Spatial models of preference, in the form of vector embeddings, are learned by many deep learning and multiagent systems, including recommender systems. Often these models are assumed to approximate a Euclidean structure, where an individual prefers alternatives positioned closer to their "ideal point", as measured by the Euclidean metric. However, Bogomolnaia and Laslier (2007) showed that there exist ordinal preference profiles that cannot be represented with this structure if the Euclidean space has two fewer dimensions than there are individuals or alternatives. We extend this result, showing that there are situations in which almost all preference profiles cannot be represented with the Euclidean model, and derive a theoretical lower bound on the expected error when using the Euclidean model to approximate non-Euclidean preference profiles. Our results have implications for the interpretation and use of vector embeddings, because in some cases close approximation of arbitrary, true ordinal relationships can be expected only if the dimensionality of the embeddings is a substantial fraction of the number of entities represented.

We consider a voting setting where candidates have preferences about the outcome of the election and are free to join or leave the election. The corresponding candidacy game, where candidates choose strategically to participate or not, has been studied %initially by Dutta et al., who showed that no non-dictatorial voting procedure satisfying unanimity is candidacy-strategyproof, that is, is such that the joint action where all candidates enter the election is always a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. Dutta et al. also showed that for some voting tree procedures, there are candidacy games with no pure Nash equilibria, and that for the rule that outputs the sophisticated winner of voting by successive elimination, all games have a pure Nash equilibrium. No results were known about other voting rules. Here we prove several such results. For four candidates, the message is, roughly, that most scoring rules (with the exception of Borda) do not guarantee the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium but that Condorcet-consistent rules, for an odd number of voters, do. For five candidates, most rules we study no longer have this guarantee. Finally, we identify one prominent rule that guarantees the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium for any number of candidates (and for an odd number of voters): the Copeland rule. We also show that under mild assumptions on the voting rule, the existence of strong equilibria cannot be guaranteed.

We study equilibrium dynamics in candidacy games, in which candidates may strategically decide to enter the election or withdraw their candidacy, following their own preferences over possible outcomes. Focusing on games under Plurality, we extend the standard model to allow for situations where voters may refuse to return their votes to those candidates who had previously left the election, should they decide to run again. We show that if at the time when a candidate withdraws his candidacy, with some positive probability each voter takes this candidate out of his future consideration, the process converges with probability 1. This is in sharp contrast with the original model where the very existence of a Nash equilibrium is not guaranteed. We then consider the two extreme cases of this setting, where voters may block a withdrawn candidate with probabilities 0 or 1. In these scenarios, we study the complexity of reaching equilibria from a given initial point, converging to an equilibrium with a predermined winner or to an equilibrium with a given set of running candidates. Except for one easy case, we show that these problems are NP-complete, even when the initial point is fixed to a natural---truthful---state where all potential candidates stand for election.

We study convergence properties of iterative voting procedures. Such procedures are defined by a voting rule and a (restricted) iterative process, where at each step one agent can modify his vote towards a better outcome for himself. It is already known that if the iteration dynamics (the manner in which voters are allowed to modify their votes) are unrestricted, then the voting process may not converge. For most common voting rules this may be observed even under the best response dynamics limitation. It is therefore important to investigate whether and which natural restrictions on the dynamics of iterative voting procedures can guarantee convergence. To this end, we provide two general conditions on the dynamics based on iterative myopic improvements, each of which is sufficient for convergence. We then identify several classes of voting rules (including Positional Scoring Rules, Maximin, Copeland and Bucklin), along with their corresponding iterative processes, for which at least one of these conditions hold.

We introduce a new representation scheme for coalitional games, called coalition-flow networks (CF-NETs), where the formation of effective coalitions in a task-based setting is reduced to the problem of directing flow through a network. We show that our representation is intuitive, fully expressive, and captures certain patterns in a significantly more concise manner compared to the conventional approach. Furthermore, our representation has the flexibility to express various classes of games, such as characteristic function games, coalitional games with overlapping coalitions, and coalitional games with agent types. As such, to the best of our knowledge, CF-NETs is the first representation that allows for switching conveniently and efficiently between overlapping/non-overlapping coalitions, with/without agent types. We demonstrate the efficiency of our scheme on the coalition structure generation problem, where near-optimal solutions for large instances can be found in a matter of seconds.

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.

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.