizes certain multi-winner election schemes. We show that standard rank aggregation methods perform poorly, and that optimization in our model is NP-complete; but we develop fast greedy algorithms with some theoretical guarantees. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithms.

Algorithms for finding game-theoretic solutions are now used in several real-world security applications. This work has generally assumed a Stackelberg model where the defender commits to a mixed strategy first. In general two-player normal-form games, Stackelberg strategies are easier to compute than Nash equilibria, though it has recently been shown that in many security games, Stackelberg strategies are also Nash strategies for the defender. However, the work on security games so far assumes that the attacker attacks only a single target. In this paper, we generalize to the case where the attacker attacks multiple targets simultaneously. Here, Stackelberg and Nash strategies for the defender can be truly different. We provide a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a Nash equilibrium. The algorithm gradually increases the number of defender resources and maintains an equilibrium throughout this process. Moreover, we prove that Nash equilibria in security games with multiple attackers satisfy the interchange property, which resolves the problem of equilibrium selection in such games. On the other hand, we show that Stackelberg strategies are actually NP-hard to compute in this context. Finally, we provide experimental results.

Car pollution is one of the major causes of green-house emissions, and traffic congestion is rapidly becoming a social plague. Dynamic Ride Sharing (DRS) systems have the potential to mitigate this problem by computing plans for car drivers, e.g. commuters, allowing them to share their rides. Existing efforts in DRS are suffering from the problem that participants are abandoning the system after repeatedly failing to get a shared ride. In this paper we present an incentive compatible DRS solution based on auctions. While existing DRS systems are mainly focusing on fixed assignments that min- imize the totally travelled distance, the presented approach is adaptive to individual preferences of the participants. Furthermore, our system allows to tradeoff the minimization of Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) with the overall probability of successful ride-shares, which is an important fea- ture when bootstrapping the system. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to present a DRS solution based on auctions using a sealed-bid second price scheme.

One fundamental evaluation criteria of an AI technique is its performance in the worst-case. For static strategies in extensive games, this can be computed using a best response computation. Conventionally, this requires a full game tree traversal. For very large games, such as poker, that traversal is infeasible to perform on modern hardware. In this paper, we detail a general technique for best response computations that can often avoid a full game tree traversal. Additionally, our method is specifically well-suited for parallel environments. We apply this approach to computing the worst-case performance of a number of strategies in heads-up limit Texas hold'em, which, prior to this work, was not possible. We explore these results thoroughly as they provide insight into the effects of abstraction on worst-case performance in large imperfect information games. This is a topic that has received much attention, but could not previously be examined outside of toy domains.

Slinko and White, (2008) have recently introduced a new model of coalitional manipulation of voting rules under limited communication, which they call safe strategic voting. The computational aspects of this model were first studied by Hazon and Elkind, (2010), who provide polynomial-time algorithms for finding a safe strategic vote under k-approval and the Bucklin rule. In this paper, we answer an open question of Hazon and Elkind, (2010) by presenting a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a safe strategic vote under the Borda rule. Our results for Borda generalize to several interesting classes of scoring rules.

In a pursuit-evasion game, one or more pursuers aim to discover the existence of, and then capture, an evader. The paper studies pursuit-evasion games in which players may have incomplete information concerning the game state. A methodology is presented for the application of a model checker for the logic of knowledge and time to verify epistemic properties in such games. Experimental results are provided from a number of case studies that validate the feasibility of the approach.

We study the existence and computational complexity of coalitional stability concepts based on social networks. Our concepts represent a natural and rich combinatorial generalization of a recent notion termed partition equilibrium. We assume that players in a strategic game are embedded in a social (or, communication) network, and there are coordination constraints defining the set of coalitions that can jointly deviate in the game. A main feature of our approach is that players act in a "considerate" fashion to ignore potentially profitable (group) deviations if the change in their strategy may cause a decrease of utility to their neighbors in the network. We explore the properties of such considerate equilibria in application to the celebrated class of resource selection games (RSGs). Our main result proves existence of a super-strong considerate equilibrium in all symmetric RSGs with strictly increasing delays, for any social network among the players and feasible coalitions represented by the set of cliques. The existence proof is constructive and yields an efficient algorithm. In fact, the computed considerate equilibrium is a Nash equilibrium for a standard RSG, thus showing that there exists a state that is stable against selfish and considerate behavior simultaneously. Furthermore, we provide results on convergence of considerate dynamics.

We propose a logical framework to represent and reason about agent interactions in normative systems. Our starting point is a dynamic logic of propositional assignments whose satisfiability problem is PSPACE-complete. We show that it embeds Coalition Logic of Propositional Control CL-PC and that various notions of ability and capability can be captured in it. We illustrate it on a water resource management case study. Finally, we show how the logic can be easily extended in order to represent constitutive rules which are also an essential component of the modelling of social reality.

In binary-utility games, an agent can have only two possible utility values for final states, 1 (win) and 0 (lose). An adversarial binaryutility game is one where for each final state there must be at least one winning and one losing agent. We define an unbiased rational agent as one that seeks to maximize its utility value, but is equally likely to choose between states with the same utility value. This induces a probability distribution over the outcomes of the game, from which an agent can infer its probability to win. A single adversary binary game is one where there are only two possible outcomes, so that the winning probabilities remain binary values. In this case, the rational action for an agent is to play minimax. In this work we focus on the more complex, multiple-adversary environment. We propose a new algorithmic framework where agents try to maximize their winning probabilities. We begin by theoretically analyzing why an unbiased rational agent should take our approach in an unbounded environment and not that of the existing Paranoid or MaxN algorithms. We then expand our framework to a resource-bounded environment, where winning probabilities are estimated, and show empirical results supporting our claims.