The goal of multi-winner elections is to choose a fixed-size committee based on voters’ preferences. An important concern in this setting is representation: large groups of voters with cohesive preferences should be adequately represented by the election winners. Recently, Aziz et al. proposed two axioms that aim to capture this idea: justified representation (JR) and its strengthening extended justified representation (EJR). In this paper, we extend the work of Aziz et al. in several directions. First, we answer an open question of Aziz et al., by showing that Reweighted Approval Voting satisfies JR for k = 3; 4; 5, but fails it for k >= 6. Second, we observe that EJR is incompatible with the Perfect Representation criterion, which is important for many applications of multi-winner voting, and propose a relaxation of EJR, which we call Proportional Justified Representation (PJR). PJR is more demanding than JR, but, unlike EJR, it is compatible with perfect representation, and a committee that provides PJR can be computed in polynomial time if the committee size divides the number of voters. Moreover, just like EJR, PJR can be used to characterize the classic PAV rule in the class of weighted PAV rules. On the other hand, we show that EJR provides stronger guarantees with respect to average voter satisfaction than PJR does.

We introduce the domain of preferences that are single-peaked on a circle, which is a generalization of the well-studied single-peaked domain. This preference restriction is useful, e.g., for scheduling decisions, and for one-dimensional decisions in the presence of extremist preferences. We give a fast recognition algorithm of this domain, provide a characterisation by finitely many forbidden subprofiles, and show that many popular single- and multi-winner voting rules are polynomial-time computable on this domain. In contrast, Kemeny's rule remains hard to evaluate, and several impossibility results from social choice theory can be proved using only profiles that are single-peaked on a circle

Consider a situation with n agents or players, where some of the players form a coalition with a certain collective objective. Simple games are used to model systems that can decide whether coalitions are successful (winning) or not (losing). A simple game can be viewed as a monotone boolean function. The dimension of a simple game is the smallest positive integer d such that the simple game can be expressed as the intersection of d threshold functions, where each threshold function uses a threshold and n weights. Taylor and Zwicker have shown that d is bounded from above by the number of maximal losing coalitions. We present two new upper bounds both containing the Taylor-Zwicker bound as a special case. The Taylor-Zwicker bound implies an upper bound of (n choose n/2). We improve this upper bound significantly by showing constructively that d is bounded from above by the cardinality of any binary covering code with length n and covering radius 1. This result supplements a recent result where Olsen et al. showed how to construct simple games with dimension |C| for any binary constant weight SECDED code C with length n. Our result represents a major step in the attempt to close the dimensionality gap for simple games.

The Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attack is one of the most common attacks employed in the network hacking. MITM attackers can successfully invoke attacks such as denial of service (DoS) and port stealing, and lead to surprisingly harmful consequences for users in terms of both financial loss and security issues. The conventional defense approaches mainly consider how to detect and eliminate those attacks or how to prevent those attacks from being launched in the first place. This paper proposes a game-theoretic defense strategy from a different perspective, which aims at minimizing the loss that the whole system sustains given that the MITM attacks are inevitable. We model the interaction between the attacker and the defender as a Stackelberg security game and adopt the Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium (SSE) as the defender's strategy. Since the defender's strategy space is infinite in our model, we employ a novel method to reduce the searching space of computing the optimal defense strategy. Finally, we empirically evaluate our optimal defense strategy by comparing it with non-strategic defense strategies. The results indicate that our game-theoretic defense strategy significantly outperforms other non-strategic defense strategies in terms of decreasing the total losses against MITM attacks.

