Search

The explosion of conference paper submissions in AI and related fields, has underscored the need to improve many aspects of the peer review process, especially the matching of papers and reviewers. Recent work argues that the key to improve this matching is to modify aspects of the \emph{bidding phase} itself, to ensure that the set of bids over papers is balanced, and in particular to avoid \emph{orphan papers}, i.e., those papers that receive no bids. In an attempt to understand and mitigate this problem, we have developed a flexible bidding platform to test adaptations to the bidding process. Using this platform, we performed a field experiment during the bidding phase of a medium-size international workshop that compared two bidding methods. We further examined via controlled experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk various factors that affect bidding, in particular the order in which papers are presented \cite{cabanac2013capitalizing,fiez2020super}; and information on paper demand \cite{meir2021market}. Our results suggest that several simple adaptations, that can be added to any existing platform, may significantly reduce the skew in bids, thereby improving the allocation for both reviewers and conference organizers., Comment: Camera ready version of a paper accepted to AAMAS'23: https://aamas2023.soton.ac.uk/program/accepted-papers/

We present a strategy-proof public goods budgeting mechanism where agents determine both the total volume of expanses and the specific allocation. It is constructed as a modification of VCG to a less typical environment, namely where we do not assume quasi-linear utilities nor direct revelation. We further show that under plausible assumptions it satisfies strategy-proofness in strictly dominant strategies, and consequently implements the social optimum as a Coalition Proof Nash Equilibrium. A primary (albeit not an exclusive) motivation of our model is Participatory Budgeting, where members of a community collectively decide the spending policy of public tax dollars. While incentives alignment in our mechanism, as in classic VCG, is achieved via individual payments we charge from agents, in a PB context that seems unreasonable. Our second main result thus provides that, under further specifications relevant in that context, these payments will vanish in large populations. In the last section we expand the mechanism's definition to a class of mechanisms in which the designer can prioritize certain outcomes she sees as desirable. In particular we give the example of favoring equitable (egalitarian) allocations., Comment: 27 pages, Manuscript submitted for review to the 24nd ACM Conference on Economics & Computation (EC'23)

We study the effect of strategic behavior in iterative voting for multiple issues under uncertainty. We introduce a model synthesizing simultaneous multi-issue voting with Meir, Lev, and Rosenschein (2014)'s local dominance theory and determine its convergence properties. After demonstrating that local dominance improvement dynamics may fail to converge, we present two sufficient model refinements that guarantee convergence from any initial vote profile for binary issues: constraining agents to have O-legal preferences and endowing agents with less uncertainty about issues they are modifying than others. Our empirical studies demonstrate that although cycles are common when agents have no uncertainty, introducing uncertainty makes convergence almost guaranteed in practice., Comment: 19 pages, 4 figures

Participatory budgeting is a democratic process for allocating funds to projects based on the votes of members of the community. However, most input methods of voters' preferences prevent the voters from expressing complex relationships among projects, leading to outcomes that do not reflect their preferences well enough. In this paper, we propose an input method that begins to address this challenge, by allowing participants to express substitutes over projects. Then, we extend a known aggregation mechanism from the literature (Rule X) to handle substitute projects. We prove that our extended rule preserves proportionality under natural conditions, and show empirically that it obtains substantially more welfare than the original mechanism on instances with substitutes.

Combinatorial Game Theory (CGT) is a branch of game theory that has developed almost independently from Economic Game Theory (EGT), and is concerned with deep mathematical properties of 2-player 0-sum games that are defined over various combinatorial structures. The aim of this work is to lay foundations to bridging the conceptual and technical gaps between CGT and EGT, here interpreted as so-called Extensive Form Games, so they can be treated within a unified framework. More specifically, we introduce a class of $n$-player, general-sum games, called Cumulative Games, that can be analyzed by both CGT and EGT tools. We show how two of the most fundamental definitions of CGT---the outcome function, and the disjunctive sum operator---naturally extend to the class of Cumulative Games. The outcome function allows for an efficient equilibrium computation under certain restrictions, and the disjunctive sum operator lets us define a partial order over games, according to the advantage that a certain player has. Finally, we show that any Extensive Form Game can be written as a Cumulative Game., Comment: 54 pages, 4 figures

Voting rules may fail to implement the will of the society when only some voters actively participate, and/or in the presence of sybil (fake or duplicate) voters. Here we aim to address social choice in the presence of sybils and voter abstention. To do so we assume the status-quo (Reality) as an ever-present distinguished alternative, and study Reality Enforcing voting rules, which add virtual votes in support of the status-quo. We measure the tradeoff between safety and liveness (the ability of active honest voters to maintain/change the status-quo, respectively) in a variety of domains, and show that the Reality Enforcing voting rule is optimal in this respect.

Despite the prevalence of voting systems in the real world there is no consensus among researchers of how people vote strategically, even in simple voting settings. This paper addresses this gap by comparing different approaches that have been used to model strategic voting, including expected utility maximization, heuristic decisionmaking, and bounded rationality models. The models are applied to data collected from hundreds of people in controlled voting experiments, where people vote after observing non-binding poll information. We introduce a new voting model, the Attainability- Utility (AU) heuristic, which weighs the popularity of a candidate according to the poll, with the utility of the candidate to the voter. We argue that the AU model is cognitively plausible, and show that it is able to predict peoples voting behavior significantly better than other models from the literature. It was almost at par with (and sometimes better than) a machine learning algorithm that uses substantially more information. Our results provide new insights into the strategic considerations of voters, that undermine the prevalent assumptions of much theoretical work in social choice.

