We present the first real-world benchmark for sequentially-optimal team formation, working within the framework of a class of online football prediction games known as Fantasy Football. We model the problem as a Bayesian reinforcement learning one, where the action space is exponential in the number of players and where the decision maker's beliefs are over multiple characteristics of each footballer. We then exploit domain knowledge to construct computationally tractable solution techniques in order to build a competitive automated Fantasy Football manager. Thus, we are able to establish the baseline performance in this domain, even without complete information on footballers' performances (accessible to human managers), showing that our agent is able to rank at around the top percentile when pitched against 2.5M human players.

Significant progress has been made recently in the following two lines of research in the intersection of AI and game theory: (1) the computation of optimal strategies to commit to (Stackelberg strategies), and (2) the computation of correlated equilibria of stochastic games. In this paper, we unite these two lines of research by studying the computation of Stackelberg strategies in stochastic games. We provide theoretical results on the value of being able to commit and the value of being able to correlate, as well as complexity results about computing Stackelberg strategies in stochastic games. We then modify the QPACE algorithm (MacDermed et al. 2011) to compute Stackelberg strategies, and provide experimental results.

Extensive-form games are a powerful model for representing interactions between agents. Nash equilibrium strategies are a common solution concept for extensive-form games and, in two-player zero-sum games, there are efficient algorithms for calculating such strategies. In large games, this computation may require too much memory and time to be tractable. A standard approach in such cases is to apply a lossy state-space abstraction technique to produce a smaller abstract game that can be tractably solved, while hoping that the resulting abstract game equilibrium is close to an equilibrium strategy in the unabstracted game. Recent work has shown that this assumption is unreliable, and an arbitrary Nash equilibrium in the abstract game is unlikely to be even near the least suboptimal strategy that can be represented in that space. In this work, we present for the first time an algorithm which efficiently finds optimal abstract strategies --- strategies with minimal exploitability in the unabstracted game. We use this technique to find the least exploitable strategy ever reported for two-player limit Texas hold'em.

Stackelberg security games form the backbone of systems like ARMOR, IRIS and PROTECT, which are in regular use by the Los Angeles International Police, US Federal Air Marshal Service and the US Coast Guard respectively. An understanding of the runtime required by algorithms that power such systems is critical to furthering the application of game theory to other real-world domains. This paper identifies the concept of the deployment-to-saturation ratio in random Stackelberg security games, and shows that problem instances for which this ratio is 0.5 are computationally harder than instances with other deployment-to-saturation ratios for a wide range of different equilibrium computation methods, including (i) previously published different MIP algorithms, and (ii) different underlying solvers and solution mechanisms. This finding has at least two important implications. First, it is important for new algorithms to be evaluated on the hardest problem instances. We show that this has often not been done in the past, and introduce a publicly available benchmark suite to facilitate such comparisons. Second, we provide evidence that this computationally hard region is also one where optimization would be of most benefit to security agencies, and thus requires significant attention from researchers in this area. Furthermore, we use the concept of phase transitions to better understand this computationally hard region. We define a decision problem related to security games, and show that the probability that this problem has a solution exhibits a phase transition as the deployment-to-saturation ratio crosses 0.5. We also demonstrate that this phase transition is invariant to changes both in the domain and the domain representation, and that the phase transition point corresponds to the computationally hardest instances.

In large extensive form games with imperfect information, Counterfactual Regret Minimization (CFR) is a popular, iterative algorithm for computing approximate Nash equilibria. While the base algorithm performs a full tree traversal on each iteration, Monte Carlo CFR (MCCFR) reduces the per iteration time cost by traversing just a sampled portion of the tree. On the other hand, MCCFR's sampled values introduce variance, and the effects of this variance were previously unknown. In this paper, we generalize MCCFR by considering any generic estimator of the sought values. We show that any choice of an estimator can be used to probabilistically minimize regret, provided the estimator is bounded and unbiased. In addition, we relate the variance of the estimator to the convergence rate of an algorithm that calculates regret directly from the estimator. We demonstrate the application of our analysis by defining a new bounded, unbiased estimator with empirically lower variance than MCCFR estimates. Finally, we use this estimator in a new sampling algorithm to compute approximate equilibria in Goofspiel, Bluff, and Texas hold'em poker. Under each of our selected sampling schemes, our new algorithm converges faster than MCCFR.

