Utility Design for Distributed Resource Allocation -- Part I: Characterizing and Optimizing the Exact Price of Anarchy

Game theory has emerged as a fruitful paradigm for the design of networked multiagent systems. A fundamental component of this approach is the design of agents' utility functions so that their self-interested maximization results in a desirable collective behavior. In this work we focus on a well-studied class of distributed resource allocation problems where each agent is requested to select a subset of resources with the goal of optimizing a given system-level objective. Our core contribution is the development of a novel framework to tightly characterize the worst case performance of any resulting Nash equilibrium (price of anarchy) as a function of the chosen agents' utility functions. Leveraging this result, we identify how to design such utilities so as to optimize the price of anarchy through a tractable linear program. This provides us with a priori performance certificates applicable to any existing learning algorithm capable of driving the system to an equilibrium. Part II of this work specializes these results to submodular and supermodular objectives, discusses the complexity of computing Nash equilibria, and provides multiple illustrations of the theoretical findings.Comment: 15 pages, 5 figure

Characterizing the interplay between information and strength in Blotto games

In this paper, we investigate informational asymmetries in the Colonel Blotto game, a game-theoretic model of competitive resource allocation between two players over a set of battlefields. The battlefield valuations are subject to randomness. One of the two players knows the valuations with certainty. The other knows only a distribution on the battlefield realizations. However, the informed player has fewer resources to allocate. We characterize unique equilibrium payoffs in a two battlefield setup of the Colonel Blotto game. We then focus on a three battlefield setup in the General Lotto game, a popular variant of the Colonel Blotto game. We characterize the unique equilibrium payoffs and mixed equilibrium strategies. We quantify the value of information - the difference in equilibrium payoff between the asymmetric information game and complete information game. We find information strictly improves the informed player's performance guarantee. However, the magnitude of improvement varies with the informed player's strength as well as the game parameters. Our analysis highlights the interplay between strength and information in adversarial environments.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures. Accepted for presentation at 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 201

The Anarchy-Stability Tradeoff in Congestion Games

This work focuses on the design of incentive mechanisms in congestion games, a commonly studied model for competitive resource sharing. While the majority of the existing literature on this topic focuses on unilaterally optimizing the worst case performance (i.e., price of anarchy), in this manuscript we investigate whether optimizing for the worst case has consequences on the best case performance (i.e., price of stability). Perhaps surprisingly, our results show that there is a fundamental tradeoff between these two measures of performance. Our main result provides a characterization of this tradeoff in terms of upper and lower bounds on the Pareto frontier between the price of anarchy and the price of stability. Interestingly, we demonstrate that the mechanism that optimizes the price of anarchy inherits a matching price of stability, thereby implying that the best equilibrium is not necessarily any better than the worst equilibrium for such a design choice. Our results also establish that, in several well-studied cases, the unincentivized setting does not even lie on the Pareto frontier, and that any incentive with price of stability equal to 1 incurs a much higher price of anarchy.Comment: 27 pages, 1 figure, 1 tabl