We put forward a new model of congestion games where agents have uncertainty over the routes used by other agents. We take a non-probabilistic approach, assuming that each agent knows that the number of agents using an edge is within a certain range. Given this uncertainty, we model agents who either minimize their worst-case cost (WCC) or their worst-case regret (WCR), and study implications on equilibrium existence, convergence through adaptive play, and efficiency. Under the WCC behavior the game reduces to a modified congestion game, and welfare improves when agents have moderate uncertainty. Under WCR behavior the game is not, in general, a congestion game, but we show convergence and efficiency bounds for a simple class of games.

We study the stability of cooperative games played over an interaction network, in a model that was introduced by Myerson ['77]. We show that the cost of stability of such games (i.e., the subsidy required to stabilize the game) can be bounded in terms  of natural parameters of their underlying interaction networks. Specifically, we prove that if the treewidth of the interaction network H is k , then the relative cost of stability of any game played over H is at most k + 1, and if the pathwidth of H is k ', then the relative cost of stability is at most k '. We show that these bounds are tight for all k ≥ 2 and all k ' ≥ 1, respectively.

The increasing use of group discounts has provided opportunities for buying groups with diverse preferences to coordinate their behavior in order to exploit the best offers from multiple vendors. We analyze this problem from the viewpoint of the vendors, asking under what conditions a vendor should adopt a volume-based price schedule rather than posting a fixed price, either as a monopolist or when competing with other vendors. When vendors have uncertainty about buyers' valuations specified by a known distribution, we show that a vendor is always better off posting a fixed price, provided that buyers' types are i.i.d. and that other vendors also use fixed prices. We also show that these assumptions cannot be relaxed: if buyers are not i.i.d., or other vendors post discount schedules, then posting a schedule may yield higher profit for the vendor. We provide similar results under a distribution-free uncertainty model, where vendors minimize their maximum regret over all type realizations.

We consider judgment aggregation over multiple independent issues, where the chairperson has her own opinion, and can try to bias the outcome by bundling several issues together. Since for each bundle judges must give a uniform answer on all issues, different partitions of the issues may result in an outcome that significantly differs from the "true," issue-wise, decision. We prove that the bundling problem faced by the chairperson, i.e. trying to bias the outcome towards her own opinion, is computationally difficult in the worst case. Then we study the probability that an effective bundling attack exists as the disparity between the opinions of the judges and the chair varies. We show that if every judge initially agrees with the chair on every issue with probability of at least 1/2, then there is almost always a bundling attack (i.e. a partition) where the opinion of the chair on all issues is approved. Moreover, such a partition can be found efficiently. In contrast, when the probability is lower than 1/2 then the chair cannot force her opinion using bundling even on a single issue.

We propose a natural model for agent failures in congestion games. In our model, each of the agents may fail to participate in the game, introducing uncertainty regarding the set of active agents. We examine how such uncertainty may change the Nash equilibria (NE) of the game. We prove that although the perturbed game induced by the failure model is not always a congestion game, it still admits at least one pure Nash equilibrium. Then, we turn to examine the effect of failures on the maximal social cost in any NE of the perturbed game. We show that in the limit case where failure probability is negligible new equilibria never emerge, and that the social cost may decrease but it never increases. For the case of non-negligible failure probabilities, we provide a full characterization of the maximal impact of failures on the social cost under worst-case equilibrium outcomes.

Cooperative games model the allocation of profit from joint actions, following considerations such as stability and fairness. We propose the reliability extension of such games, where agents may fail to participate in the game. In the reliability extension, each agent only "survives" with a certain probability, and a coalition's value is the probability that its surviving members would be a winning coalition in the base game. We study prominent solution concepts in such games, showing how to approximate the Shapley value and how to compute the core in games with few agent types. We also show that applying the reliability extension may stabilize the game, making the core non-empty even when the base game has an empty core.

Multi-agent decision problems, in which independent agents have to agree on a joint plan of action or allocation of resources, are central to AI. In such situations, agents' individual preferences over available alternatives may vary, and they may try to reconcile these differences by voting. Based on the fact that agents may have incentives to vote strategically and misreport their real preferences, a number of recent papers have explored different possibilities for avoiding or eliminating such manipulations. In contrast to most prior work, this paper focuses on convergence of strategic behavior to a decision from which no voter will want to deviate. We consider scenarios where voters cannot coordinate their actions, but are allowed to change their vote after observing the current outcome. We focus on the Plurality voting rule, and study the conditions under which this iterative game is guaranteed to converge to a Nash equilibrium (i.e., to a decision that is stable against further unilateral manipulations). We show for the first time how convergence depends on the exact attributes of the game, such as the tie-breaking scheme, and on assumptions regarding agents' weights and strategies.

We consider optimizing the coalition structure in Coalitional Skill Games (CSGs), a succinct representation of coalitional games. In CSGs, the value of a coalition depends on the tasks its members can achieve. The tasks require various skills to complete them, and agents may have different skill sets. The optimal coalition structure is a partition of the agents to coalitions, that maximizes the sum of utilities obtained by the coalitions. We show that CSGs can represent any characteristic function, and consider optimal coalition structure generation in this representation. We provide hardness results, showing that in general CSGs, as well as in very restricted versions of them, computing the optimal coalition structure is hard. On the positive side, we show that the problem can be reformulated as constraint satisfaction on a hyper graph, and present an algorithm that finds the optimal coalition structure in polynomial time for instances with bounded tree-width and number of tasks.

A key question in cooperative game theory is that of coalitional stability, usually captured by the notion of the \emph{core}--the set of outcomes such that no subgroup of players has an incentive to deviate. However, some coalitional games have empty cores, and any outcome in such a game is unstable. In this paper, we investigate the possibility of stabilizing a coalitional game by using external payments. We consider a scenario where an external party, which is interested in having the players work together, offers a supplemental payment to the grand coalition (or, more generally, a particular coalition structure). This payment is conditional on players not deviating from their coalition(s). The sum of this payment plus the actual gains of the coalition(s) may then be divided among the agents so as to promote stability. We define the \emph{cost of stability (CoS)} as the minimal external payment that stabilizes the game. We provide general bounds on the cost of stability in several classes of games, and explore its algorithmic properties. To develop a better intuition for the concepts we introduce, we provide a detailed algorithmic study of the cost of stability in weighted voting games, a simple but expressive class of games which can model decision-making in political bodies, and cooperation in multiagent settings. Finally, we extend our model and results to games with coalition structures.