Game-theoretic Resource Allocation Methods for Device-to-Device (D2D) Communication

Device-to-device (D2D) communication underlaying cellular networks allows mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets to use the licensed spectrum allocated to cellular services for direct peer-to-peer transmission. D2D communication can use either one-hop transmission (i.e., in D2D direct communication) or multi-hop cluster-based transmission (i.e., in D2D local area networks). The D2D devices can compete or cooperate with each other to reuse the radio resources in D2D networks. Therefore, resource allocation and access for D2D communication can be treated as games. The theories behind these games provide a variety of mathematical tools to effectively model and analyze the individual or group behaviors of D2D users. In addition, game models can provide distributed solutions to the resource allocation problems for D2D communication. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the applications of game-theoretic models to study the radio resource allocation issues in D2D communication. The article also outlines several key open research directions.Comment: Accepted. IEEE Wireless Comms Mag. 201

Coalitional Colonel Blotto games with application to the economics of alliances

This paper examines a multi-player and multi-front Colonel Blotto game in which one player, A, simultaneously competes in two disjoint Colonel Blotto games, against two separate opponents, 1 and 2. Prior to competing in the games, players 1 and 2 have the opportunity to form an alliance to share their endowments of a one-dimensional resource (e.g., troops, military hardware, money). This paper examines „non-cooperative“ alliances in which only individually rational ex ante transfers of the resource are allowed. Once these transfers take place, each alliance member maximizes his payoff in his respective Colonel Blotto game, given his resource constraint and player A's allocation of its endowment across the two games. No ex post transfers are enforceable. Remarkably, there are several ranges of parameters in which endogenous unilateral transfers take place within the alliance. That is, one player gives away resources to his ally, who happily accepts the gift. Unilateral transfers arise because they lead to a strategic shift in the common opponent's force allocation away from the set of battlefields of the player making the transfer, towards the set of battlefields of the player receiving the transfer. Our result demonstrates that there exist unilateral transfers for which the combination of direct and strategic effects benefits both allies. This stands in stark contrast to the previous literature on alliances (see Sandler and Hartley, 2001), which relies on the assumption of pure or impure public goods. -- Diese Arbeit analysiert Colonel Blotto-Spiele mit mehr als zwei Spielern, die an mindestens zwei Fronten miteinander kämpfen. Spieler A kämpft gleichzeitig in zwei Colonel Blotto-Spielen mit zwei verschiedenen Kontrahenten, B1 und B2. Die Kontrahenten können vor der eigentlichen Konfliktphase eine Allianz eingehen. Das erlaubt es ihnen ihre Mengen an einer homogenen Konfliktressource (Truppen, Waffen, Geld) untereinander zu transferieren. Das Papier untersucht dabei „nicht-kooperative“ Allianzen. Darunter wird verstanden, dass der Einsatz der transferierten Ressourcen auf den jeweiligen Konfliktschauplätzen von dem jeweiligen Spieler B1 bzw. B2 in seinem eigenen Interesse eingesetzt wird und Seitenzahlungen im Anschluss an die Konfliktphase ausgeschlossen sind. Es zeigt sich, dass es dennoch zu einseitigen und freiwilligen Ressourcentransfers der Spieler B1 und B2 im Vorfeld des Konflikts kommen kann, dass also beispielsweise B1 an B2 z.B. Waffen liefert, B2 diese als Geschenk akzeptiert und sich beide, B1 und B2 besser stellen. Ursache für die Besserstellung ist der strategische Effekt solcher Transfers auf das Kampfverhalten von A, der seine Kampfkraft vom Kampfgeschehen mit B1 zum Kampfgeschehen mit B2 verlagert. Das Ergebnis widerspricht den früheren Ergebnissen zu Allianzen (vgl. Sandler und Hartley, 2001), das im Kontext der privaten Bereitstellung öffentlicher Güter erzielt wurde.Alliance,noncooperative game,Colonel Blotto game,self-enforcing,exploitation,commitment