In AI research, mechanism design is typically used to allocate tasks and resources to agents holding private information about their values for possible allocations. In this context, optimizing payments within the Groves class has recently received much attention, mostly under the assumption that agent's private information is single-dimensional. Our work tackles this problem in multi-parameter domains. Specifically, we develop a generic technique to look for a best Groves mechanism for any given mechanism design problem. Our method is based on partitioning the spaces of agent values and payment functions into regions, on each of which we are able to define a feasible linear payment function. Under certain geometric conditions on partitions of the two spaces this function is optimal. We illustrate our method by applying it to the problem of allocating heterogeneous items.

We analyze symmetric protocols to rationally coordinate on an asymmetric, efficient allocation in an infinitely repeated N-agent, C-resource allocation problems. (Bhaskar 2000) proposed one way to achieve this in 2-agent, 1-resource allocation games: Agents start by symmetrically randomizing their actions, and as soon as they each choose different actions, they start to follow a potentially asymmetric "convention" that prescribes their actions from then on. We extend the concept of convention to the general case of infinitely repeated resource allocation games with N agents and C resources. We show that for any convention, there exists a symmetric subgame perfect equilibrium which implements it. We present two conventions: bourgeois, where agents stick to the first allocation; and market, where agents pay for the use of resources, and observe a global coordination signal which allows them to alternate between different allocations. We define price of anonymity of a convention as the ratio between the maximum social payoff of any (asymmetric) strategy profile and the expected social payoff of the convention. We show that while the price of anonymity of the bourgeois convention is infinite, the market convention decreases this price by reducing the conflict between the agents.

In cooperative games, a key question is to find a division of payoffs to coalition members in a fair manner. Nucleolus is one of such solution concepts that provides a stable solution for the grand coalition. We study the computation of the nucleolus of a number of cooperative games, including fractional matching games and fractional edge cover games on general weighted graphs, as well as vertex cover games and clique games on weighted bipartite graphs. Our results are on the positive side---we give efficient algorithms to compute the nucleolus, as well as the least core, of all of these games.

In many real-world auctions, a bidder does not know her exact value for an item, but can perform a costly deliberation to reduce her uncertainty. Relatively little is known about such deliberative environments, which are fundamentally different from classical auction environments. In this paper, we propose a new approach that allows us to leverage classical revenue-maximization results in deliberative environments. In particular, we use Myerson (1981) to construct the first non-trivial (i.e., dependent on deliberation costs) upper bound on revenue in deliberative auctions. This bound allows us to apply existing results in the classical environment to a deliberative environment. In addition, we show that in many deliberative environments the only optimal dominant-strategy mechanisms take the form of sequential posted-price auctions.

We join the goals of two giant and related fields of research in group decision-making that have historically had little contact: fair division, and efficient mechanism design with monetary payments. To do this we adopt the standard mechanism design paradigm where utility is assumed to be quasilinear and thus transferable across agents. We generalize the traditional binary criteria of envy-freeness, proportionality, and efficiency (welfare) to measures of degree that range between 0 and 1. We demonstrate that in the canonical fair division settings under any allocatively-efficient mechanism the worst-case welfare rate is 0 and disproportionality rate is 1; in other words, the worst-case results are as bad as possible. This strongly motivates an average-case analysis. We then set as the goal identification of a mechanism that achieves high welfare, low envy, and low disproportionality in expectation across a spectrum of fair division settings. We establish that the VCG mechanism is not a satisfactory candidate, but the redistribution mechanism of [Bailey, 1997; Cavallo, 2006] is.