We consider settings in which voters vote in sequence, each voter knows the votes of the earlier voters and the preferences of the later voters, and voters are strategic. This can be modeled as an extensive-form game of perfect information, which we call a Stackelberg voting game. We first propose a dynamic-programming algorithm for finding the backward-induction outcome for any Stackelberg voting game when the rule is anonymous; this algorithm is efficient if the number of alternatives is no more than a constant. We show how to use compilation functions to further reduce the time and space requirements. Our main theoretical results are paradoxes for the backward-induction outcomes of Stackelberg voting games. We show that for any n ≥ 5 and any voting rule that satisfies nonimposition and with a low domination index, there exists a profile consisting of n voters, such that the backward-induction outcome is ranked somewhere in the bottom two positions in almost every voter’s preferences. Moreover, this outcome loses all but one of its pairwise elections. Furthermore, we show that many common voting rules have a very low (= 1) domination index, including all majority-consistent voting rules. For the plurality and nomination rules, we show even stronger paradoxes. Finally, using our dynamic-programming algorithm, we run simulations to compare the backward-induction outcome of the Stackelberg voting game to the winner when voters vote truthfully, for the plurality and veto rules. Surprisingly, our experimental results suggest that on average, more voters prefer the backward-induction outcome.

In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorate, we can conclude which of the m alternatives wins. This corresponds to the notion of compilation complexity, the minimum number of bits required to summarize the votes for a particular rule, which was introduced by Chevaleyre et al. [IJCAI-09]. We study three different types of compilation complexity. The first, studied by Chevaleyre et al., depends on the size of the subelectorate but not on the size of the complement (the voters outside the subelectorate). The second depends on the size of the complement but not on the size of the subelectorate. The third depends on both. We first investigate the relations among the three types of compilation complexity. Then, we give upper and lower bounds on all three types of compilation complexity for the most prominent voting rules. We show that for l -approval (when l ≤ m /2), Borda, and Bucklin, the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight, up to a multiplicative constant; for l-approval (when l > m /2), plurality with runoff, all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on unweighted majority graphs (including Copeland and voting trees), and all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on the order of pairwise elections (including ranked pairs and maximin), the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight up to a multiplicative constant when the sizes of the subelectorate and its complement are both larger than m 1+ε for some ε > 0.

It is standard in multiagent settings to assume that agents will adopt Nash equilibrium strategies. However, studies in experimental economics demonstrate that Nash equilibrium is a poor description of human players' initial behavior in normal-form games. In this paper, we consider a wide range of widely-studied models from behavioral game theory. For what we believe is the first time, we evaluate each of these models in a meta-analysis, taking as our data set large-scale and publicly-available experimental data from the literature. We then propose modifications to the best-performing model that we believe make it more suitable for practical prediction of initial play by humans in normal-form games.

The use of simple auction mechanisms like the GSP in online advertising can lead to significant loss of efficiency and revenue when advertisers have rich preferences — even simple forms of expressiveness like budget constraints can lead to suboptimal outcomes. While the optimal allocation of inventory can provide greater efficiency and revenue, natural formulations of the underlying optimization problems grow exponentially in the number of features of interest, presenting a key practical challenge. To address this problem, we propose a means for automatically partitioning inventory into abstract channels so that the least relevant features are ignored. Our approach, based on LP/MIP column and constraint generation, dramatically reduces the size of the problem, thus rendering optimization computationally feasible at practical scales. Our algorithms allow for principled tradeoffs between tractability and solution quality. Numerical experiments demonstrate the computational practicality of our approach as well as the quality of the resulting abstractions.

Law enforcement agencies frequently must allocate limited resources to protect targets embedded in a network, such as important buildings in a city road network. Since intelligent attackers may observe and exploit patterns in the allocation, it is crucial that the allocations be randomized. We cast this problem as an attacker-defender Stackelberg game: the defender’s goal is to obtain an optimal mixed strategy for allocating resources. The defender’s strategy space is exponential in the number of resources, and the attacker’s exponential in the network size. Existing algorithms are therefore useless for all but the smallest networks. We present a solution approach based on two key ideas: (i) A polynomial-sized game model obtained via an approximation of the strategy space, solved efficiently using a linear program; (ii) Two efficient techniques that map solutions from the approximate game to the original, with proofs of correctness under certain assumptions. We present in-depth experimental results, including an evaluation on part of the Mumbai road network.