We study the Stable Invitations Problem (SIP) in which an event organizer is to invite a subset of agents (from a group of agents) to an event, subject to certain rationality criteria. In SIP, the agents have friends, enemies, and preferences on the number of attendees at the event; an agent is willing to attend the event if all friends of the agent attend, no enemy of the agent attends, and the number of attendees is acceptable to the agent. We consider two solution concepts: (1) individual rationality (everyone who is invited is willing to attend) and (2) (Nash) stability (no agent wants to deviate from the given invitation).It is known that finding an invitation of given size for either concept is NP-complete. In this work, we study the complexity of SIP on a finer scale, through the lense of parameterized complexity.For the two solution concepts and the special cases where the number of friends and/or enemies is bounded above by a constant, we show that the problems belong to different complexity classes when parameterized by the size of solutions.For instance finding an individually rational invitation of size k is W[1]-complete, yet finding a stable invitation is W[2]-complete.Moreover, when all friend and enemy relations are symmetric, finding a solution of either of the concepts becomes fixed-parameter tractable unless agents have unbounded number(s) of enemies.

We propose a new variant of the group activity selection problem (GASP), where the agents are placed on a social network and activities can only be assigned to connected subgroups. We show that if multiple groupscan simultaneously engage in the same activity, finding a stable outcome is easy as long as the networkis acyclic. In contrast, if each activity can be assigned to a single group only, finding stable outcomes becomes computationally intractable, even if the underlying network is very simple: the problem of determining whether a given instance of a GASP admits a Nash stable outcome turns out to be NP-hard when the social network is a path, a star, or if the size of each connected component is bounded by a constant.On the other hand, we obtain fixed-parameter tractability results for this problem with respectto the number of activities.

To design social choice mechanisms with desirable utility properties, normative properties, and low sample complexity, we propose a new randomized mechanism called 2-Agree. This mechanism asks random voters for their top alternatives until at least two voters agree, at which point it selects that alternative as the winner. We prove that, despite its simplicity and low sample complexity, 2-Agree achieves almost optimal distortion on a metric space when the number of alternatives is not large, and satisfies anonymity, neutrality, ex-post Pareto efficiency, very strong SD-participation, and is approximately truthful. We further show that 2-Agree works well for larger number of alternatives with decisive agents.

Being popular in language evolution, cognitive science, and culture dynamics, the Naming Game has been widely used to analyze how agents reach global consensus via communications in multi-agent systems. Most prior work considered networks that are symmetric and homogeneous (e.g., vertex transitive). In this paper we consider asymmetric or heterogeneous settings that complement the current literature: 1) we show that increasing asymmetry in network topology can improve convergence rates. The star graph empirically converges faster than all previously studied graphs; 2) we consider graph topologies that are particularly challenging for naming game such as disjoint cliques or multi-level trees and ask how much extra homogeneity (random edges) is required to allow convergence or fast convergence. We provided theoretical analysis which was confirmed by simulations; 3) we analyze how consensus can be manipulated when stubborn nodes are introduced at different points of the process. Early introduction of stubborn nodes can easily influence the outcome in certain family of networks while late introduction of stubborn nodes has much less power.

A prediction market is a useful means of aggregating information about a future event. To function, the market needs a trusted entity who will verify the true outcome in the end. Motivated by the recent introduction of decentralized prediction markets, we introduce a mechanism that allows for the outcome to be determined by the votes of a group of arbiters who may themselves hold stakes in the market. Despite the potential conflict of interest, we derive conditions under which we can incentivize arbiters to vote truthfully by using funds raised from market fees to implement a peer prediction mechanism. Finally, we investigate what parameter values could be used in a real-world implementation of our mechanism.

We study a strategic variant of the knapsack problem, in We emphasize that agents can misreport the existence of which there are n agents, each owning a set of items, where items, but not their properties--their size and value; that is, each item has a value and size. A social planner must design the planner has the power to verify the size and value of a mechanism to choose which items to include in a knapsack the reported items. One example of such a scenario is the of a certain capacity, where the total size of the chosen items allocation of a scientific resource, like time on a particle cannot exceed the capacity. Each agent gets a utility equal accelerator or NSF funding. Scientists submit research proposals, to the total value of her own items included in the knapsack, each requesting a certain amount of resource, which while the designer wishes to maximize social welfare (the would provide a certain expected scientific value. This expected sum of the utilities of the agents, which amounts to the total scientific value is evaluated/confirmed by an impartial value of the items in the knapsack).