We introduce a new class of mechanisms, robust mechanisms, that is an intermediary between ex-post mechanisms and Bayesian mechanisms. This new class of mechanisms allows the mechanism designer to incorporate imprecise estimates of the distribution over bidder valuations in a way that provides strong guarantees that the mechanism will perform at least as well as ex-post mechanisms, while in many cases performing better. We further extend this class to mechanisms that are with high probability incentive compatible and individually rational, ε-robust mechanisms. Using techniques from automated mechanism design and robust optimization, we provide an algorithm polynomial in the number of bidder types to design robust and ε-robust mechanisms. We show experimentally that this new class of mechanisms can significantly outperform traditional mechanism design techniques when the mechanism designer has an estimate of the distribution and the bidder’s valuation is correlated with an externally verifiable signal.

The generality of decision and game theory has enabled domain-independent progress in AI research. For example, a better algorithm for finding good policies in (PO)MDPs can be instantly used in a variety of applications. But such a general theory is lacking when it comes to moral decision making. For AI applications with a moral component, are we then forced to build systems based on many ad-hoc rules? In this paper we discuss possible ways to avoid this conclusion.

In many multiagent environments, a designer has some, but limited control over the game being played. In this paper, we formalize this by considering incompletely specified games, in which some entries of the payoff matrices can be chosen from a specified set. We show that it is NP-hard for the designer to make this choices optimally, even in zero-sum games. In fact, it is already intractable to decide whether a given action is (potentially or necessarily) played in equilibrium. We also consider incompletely specified symmetric games in which all completions are required to be symmetric. Here, hardness holds even in weak tournament games (symmetric zero-sum games whose entries are all -1, 0, or 1) and in tournament games (symmetric zero-sum games whose non-diagonal entries are all -1 or 1). The latter result settles the complexity of the possible and necessary winner problems for a social-choice-theoretic solution concept known as the bipartisan set. We finally give a mixed-integer linear programming formulation for weak tournament games and evaluate it experimentally.

We study the societal tradeoffs problem, where a set of voters each submit their ideal tradeoff value between each pair of activities (e.g., "using a gallon of gasoline is as bad as creating 2 bags of landfill trash"), and these are then aggregated into the societal tradeoff vector using a rule. We introduce the family of distance-based rules and show that these can be justified as maximum likelihood estimators of the truth. Within this family, we single out the logarithmic distance-based rule as especially appealing based on a social-choice-theoretic axiomatization. We give an efficient algorithm for executing this rule as well as an approximate hill climbing algorithm, and evaluate these experimentally.

In a landmark paper in the mechanism design literature, Cremer and McLean (1985) (CM for short) show that when a bidder’s valuation is correlated with an external signal, a monopolistic seller is able to extract the full social surplus as revenue. In the original paper and subsequent literature, the focus has been on ex-post incentive compatible (or IC) mechanisms, where truth telling is an ex-post Nash equilibrium. In this paper, we explore the implications of Bayesian versus ex-post IC in a correlated valuation setting. We generalize the full extraction result to settings that do not satisfy the assumptions of CM. In particular, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for full extraction that strictly relax the original conditions given in CM. These more general conditions characterize the situations under which requiring ex-post IC leads to a decrease in expected revenue relative to Bayesian IC. We also demonstrate that the expected revenue from the optimal ex-post IC mechanism guarantees at most a (|Θ| + 1)/4 approximation to that of a Bayesian IC mechanism, where |Θ| is the number of bidder types. Finally, using techniques from automated mechanism design, we show that, for randomly generated distributions, the average expected revenue achieved by Bayesian IC mechanisms is significantly larger than that for ex-post IC mechanisms.

In cooperative game theory, it is typically assumed that the value of each coalition is known. We depart from this, assuming that v(S) is only a noisy estimate of the true value V (S), which is not yet known. In this context, we investigate which solution concepts maximize the probability of ex-post stability (after the true values are revealed). We show how various conditions on the noise characterize the least core and the nucleolus as optimal. Modifying some aspects of these conditions to (arguably) make them more realistic, we obtain characterizations of new solution concepts as being optimal, including the partial nucleolus, the multiplicative least core, and the multiplicative nucleolus.

In a classic result in the mechanism design literature, Cremerand McLean (1985) show that if buyers’ valuations are sufficiently correlated, a mechanism exists that allows the seller to extract the full surplus from efficient allocation as revenue. This result is commonly seen as “too good to be true” (in practice), casting doubt on its modeling assumptions. In this paper, we use an automated mechanism design approach to assess how sensitive the Cremer-McLean result is to relaxing its main technical assumption. That assumption implies that each valuation that a bidder can have results in a unique conditional distribution over the external signal(s). We relax this, allowing multiple valuations to be consistent with the same distribution over the external signal(s). Using similar insights to Cremer-McLean, we provide a highly efficient algorithm for computing the optimal revenue in this more general case. Using this algorithm, we observe that indeed, as the number of valuations consistent with a distribution grows, the optimal revenue quickly drops to that of a reserve-price mechanism. Thus, automated mechanism design allows us to gain insight into the precise sense in which Cremer-McLean is “too good to be true.”

Models of strategic candidacy analyze the incentives of candidates to run in an election. Most work on this topic assumes that strategizing only takes place among candidates, whereas voters vote truthfully. In this paper, we extend the analysis to also include strategic behavior on the part of the voters. (We also study cases where only candidates or only voters are strategic.) We consider two settings in which strategic voting is well-defined and has a natural interpretation: majority-consistent voting with single-peaked preferences and voting by successive elimination. In the former setting, we analyze the type of strategic behavior required in order to guarantee desirable voting outcomes. In the latter setting, we determine the complexity of computing the set of potential outcomes if both candidates and voters act strategically.

We consider approval-based committee voting, i.e., the setting where each voter approves a subset of candidates, and these votes are then used to select a fixed-size set of winners (committee). We propose a natural axiom for this setting, which we call justified representation (JR). This axiom requires that if a large enough group of voters exhibits agree- ment by supporting the same candidate, then at least one voter in this group has an approved candidate in the winning committee. We show that for every list of ballots it is possible to select a committee that provides JR. We then check if this axiom is fulfilled by well-known approval-based voting rules. We show that the answer is negative for most of the rules we consider, with notable exceptions of PAV (Proportional Approval Voting), an extreme version of RAV (Reweighted Approval Voting), and, for a restricted preference domain, MAV (Minimax Approval Voting). We then introduce a stronger version of the JR axiom, which we call extended justified representation (EJR), and show that PAV satisfies EJR, while other rules do not. We also consider several other questions related to JR and EJR, including the relationship between JR/EJR and unanimity, and the complexity of the associated algorithmic problems.

Among the many deployment areas of Stackelberg Security games, a major area involves games played out in space and time, which includes applications in multiple mobile defender resources protecting multiple mobile targets. Previous algorithms for such spatio-temporal security games fail to scale-up and little is known ofthe computational complexity properties of these problems.This paper provides a novel oracle-based algorithmic framework for a systematic study of different problem variants of computing optimal (minimax) strategies in spatio-temporal security games. Our framework enables efficient computation of a minimax strategy when the problem admits a polynomial-time oracle. Furthermore,for the cases in which efficient oracles are difficultto find, we propose approximations or prove hardness results.