The question of how people vote strategically under uncertainty has attracted much attention in several disciplines. Theoretical decision models have been proposed which vary in their assumptions on the sophistication of the voters and on the information made available to them about others' preferences and their voting behavior. This work focuses on modeling strategic voting behavior under poll information. It proposes a new heuristic for voting behavior that weighs the success of each candidate according to the poll score with the utility of the candidate given the voters' preferences. The model weights can be tuned individually for each voter. We compared this model with other relevant voting models from the literature on data obtained from a recently released large scale study. We show that the new heuristic outperforms all other tested models. The prediction errors of the model can be partly explained due to inconsistent voters that vote for (weakly) dominated candidates.

Graph minors are a primary tool in understanding the structure of undirected graphs, with many conceptual and algorithmic implications. We propose new variants of \emph{directed graph minors} and \emph{directed graph embeddings}, by modifying familiar definitions. For the class of 2-terminal directed acyclic graphs (TDAGs) our two definitions coincide, and the class is closed under both operations. The usefulness of our directed minor operations is demonstrated by characterizing all TDAGs with serial-parallel width at most $k$; a class of networks known to guarantee bounded negative externality in nonatomic routing games. Our characterization implies that a TDAG has serial-parallel width of $1$ if and only if it is a directed series-parallel graph. We also study the computational complexity of finding a directed minor and computing the serial-parallel width., Comment: published in MFCS 2018

We consider iterative voting models and position them within the general framework of acyclic games and game forms. More specifically, we classify convergence results based on the underlying assumptions on the agent scheduler (the order of players) and the action scheduler (which better-reply is played). Our main technical result is providing a complete picture of conditions for acyclicity in several variations of Plurality voting. In particular, we show that (a) under the traditional lexicographic tie-breaking, the game converges for any order of players under a weak restriction on voters' actions; and (b) Plurality with randomized tie-breaking is not guaranteed to converge under arbitrary agent schedulers, but from any initial state there is \emph{some} path of better-replies to a Nash equilibrium. We thus show a first separation between restricted-acyclicity and weak-acyclicity of game forms, thereby settling an open question from [Kukushkin, IJGT 2011]. In addition, we refute another conjecture regarding strongly-acyclic voting rules., Comment: some of the results appeared in preliminary versions of this paper: Convergence to Equilibrium of Plurality Voting, Meir et al., AAAI 2010; Strong and Weak Acyclicity in Iterative Voting, Meir, COMSOC 2016

Understanding the nature of strategic voting is the holy grail of social choice theory, where game-theory, social science and recently computational approaches are all applied in order to model the incentives and behavior of voters. In a recent paper, Meir et al.[EC'14] made another step in this direction, by suggesting a behavioral game-theoretic model for voters under uncertainty. For a specific variation of best-response heuristics, they proved initial existence and convergence results in the Plurality voting system. In this paper, we extend the model in multiple directions, considering voters with different uncertainty levels, simultaneous strategic decisions, and a more permissive notion of best-response. We prove that a voting equilibrium exists even in the most general case. Further, any society voting in an iterative setting is guaranteed to converge. We also analyze an alternative behavior where voters try to minimize their worst-case regret. We show that the two behaviors coincide in the simple setting of Meir et al., but not in the general case., Comment: The full version of a paper from AAAI'15 (to appear)

We study competition between firms in labor markets, following a combinatorial model suggested by Kelso and Crawford [1982]. In this model, each firm is trying to recruit workers by offering a higher salary than its competitors, and its production function defines the utility generated from any actual set of recruited workers. We define two natural classes of production functions for firms, where the first one is based on additive capacities (weights), and the second on the influence of workers in a social network. We then analyze the existence of pure subgame perfect equilibrium (PSPE) in the labor market and its properties. While neither class holds the gross substitutes condition, we show that in both classes the existence of PSPE is guaranteed under certain restrictions, and in particular when there are only two competing firms. As a corollary, there exists a Walrasian equilibrium in a corresponding combinatorial auction, where bidders' valuation functions belong to these classes. While a PSPE may not exist when there are more than two firms, we perform an empirical study of equilibrium outcomes for the case of weight-based games with three firms, which extend our analytical results. We then show that stability can in some cases be extended to coalitional stability, and study the distribution of profit between firms and their workers in weight-based games.

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.

We introduce a measure for the level of stability against coalitional deviations, called \emph{stability scores}, which generalizes widely used notions of stability in non-cooperative games. We use the proposed measure to compare various Nash equilibria in congestion games, and to quantify the effect of game parameters on coalitional stability. For our main results, we apply stability scores to analyze and compare the Generalized Second Price (GSP) and Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) ad auctions. We show that while a central result of the ad auctions literature is that the GSP and VCG auctions implement the same outcome in one of the equilibria of GSP, the GSP outcome is far more stable. Finally, a modified version of VCG is introduced, which is group strategy-proof, and thereby achieves the highest possible stability score., Comment: Full version, including proofs, of a paper published in the proceedings of AAMAS 2012