37 research outputs found
Communication Complexity of Cake Cutting
We study classic cake-cutting problems, but in discrete models rather than
using infinite-precision real values, specifically, focusing on their
communication complexity. Using general discrete simulations of classical
infinite-precision protocols (Robertson-Webb and moving-knife), we roughly
partition the various fair-allocation problems into 3 classes: "easy" (constant
number of rounds of logarithmic many bits), "medium" (poly-logarithmic total
communication), and "hard". Our main technical result concerns two of the
"medium" problems (perfect allocation for 2 players and equitable allocation
for any number of players) which we prove are not in the "easy" class. Our main
open problem is to separate the "hard" from the "medium" classes.Comment: Added efficient communication protocol for the monotone crossing
proble
Tit-for-Tat Dynamics and Market Volatility
We study the tit-for-tat dynamic in production markets, where each player can
make a good given as input various amounts of goods in the system. In the
tit-for-tat dynamic, each player allocates its good to its neighbors in
fractions proportional to how much they contributed in its production in the
last round. Tit-for-tat does not use money and was studied before in pure
exchange settings.
We study the phase transitions of this dynamic when the valuations are
symmetric (i.e. each good has the same worth to everyone) by characterizing
which players grow or vanish over time. We also study how the fractions of
their investments evolve in the long term, showing that in the limit the
players invest only on players with optimal production capacity
Nash Social Welfare Approximation for Strategic Agents
The fair division of resources is an important age-old problem that has led
to a rich body of literature. At the center of this literature lies the
question of whether there exist fair mechanisms despite strategic behavior of
the agents. A fundamental objective function used for measuring fair outcomes
is the Nash social welfare, defined as the geometric mean of the agent
utilities. This objective function is maximized by widely known solution
concepts such as Nash bargaining and the competitive equilibrium with equal
incomes. In this work we focus on the question of (approximately) implementing
the Nash social welfare. The starting point of our analysis is the Fisher
market, a fundamental model of an economy, whose benchmark is precisely the
(weighted) Nash social welfare. We begin by studying two extreme classes of
valuations functions, namely perfect substitutes and perfect complements, and
find that for perfect substitutes, the Fisher market mechanism has a constant
approximation: at most 2 and at least e1e. However, for perfect complements,
the Fisher market does not work well, its bound degrading linearly with the
number of players.
Strikingly, the Trading Post mechanism---an indirect market mechanism also
known as the Shapley-Shubik game---has significantly better performance than
the Fisher market on its own benchmark. Not only does Trading Post achieve an
approximation of 2 for perfect substitutes, but this bound holds for all
concave utilities and becomes arbitrarily close to optimal for Leontief
utilities (perfect complements), where it reaches for every
. Moreover, all the Nash equilibria of the Trading Post mechanism
are pure for all concave utilities and satisfy an important notion of fairness
known as proportionality
Multiplayer Bandit Learning, from Competition to Cooperation
The stochastic multi-armed bandit model captures the tradeoff between
exploration and exploitation. We study the effects of competition and
cooperation on this tradeoff. Suppose there are arms and two players, Alice
and Bob. In every round, each player pulls an arm, receives the resulting
reward, and observes the choice of the other player but not their reward.
Alice's utility is (and similarly for Bob), where
is Alice's total reward and is a cooperation
parameter. At the players are competing in a zero-sum game, at
, they are fully cooperating, and at , they are
neutral: each player's utility is their own reward. The model is related to the
economics literature on strategic experimentation, where usually players
observe each other's rewards.
With discount factor , the Gittins index reduces the one-player
problem to the comparison between a risky arm, with a prior , and a
predictable arm, with success probability . The value of where the
player is indifferent between the arms is the Gittins index , where is the mean of the risky arm.
We show that competing players explore less than a single player: there is
so that for all , the players stay at the predictable
arm. However, the players are not myopic: they still explore for some .
On the other hand, cooperating players explore more than a single player. We
also show that neutral players learn from each other, receiving strictly higher
total rewards than they would playing alone, for all , where
is the threshold from the competing case.
Finally, we show that competing and neutral players eventually settle on the
same arm in every Nash equilibrium, while this can fail for cooperating
players.Comment: 41 pages, 5 figure
How to Charge Lightning: The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Channels
Off-chain transaction channels represent one of the leading techniques to
scale the transaction throughput in cryptocurrencies. However, the economic
effect of transaction channels on the system has not been explored much until
now.
We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction channels, and present a
framework for an economic analysis of the lightning network and its effect on
transaction fees on the blockchain. Our framework allows us to reason about
different patterns of demand for transactions and different topologies of the
lightning network, and to derive the resulting fees for transacting both on and
off the blockchain.
Our initial results indicate that while the lightning network does allow for
a substantially higher number of transactions to pass through the system, it
does not necessarily provide higher fees to miners, and as a result may in fact
lead to lower participation in mining within the system.Comment: An earlier version of the paper was presented at Scaling Bitcoin 201