Nowadays, several crowdsourcing projects exploit social choice methods for computing an aggregate ranking of alternatives given individual rankings provided by workers. Motivated by such systems, we consider a setting where each worker is asked to rank a fixed (small) number of alternatives and, then, a positional scoring rule is used to compute the aggregate ranking. Among the apparently infinite such rules, what is the best one to use? To answer this question, we assume that we have partial access to an underlying true ranking. Then, the important optimization problem to be solved is to compute the positional scoring rule whose outcome, when applied to the profile of individual rankings, is as close as possible to the part of the underlying true ranking we know. We study this fundamental problem from a theoretical point of view and present positive and negative complexity results. Furthermore, we complement our theoretical findings with experiments on real-world and synthetic data.

Regret minimization is widely used in determining strategies for imperfect-information games and in online learning. In large games, computing the regrets associated with a single iteration can be slow. For this reason, pruning — in which parts of the decision tree are not traversed in every iteration — has emerged as an essential method for speeding up iterations in large games. The ability to prune is a primary reason why the Counterfactual Regret Minimization (CFR) algorithm using regret matching has emerged as the most popular iterative algorithm for imperfect-information games, despite its relatively poor convergence bound. In this paper, we introduce dynamic thresholding, in which a threshold is set at every iteration such that any action in the decision tree with probability below the threshold is set to zero probability. This enables pruning for the first time in a wide range of algorithms. We prove that dynamic thresholding can be applied to Hedge while increasing its convergence bound by only a constant factor in terms of number of iterations. Experiments demonstrate a substantial improvement in performance for Hedge as well as the excessive gap technique.

We establish a link between multiwinner elections and apportionment problems by showing how approval-based multiwinner election rules can be interpreted as methods of apportionment. We consider several multi-winner rules and observe that some, but not all, of them induce apportionment methods that are well established in the literature and in the actual practice of proportional representation. For instance, we show that Proportional Approval Voting induces the D'Hondt method and that Monroe's rule induces the largest remainder method. We also consider properties of apportionment methods and exhibit multiwinner rules that induce apportionment methods satisfying these properties.

In the late 19th century, Lars Edvard Phragmén proposed a load-balancing approach for selecting committees based on approval ballots. We consider three committee voting rules resulting from this approach: two optimization variants one minimizing the maximal load and one minimizing the variance of loads —and a sequential variant. We study Phragmén's methods from an axiomatic point of view, focussing on justified representation and related properties that have recently been introduced by Aziz et al. (2015a) and Sánchez-Fernández et al. (2017). We show that the sequential variant satisfies proportional justified representation, making it the first known polynomial-time computable method with this property. Moreover, we show that the optimization variants satisfy perfect representation. We also analyze the com- putational complexity of Phragmén's methods and provide mixed-integer programming based algorithms for computing them.

We investigate Pareto stability in Social Distance Games, that are coalition forming games in which agents utilities are proportional to their harmonic centralities in the respective coalitions, i.e., to the average inverse distance from the other agents. Pareto optimal solutions have been already considered in the literature as outcomes arising from the strategic interaction of the agents. In particular, they are stable under the deviation of the grand coalition, as they do not permit a simultaneous deviation by all the agents making all of them weakly better off and some strictly better off. We first show that, while computing a Pareto stable solution maximizing the social welfare is NP-hard in bounded degree graphs, a 2 min{Delta,sqrt n}-approximating one can be determined in polynomial time, where n is the number of agents and Delta the maximum node degree. We then determine asymptotically tight bounds on the Price of Pareto Optimality for several classes of social graphs arising from the following combinations: unbounded and bounded node degree, undirected and directed edges, unweighted and weighted edges.

With the increasing interest in the role information providers play in multi-agent systems, much effort has been dedicated to analyzing strategic information disclosure and signaling by such agents. This paper analyzes the problem in the context of auctions (specifically for second-price auctions). It provides an equilibrium analysis to the case where the information provider can use signaling according to some pre-committed scheme before introducing its regular (costly) information selling offering. The signal provided, publicly discloses (for free) some of the information held by the information provider. Providing the signaling is thus somehow counter intuitive as the information provider ultimately attempts to maximize her gain from selling the information she holds. Still, we show that such signaling capability can be highly beneficial for the information provider and even improve social welfare. Furthermore, the examples provided demonstrate various possible other beneficial behaviors available to the different players as well as to a market designer, such as paying the information provider to leave the system or commit to a specific signaling scheme. Finally, the paper provides an extension of the underlying model, related to the use of mixed signaling strategies.

We present an approach to incentivising monitoring for norm violations in open multi-agent systems such as Wikipedia. In such systems, there is no crisp definition of a norm violation; rather, it is a matter of judgement whether an agent's behaviour conforms to generally accepted standards of behaviour. Agents may legitimately disagree about borderline cases. Using ideas from scrip systems and peer prediction, we show how to design a mechanism that incentivises agents to monitor each other's behaviour for norm violations. The mechanism keeps the probability of undetected violations (submissions that the majority of the community would consider not conforming to standards) low, and is robust against collusion by the monitoring agents.

It's been a long time worry that when AI gains a certain level of autonomy it will see no use for humans or even perceive them as a threat. A new study by Google's DeepMind lab may or may not ease those fears. There are two unmistakable sides to the debate concerning the future of artificial intelligence. The researchers at DeepMind have been working with two games to test whether neural networks are more likely to understand motivations to compete or cooperate. They hope that this research could lead to AI being better at working with other AI in situations that contain imperfect information.

When our robot overlords arrive, will they decide to kill us or cooperate with us? New research from DeepMind, Alphabet Inc.'s London-based artificial intelligence unit, could ultimately shed light on this fundamental question. They have been investigating the conditions in which reward-optimizing beings, whether human or robot, would choose to cooperate, rather than compete. The answer could have implications for how computer intelligence may eventually be deployed to manage complex systems such as an economy, city traffic flows, or environmental policy. Joel Leibo, the lead author of a paper DeepMind published online Thursday, said in an e-mail that his team's research indicates that whether agents learn to cooperate or compete depends strongly on the environment in which they operate.

On the Web, there is always a need to aggregate opinions from the crowd (as in posts, social networks, forums, etc.). Different mechanisms have been implemented to capture these opinions such as "Like" in Facebook, "Favorite" in Twitter, thumbs-up/down, flagging, and so on. However, in more contested domains (e.g. Wikipedia, political discussion, and climate change discussion) these mechanisms are not sufficient since they only deal with each issue independently without considering the relationships between different claims. We can view a set of conflicting arguments as a graph in which the nodes represent arguments and the arcs between these nodes represent the defeat relation. A group of people can then collectively evaluate such graphs. To do this, the group must use a rule to aggregate their individual opinions about the entire argument graph. Here, we present the first experimental evaluation of different principles commonly employed by aggregation rules presented in the literature. We use randomized controlled experiments to investigate which principles people consider better at aggregating opinions under different conditions. Our analysis reveals a number of factors, not captured by traditional formal models, that play an important role in determining the efficacy of aggregation. These results help bring formal models of argumentation closer to real-world application.