A "Quantal Regret" Method for Structural Econometrics in Repeated Games

We suggest a general method for inferring players' values from their actions in repeated games. The method extends and improves upon the recent suggestion of (Nekipelov et al., EC 2015) and is based on the assumption that players are more likely to exhibit sequences of actions that have lower regret. We evaluate this "quantal regret" method on two different datasets from experiments of repeated games with controlled player values: those of (Selten and Chmura, AER 2008) on a variety of two-player 2x2 games and our own experiment on ad-auctions (Noti et al., WWW 2014). We find that the quantal regret method is consistently and significantly more precise than either "classic" econometric methods that are based on Nash equilibria, or the "min-regret" method of (Nekipelov et al., EC 2015)

Decongestion by Representation: Learning to Improve Economic Welfare in Marketplaces

Congestion is a common failure mode of markets, where consumers compete inefficiently on the same subset of goods (e.g., chasing the same small set of properties on a vacation rental platform). The typical economic story is that prices decongest by balancing supply and demand. But in modern online marketplaces, prices are typically set in a decentralized way by sellers, and the information about items is inevitably partial. The power of a platform is limited to controlling representations -- the subset of information about items presented by default to users. This motivates the present study of decongestion by representation, where a platform seeks to learn representations that reduce congestion and thus improve social welfare. The technical challenge is twofold: relying only on revealed preferences from the choices of consumers, rather than true preferences; and the combinatorial problem associated with representations that determine the features to reveal in the default view. We tackle both challenges by proposing a differentiable proxy of welfare that can be trained end-to-end on consumer choice data. We develop sufficient conditions for when decongestion promotes welfare, and present the results of extensive experiments on both synthetic and real data that demonstrate the utility of our approach.Comment: Accepted to ICLR 2024 poste

ERA: A Framework for Economic Resource Allocation for the Cloud

Cloud computing has reached significant maturity from a systems perspective, but currently deployed solutions rely on rather basic economics mechanisms that yield suboptimal allocation of the costly hardware resources. In this paper we present Economic Resource Allocation (ERA), a complete framework for scheduling and pricing cloud resources, aimed at increasing the efficiency of cloud resources usage by allocating resources according to economic principles. The ERA architecture carefully abstracts the underlying cloud infrastructure, enabling the development of scheduling and pricing algorithms independently of the concrete lower-level cloud infrastructure and independently of its concerns. Specifically, ERA is designed as a flexible layer that can sit on top of any cloud system and interfaces with both the cloud resource manager and with the users who reserve resources to run their jobs. The jobs are scheduled based on prices that are dynamically calculated according to the predicted demand. Additionally, ERA provides a key internal API to pluggable algorithmic modules that include scheduling, pricing and demand prediction. We provide a proof-of-concept software and demonstrate the effectiveness of the architecture by testing ERA over both public and private cloud systems -- Azure Batch of Microsoft and Hadoop/YARN. A broader intent of our work is to foster collaborations between economics and system communities. To that end, we have developed a simulation platform via which economics and system experts can test their algorithmic implementations

From Behavioral Theories to Econometrics: Inferring Preferences of Human Agents from Data on Repeated Interactions

We consider the problem of estimating preferences of human agents from data of strategic systems where the agents repeatedly interact. Recently, it was demonstrated that a new estimation method called "quantal regret" produces more accurate estimates for human agents than the classic approach that assumes that agents are rational and reach a Nash equilibrium; however, this method has not been compared to methods that take into account behavioral aspects of human play. In this paper we leverage equilibrium concepts from behavioral economics for this purpose and ask how well they perform compared to the quantal regret and Nash equilibrium methods. We develop four estimation methods based on established behavioral equilibrium models to infer the utilities of human agents from observed data of normal-form games. The equilibrium models we study are quantal-response equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium, and impulse-balance equilibrium. We show that in some of these concepts the inference is achieved analytically via closed formulas, while in the others the inference is achieved only algorithmically. We use experimental data of 2x2 games to evaluate the estimation success of these behavioral equilibrium methods. The results show that the estimates they produce are more accurate than the estimates of the Nash equilibrium. The comparison with the quantal-regret method shows that the behavioral methods have better hit rates, but the quantal-regret method performs better in terms of the overall mean squared error, and we discuss the differences between the methods