We exploit player symmetry to formulate the representation of large normal-form games as a regression task. This formulation allows arbitrary regression methods to be employed in in estimating utility functions from a small subset of the game's outcomes. We demonstrate the applicability both neural networks and Gaussian process regression, but focus on the latter. Once utility functions are learned, computing Nash equilibria requires estimating expected payoffs of pure-strategy deviations from mixed-strategy profiles. Computing these expectations exactly requires an infeasible sum over the full payoff matrix, so we propose and test several approximation methods. Three of these are simple and generic, applicable to any regression method and games with any number of player roles. However, the best performance is achieved by a continuous integral that approximates the summation, which we formulate for the specific case of fully-symmetric games learned by Gaussian process regression with a radial basis function kernel. We demonstrate experimentally that the combination of learned utility functions and expected payoff estimation allows us to efficiently identify approximate equilibria of large games using sparse payoff data.

We propose a simple model of interaction for resource-conscious agents. The resources involved are expressed in fragments of Linear Logic. We investigate a few problems relevant to cooperative games, such as deciding whether a group of agents can form a coalition and act together in a way that satisfies all of them. In terms of solution concepts, we study the computational aspects of the core of a game. The main contributions are a formal link with the existing literature, and complexity results for several classes of models.

We introduce a formal model of iterative judgment aggregation, enabling the analysis of scenarios in which agents repeatedly update their individual positions on a set of issues, before a final decision is made by applying an aggregation rule to these individual positions. Focusing on two popular aggregation rules, the premise-based rule and the plurality rule, we study under what circumstances convergence to an equilibrium can be guaranteed. We also analyse the quality, in social terms, of the final decisions obtained. Our results not only shed light on the parameters that determine whether iteration converges and is socially beneficial, but they also clarify important differences between iterative judgment aggregation and the related framework of iterative voting.

We introduce the notion of exploitability in cut-and-choose protocols for repeated cake cutting. If a cut-and-choose protocol is repeated, the cutter can possibly gain information about the chooser from her previous actions, and exploit this information for her own gain, at the expense of the chooser. We define a generalization of cut-and-choose protocols - forced-cut protocols - in which some cuts are made exogenously while others are made by the cutter, and show that there exist non-exploitable forced-cut protocols that use a small number of cuts per day: When the cake has at least as many dimensions as days, we show a protocol that uses a single cut per day. When the cake is 1-dimensional, we show an adaptive non-exploitable protocol that uses 3 cuts per day, and a non-adaptive protocol that uses n cuts per day (where n is the number of days). In contrast, we show that no non-adaptive non-exploitable forced-cut protocol can use a constant number of cuts per day. Finally, we show that if the cake is at least 2-dimensional, there is a non-adaptive non-exploitable protocol that uses 3 cuts per day.

It is well-known that the Gale-Shapley algorithm is not truthful for all agents. Previous studies in this category concentrate on manipulations using incomplete preference lists by a single woman and by the set of all women. Little is known about manipulations by a subset of women. In this paper, we consider manipulations by any subset of women with arbitrary preferences. We show that a strong Nash equilibrium of the induced manipulation game always exists among the manipulators and the equilibrium outcome is unique and Pareto-dominant. In addition, the set of matchings achievable by manipulations has a lattice structure. We also examine the super-strong Nash equilibrium in the end.

This paper focuses on two commonly used path assignment policies for agents traversing a congested network: self-interested routing, and system-optimum routing. In the self-interested routing policy each agent selects a path that optimizes its own utility, while in the system-optimum routing, agents are assigned paths with the goal of maximizing system performance. This paper considers a scenario where a centralized network manager wishes to optimize utilities over all agents, i.e., implement a system-optimum routing policy. In many real-life scenarios, however, the system manager is unable to influence the route assignment of all agents due to limited influence on route choice decisions. Motivated by such scenarios, a computationally tractable method is presented that computes the minimal amount of agents that the system manager needs to influence (compliant agents) in order to achieve system optimal performance. Moreover, this methodology can also determine whether a given set of compliant agents is sufficient to achieve system optimum and compute the optimal route assignment for the compliant agents to do so. Experimental results are presented showing that in several large-scale, realistic traffic networks optimal flow can be achieved with as low as 13% of the agent being compliant and up to 54%.

In a seminal paper, McAfee (1992) presented a truthful mechanism for double auctions, attaining asymptotically-optimal gain-from-trade without any prior information on the valuations of the traders. McAfee's mechanism handles single-parametric agents, allowing each seller to sell a single unit and each buyer to buy a single unit. This paper presents a double-auction mechanism that handles multi-parametric agents and allows multiple units per trader, as long as the valuation functions of all traders have decreasing marginal returns. The mechanism is prior-free, ex-post individually-rational, dominant-strategy truthful and strongly-budget-balanced. Its gain-from-trade approaches the optimum when the market size is sufficiently large.

We revisit the well-studied problem of constructing strategyproof approximation mechanisms for facility location games, but offer a fundamentally new perspective by considering risk averse designers. Specifically, we are interested in the tradeoff between a randomized strategyproof mechanism's approximation ratio, and its variance (which has long served as a proxy for risk). When there is just one facility, we observe that the social cost objective is trivial, and derive the optimal tradeoff with respect to the maximum cost objective. When there are multiple facilities, the main challenge is the social cost objective, and we establish a surprising impossibility result: under mild assumptions, no smooth approximation-variance tradeoff exists. We also discuss the implications of our work for computational mechanism design at large.

The standard approach to fair rent division assumes that agents have quasi-linear utilities, and seeks allocations that are envy free; it underlies an algorithm that is widely used in practice. However, this approach does not take budget constraints into account, and, therefore, may assign agents to rooms they cannot afford. By contrast, we design a polynomial-time algorithm that takes budget constraints as part of its input; it determines whether there exist envy-free allocations that satisfy the budget constraints, and, if so, computes one that optimizes an additional criterion of justice. In particular, this gives a polynomial-time implementation of the budget-constrained maximin solution, where the maximization objective is the minimum utility of any agent. We show that, like its non-budget-constrained counterpart, this solution is unique in terms of utilities (when it exists), and satisfies additional desirable properties.

Balancing fairness and efficiency in resource allocation is a classical economic and computational problem. The price of fairness measures the worst-case loss of economic efficiency when using an inefficient but fair allocation rule; for indivisible goods in many settings, this price is unacceptably high. One such setting is kidney exchange, where needy patients swap willing but incompatible kidney donors. In this work, we close an open problem regarding the theoretical price of fairness in modern kidney exchanges. We then propose a general hybrid fairness rule that balances a strict lexicographic preference ordering over classes of agents, and a utilitarian objective that maximizes economic efficiency. We develop a utility function for this rule that favors disadvantaged groups lexicographically; but if cost to overall efficiency becomes too high, it switches to a utilitarian objective. This rule has only one parameter which is proportional to a bound on the price of fairness, and can be adjusted by policymakers. We apply this rule to real data from a large kidney exchange and show that our hybrid rule produces more reliable outcomes than other fairness rules.