Exchange of Services in Networks: Competition, Cooperation, and Fairness

Exchange of services and resources in, or over, networks is attracting nowadays renewed interest. However, despite the broad applicability and the extensive study of such models, e.g., in the context of P2P networks, many fundamental questions regarding their properties and efficiency remain unanswered. We consider such a service exchange model and analyze the users' interactions under three different approaches. First, we study a centrally designed service allocation policy that yields the fair total service each user should receive based on the service it others to the others. Accordingly, we consider a competitive market where each user determines selfishly its allocation policy so as to maximize the service it receives in return, and a coalitional game model where users are allowed to coordinate their policies. We prove that there is a unique equilibrium exchange allocation for both game theoretic formulations, which also coincides with the central fair service allocation. Furthermore, we characterize its properties in terms of the coalitions that emerge and the equilibrium allocations, and analyze its dependency on the underlying network graph. That servicing policy is the natural reference point to the various mechanisms that are currently proposed to incentivize user participation and improve the efficiency of such networked service (or, resource) exchange markets.Comment: to appear in ACM Sigmetrics 201

Coalitional Colonel Blotto Games with Application to the Economics of Alliances

This paper examines a multi-player and multi-front Colonel Blotto game in which one player, A, simultaneously competes in two disjoint Colonel Blotto games, against two separate opponents, 1 and 2. Prior to competing in the games, players 1 and 2 have the opportunity to form an alliance to share their endowments of a one-dimensional resource (e.g., troops, military hardware, money). This paper examines “non-cooperative” alliances in which only individually rational ex ante transfers of the resource are allowed. Once these transfers take place, each alliance member maximizes his payoff in his respective Colonel Blotto game, given his resource constraint and player A’s allocation of its endowment across the two games. No ex post transfers are enforceable. Remarkably, there are several ranges of parameters in which endogenous unilateral transfers take place within the alliance. That is, one player gives away resources to his ally, who happily accepts the gift. Unilateral transfers arise because they lead to a strategic shift in the common opponent’s force allocation away from the set of battlefields of the player making the transfer, towards the set of battlefields of the player receiving the transfer. Our result demonstrates that there exist unilateral transfers for which the combination of direct and strategic effects benefits both allies. This stands in stark contrast to the previous literature on alliances (see Sandler and Hartley, 2001), which relies on the assumption of pure or impure public goods.

The Present and Future of Game Theory

A broad nontechnical coverage of many of the developments in game theory since the 1950s is given together with some comments on important open problems and where some of the developments may take place. The nearly 90 references given serve only as a minimal guide to the many thousands of books and articles that have been written. The purpose here is to present a broad brush picture of the many areas of study and application that have come into being. The use of deep techniques flourishes best when it stays in touch with application. There is a vital symbiotic relationship between good theory and practice. The breakneck speed of development of game theory calls for an appreciation of both the many realities of conflict, coordination and cooperation and the abstract investigation of all of them.Game theory, Application and theory, Social sciences, Law, Experimental gaming, conflict, Coordination and cooperation

On (Non-) Monotonicity of Cooperative Solutions

Aggregate monotonicity of cooperative solutions is widely accepted as a desirable property, and examples where certain solution concepts (such as the nucleolus) violate this property are scarce and have no economic interpretation. We provide an example of a simple four-player game that points out at a class of economic contexts where aggregate monotonicity is not appealing.Cooperative games, aggregate monotonicity, axiomatic solution, core, Shapley value, nucleolus

Parameterized Complexity of Problems in Coalitional Resource Games

Coalition formation is a key topic in multi-agent systems. Coalitions enable agents to achieve goals that they may not have been able to achieve on their own. Previous work has shown problems in coalitional games to be computationally hard. Wooldridge and Dunne (Artificial Intelligence 2006) studied the classical computational complexity of several natural decision problems in Coalitional Resource Games (CRG) - games in which each agent is endowed with a set of resources and coalitions can bring about a set of goals if they are collectively endowed with the necessary amount of resources. The input of coalitional resource games bundles together several elements, e.g., the agent set Ag, the goal set G, the resource set R, etc. Shrot, Aumann and Kraus (AAMAS 2009) examine coalition formation problems in the CRG model using the theory of Parameterized Complexity. Their refined analysis shows that not all parts of input act equal - some instances of the problem are indeed tractable while others still remain intractable. We answer an important question left open by Shrot, Aumann and Kraus by showing that the SC Problem (checking whether a Coalition is Successful) is W[1]-hard when parameterized by the size of the coalition. Then via a single theme of reduction from SC, we are able to show that various problems related to resources, resource bounds and resource conflicts introduced by Wooldridge et al are 1. W[1]-hard or co-W[1]-hard when parameterized by the size of the coalition. 2. para-NP-hard or co-para-NP-hard when parameterized by |R|. 3. FPT when parameterized by either |G| or |Ag|+|R|.Comment: This is the full version of a paper that will appear in the proceedings of AAAI 201