Budget-restricted utility games with ordered strategic decisions

We introduce the concept of budget games. Players choose a set of tasks and each task has a certain demand on every resource in the game. Each resource has a budget. If the budget is not enough to satisfy the sum of all demands, it has to be shared between the tasks. We study strategic budget games, where the budget is shared proportionally. We also consider a variant in which the order of the strategic decisions influences the distribution of the budgets. The complexity of the optimal solution as well as existence, complexity and quality of equilibria are analyzed. Finally, we show that the time an ordered budget game needs to convergence towards an equilibrium may be exponential

LP-based Covering Games with Low Price of Anarchy

We present a new class of vertex cover and set cover games. The price of anarchy bounds match the best known constant factor approximation guarantees for the centralized optimization problems for linear and also for submodular costs -- in contrast to all previously studied covering games, where the price of anarchy cannot be bounded by a constant (e.g. [6, 7, 11, 5, 2]). In particular, we describe a vertex cover game with a price of anarchy of 2. The rules of the games capture the structure of the linear programming relaxations of the underlying optimization problems, and our bounds are established by analyzing these relaxations. Furthermore, for linear costs we exhibit linear time best response dynamics that converge to these almost optimal Nash equilibria. These dynamics mimic the classical greedy approximation algorithm of Bar-Yehuda and Even [3]

On Proportionate and Truthful International Alliance Contributions: An Analysis of Incentive Compatible Cost Sharing Mechanisms to Burden Sharing

Burden sharing within an international alliance is a contentious topic, especially in the current geopolitical environment, that in practice is generally imposed by a central authority\u27s perception of its members\u27 abilities to contribute. Instead, we propose a cost sharing mechanism such that burden shares are allocated to nations based on their honest declarations of the alliance\u27s worth. Specifically, we develop a set of multiobjective nonlinear optimization problem formulations that respectively impose Bayesian Incentive Compatible (BIC), Strategyproof (SP), and Group Strategyproof (GSP) mechanisms based on probabilistic inspection efforts and deception penalties that are budget balanced and in the core. Any feasible solution to these problems corresponds to a single stage Bayesian stochastic game wherein a collectively honest declaration is a Bayes-Nash equilibrium, a Nash Equilibrium in dominant strategies, or a collusion resistant Nash equilibrium, respectively, but the optimal solution considers the alliance\u27s central authority preferences. Each formulation is shown to be a nonconvex optimization problem. The solution quality and computational effort required for three heuristic algorithms as well as the BARON global solver are analyzed to determine the superlative solution methodology for each problem. The Pareto fronts associated with each multiobjective optimization problem are examined to determine the tradeoff between inspection frequency and penalty severity required to obtain truthfulness under stronger assumptions. Memory limitations are examined to ascertain the size of alliances for which the proposed methodology can be utilized. Finally, a full block design experiment considering the clustering of available alliance valuations and the member nations\u27 probability distributions therein is executed on an intermediate-sized alliance motivated by the South American alliance UNASUR