Recent work has demonstrated that several trust and reputation models can be exploited by malicious agents with cyclical behaviour. In each cycle, the malicious agent with cyclical behaviour first regains a high trust value after a number of cooperations and then abuses its gained trust by engaging in a bad transaction. Using a game theoretic formulation, Salehi-Abari and White have proposed the AER model that is resistant to exploitation by cyclical behaviour. Their simulation results imply that FIRE, Regret, and a model due to Yu and Singh, can always be exploited with an appropriate value for the period of cyclical behaviour. Furthermore, their results demonstrate that this is not so for the proposed adaptive scheme. This paper provides a mathematical analysis of the properties of five trust models when faced with cyclical behaviour of malicious agents. Three main results are proven. First, malicious agents can always select a cycle period that allows them to exploit the four models of FIRE, Regret, Probabilistic models, and Yu and Singh indefinitely. Second, malicious agents cannot select a single, finite cycle period that allows them to exploit the AER model forever. Finally, the number of cooperations required to achieve a given trust value increases monotonically with each cycle. In addition to the mathematical analysis, this paper empirically shows how malicious agents can use the theorems proven in this paper to mount efficient attacks on trust models.

Computer agents are increasingly deployed in settings in which they make decisions with people, such as electronic commerce, collaborative interfaces, and cognitive assistants. However, the scientific evaluation of computational strategies for human-computer decision-making is a costly process, involving time, effort and personnel. This paper investigates the use of Peer Designed Agents (PDA) — computer agents developed by human subjects — as a tool for facilitating the evaluation process of automatic negotiators that were developed by researchers. It compared the performance between automatic negotiators that interacted with PDAs to automatic negotiators that interacted with actual people in different domains. The experiments included more than 300 human subjects and 50 PDAs developed by students. Results showed that the automatic negotiators outperformed PDAs in the same situations in which they outperformed people, and that on average, they exhibited the same measure of generosity towards their negotiation partners. These patterns were significant for all types of domains, and for all types of automated negotiators, despite the fact that there were individual differences between the behavior of PDAs and people. The study thus provides an empirical proof that PDAs can alleviate the evaluation process of automatic negotiators, and facilitate their design.

Recently, algorithms for computing game-theoretic solutions have been deployed in real-world security applications, such as the placement of checkpoints and canine units at Los Angeles International Airport. These algorithms assume that the defender (security personnel) can commit to a mixed strategy, a so-called Stackelberg model. As pointed out by Kiekintveld et al. (2009), in these applications, generally, multiple resources need to be assigned to multiple targets, resulting in an exponential number of pure strategies for the defender. In this paper, we study how to compute optimal Stackelberg strategies in such games, showing that this can be done in polynomial time in some cases, and is NP-hard in others.

Many computational problems in game theory, such as finding Nash equilibria, are algorithmically hard to solve. This limitation forces analysts to limit attention to restricted subsets of the entire strategy space. We develop algorithms to identify rationally closed subsets of the strategy space under given size constraints. First, we modify an existing family of algorithms for rational closure in two-player games to compute a related rational closure concept, called formations , for n -player games. We then extend these algorithms to apply in cases where the utility function is partially specified, or there is a bound on the size of the restricted profile space. Finally, we evaluate the performance of these algorithms on a class of random games.

Security games, and important class of Stackelberg games, are used in deployed decision-support tools in use by LAX police and the Federal Air Marshals Service. The algorithms used to solve these games find optimal randomized schedules to allocate security resources for infrastructure protection. Unfortunately, the state of the art algorithms either fail to scale or to provide a correct solution for large problems with arbitrary scheduling constraints. We introduce ASPEN, a branch-and-price approach that overcomes these limitations based on two key contributions: (i) A column-generation approach that exploits a novel network flow representation, avoiding a combinatorial explosion of schedule allocations; (ii) A branch-and-bound algorithm that generates bounds via a fast algorithm for solving security games with relaxed scheduling constraints. ASPEN is the first known method for efficiently solving massive security games with arbitrary schedules.