High profile large scale public events are attractive targets for terrorist attacks. The recent Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013 have further emphasized the importance of protecting public events. The security challenge is exacerbated by the dynamic nature of such events: e.g., the impact of an attack at different locations changes over time as the Boston marathon participants and spectators move along the race track. In addition, the defender can relocate security resources among potential attack targets at any time and the attacker may act at any time during the event. This paper focuses on developing efficient patrolling algorithms for such dynamic domains with continuous strategy spaces for both the defender and the attacker. We aim at computing optimal pure defender strategies, since an attacker does not have an opportunity to learn and respond to mixed strategies due to the relative infrequency of such events. We propose SCOUT-A, which makes assumptions on relocation cost, exploits payoff representation and computes optimal solutions efficiently. We also propose SCOUT-C to compute the exact optimal defender strategy for general cases despite the continuous strategy spaces. SCOUT-C computes the optimal defender strategy by constructing an equivalent game with discrete defender strategy space, then solving the constructed game. Experimental results show that both SCOUT-A and SCOUT-C significantly outperform other existing strategies.

Online mechanism design has been widely applied to various practical applications. However, designing a strategy-proof online mechanism is much more challenging than that in a static scenario due to short of knowledge of future information. In this paper, we investigate online auctions with time discounting values, in contrast to the flat values studied in most of existing work. We present a strategy-proof 2-competitive online auction mechanism despite of time discounting values. We also implement our design and compare it with off-line optimal solution. Our numerical results show that our design achieves good performance in terms of social welfare, revenue, average winning delay, and average valuation loss.

We study a mechanism design problem for exchange economies where each agent is initially endowed with a set of indivisible goods and side payments are not allowed. We assume each agent can withhold some endowments, as well as misreport her preference. Under this assumption, strategyproofness requires that for each agent, reporting her true preference with revealing all her endowments is a dominant strategy, and thus implies individual rationality. Our objective in this paper is to analyze the effect of such private ownership in exchange economies with multiple endowments. As fundamental results, we first show that the revelation principle holds under a natural assumption and that strategyproofness and Pareto efficiency are incompatible even under the lexicographic preference domain. We then propose a class of exchange rules, each of which has a corresponding directed graph to prescribe possible trades, and provide necessary and sufficient conditions on the graph structure so that they satisfy strategyproofness.

Individual rationality, Pareto efficiency, and strategy- proofness are crucial properties of decision making functions, or mechanisms, in social choice literatures. In this paper we investigate mechanisms for exchange models where each agent is initially endowed with a set of goods and may have indifferences on distinct bundles of goods, and monetary transfers are not allowed. Sonmez (1999) showed that in such models, those three properties are not compatible in general. The impossibility, however, only holds under an assumption on preference domains. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the compatibility of those three properties when the assumption does not hold. We first establish a preference domain called top-only preferences, which violates the assumption, and develop a class of exchange mechanisms that satisfy all those properties. Each mechanism in the class utilizes one instance of the mechanisms introduced by Saban and Sethuraman (2013). We also find a class of preference domains called m-chotomous preferences, where the assumption fails and these properties are incompatible.

It is a well known fact that in extensive form games with perfect information, there is a Nash equilibrium with support of size one. This doesn't hold for games with imperfect information, where the size of minimal support can be larger. We present a dependency between the level of uncertainty and the minimum support size. For many games, there is a big disproportion between the game uncertainty and the number of actions available. In Bayesian extensive games with perfect information, the only uncertainty is about the type of players. In card games, the uncertainty comes from dealing the deck. In these games, we can significantly reduce the support size. Our result applies to general-sum extensive form games with any finite number of players.

We consider settings where a collective intelligence is formed by aggregating information contributed from many independent agents, such as product reviews, community sensing, or opinion polls. We propose a novel mechanism that elicits both private signals and beliefs. The mechanism extends the previous versions of the Bayesian Truth Serum (the original BTS, the RBTS, and the multi-valued BTS), by allowing small populations and non-binary private signals, while not requiring additional assumptions on the belief updating process. For priors that are sufficiently smooth, such as Gaussians, the mechanism allows signals to be continuous.

We investigate synergy, or lack thereof, between agents in cooperative games, building on the popular notion of Shapley value. We think of a pair of agents as synergistic (resp., antagonistic) if the Shapley value of one agent when the other agent participates in a joint effort is higher (resp. lower) than when the other agent does not participate. Our main theoretical result is that any graph specifying synergistic and antagonistic pairs can arise even from a restricted class of cooperative games. We also study the computational complexity of determining whether a given pair of agents is synergistic. Finally, we use the concepts developed in the paper to uncover the structure of synergies in two real-world organizations, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

Stackelberg security games (SSGs) have been deployed in a number of real-world domains. One key challenge in these applications is the assessment of attacker payoffs, which may not be perfectly known. Previous work has studied SSGs with uncertain payoffs modeled by interval uncertainty and provided maximin-based robust solutions. In contrast, in this work we propose the use of the less conservative minimax regret decision criterion for such payoff-uncertain SSGs and present the first algorithms for computing minimax regret for SSGs. We also address the challenge of preference elicitation, using minimax regret to develop the first elicitation strategies for SSGs. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our approaches.

We investigate the limiting behavior of trader wealth and prices in a simple prediction market with a finite set of participants having heterogeneous beliefs. Traders bet repeatedly on the outcome of a binary event with fixed Bernoulli success probability. A class of strategies, including (fractional) Kelly betting and constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) are considered. We show that when traders are willing to risk only a small fraction of their wealth in any period, belief heterogeneity can persist indefinitely; if bets are large in proportion to wealth then only the most accurate belief type survives. The market price is more accurate in the long run when traders with less accurate beliefs also survive. That is, the survival of traders with heterogeneous beliefs, some less accurate than others, allows the market price to better reflect the objective probability of the event in the long run.

We study the envy-free allocation of indivisible goods between two players. Our novel setting includes an option to sell each good for a fraction of the minimum value any player has for the good. To rigorously quantify the efficiency gain from selling, we reason about the price of envy-freeness of allocations of sellable goods — the ratio between the maximum social welfare and the social welfare of the best envy-free allocation. We show that envy-free allocations of sellable goods are significantly more efficient than their unsellable counterparts.