Yonatan Aumann

Dolev Mutzari, Yonatan Aumann, Sarit Kraus

Multi-defender Stackelberg Security Games (MSSG) have recently gained increasing attention in the literature. However, the solutions offered to date are highly sensitive, wherein even small perturbations in the attacker's utility or slight uncertainties thereof can dramatically change the defenders' resulting payoffs and alter the equilibrium. In this paper, we introduce a robust model for MSSGs, which admits solutions that are resistant to small perturbations or uncertainties in the game's parameters. First, we formally define the notion of robustness, as well as the robust MSSG model. Then, for the non-cooperative setting, we prove the existence of a robust approximate equilibrium in any such game, and provide an efficient construction thereof. For the cooperative setting, we show that any such game admits a robust approximate alpha-core, provide an efficient construction thereof, and prove that stronger types of the core may be empty. Interestingly, the robust solutions can substantially increase the defenders' utilities over those of the non-robust ones.

Yaniv Oshrat, Yonatan Aumann, Tal Hollander et al.

The prospect of combining human operators and virtual agents (bots) into an effective hybrid system that provides proper customer service to clients is promising yet challenging. The hybrid system decreases the customers' frustration when bots are unable to provide appropriate service and increases their satisfaction when they prefer to interact with human operators. Furthermore, we show that it is possible to decrease the cost and efforts of building and maintaining such virtual agents by enabling the virtual agent to incrementally learn from the human operators. We employ queuing theory to identify the key parameters that govern the behavior and efficiency of such hybrid systems and determine the main parameters that should be optimized in order to improve the service. We formally prove, and demonstrate in extensive simulations and in a user study, that with the proper choice of parameters, such hybrid systems are able to increase the number of served clients while simultaneously decreasing their expected waiting time and increasing satisfaction.

Jonathan Shaki, Eden Hartman, Sarit Kraus et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide instructions to many agents who interact with one another. Such shared reliance couples agents who appear to act independently: they may in fact be guided by a common model. This coupling can change the prospects for cooperation among agents with misaligned incentives. We study settings in which multiple LLMs each advise a population of clients who participate in instances of an underlying game, creating strategic interaction at the level of the LLMs themselves. This induces a meta-game among the LLMs, mediated through clients. We first analyze the one-shot setting, where shared instructions can change equilibrium behavior only when an LLM may influence more than one role in the same interaction; in such cases, cooperation may emerge, and the effect of client share can be beneficial, harmful, or non-monotone, depending on the base game. Our main result concerns the repeated setting. We prove a folk theorem for LLMs: despite indirect observation and the clients' inability to identify which LLM advised their opponents, all feasible and individually rational outcomes can be sustained as $\varepsilon$-equilibria. The result does not follow from the standard folk theorem and requires new proof techniques. Together, these results show that shared LLM guidance can sustain cooperation among populations of agents even when the underlying incentives are misaligned.

Yohai Trabelsi, Abhijin Adiga, Yonatan Aumann et al.

We consider a setting where goods are allocated to agents by way of an allocation platform (e.g., a matching platform). An ``allocation facilitator'' aims to increase the overall utility/social-good of the allocation by encouraging (some of the) agents to relax (some of) their restrictions. At the same time, the advice must not hurt agents who would otherwise be better off. Additionally, the facilitator may be constrained by a ``bound'' (a.k.a. `budget'), limiting the number and/or type of restrictions it may seek to relax. We consider the facilitator's optimization problem of choosing an optimal set of restrictions to request to relax under the aforementioned constraints. Our contributions are three-fold: (i) We provide a formal definition of the problem, including the participation guarantees to which the facilitator should adhere. We define a hierarchy of participation guarantees and also consider several social-good functions. (ii) We provide polynomial algorithms for solving various versions of the associated optimization problems, including one-to-one and many-to-one allocation settings. (iii) We demonstrate the benefits of such facilitation and relaxation, and the implications of the different participation guarantees, using extensive experimentation on three real-world datasets.

Jonathan Shaki, Yonatan Aumann, Sarit Kraus

Issue salience is a major determinant in voters' decisions. Candidates and political parties campaign to shift salience to their advantage - a process termed priming. We study the dynamics, strategies and equilibria of campaign spending for voter priming in multi-issue multi-party settings. We consider both parliamentary elections, where parties aim to maximize their share of votes, and various settings for presidential elections, where the winner takes all. For parliamentary elections, we show that pure equilibrium spending always exists and can be computed in time linear in the number of voters. For two parties and all settings, a spending equilibrium exists such that each party invests only in a single issue, and an equilibrium can be computed in time that is polynomial in the number of issues and linear in the number of voters. We also show that in most presidential settings no equilibrium exists. Additional properties of optimal campaign strategies are also studied.