Approximate Equilibrium and Incentivizing Social Coordination

We study techniques to incentivize self-interested agents to form socially desirable solutions in scenarios where they benefit from mutual coordination. Towards this end, we consider coordination games where agents have different intrinsic preferences but they stand to gain if others choose the same strategy as them. For non-trivial versions of our game, stable solutions like Nash Equilibrium may not exist, or may be socially inefficient even when they do exist. This motivates us to focus on designing efficient algorithms to compute (almost) stable solutions like Approximate Equilibrium that can be realized if agents are provided some additional incentives. Our results apply in many settings like adoption of new products, project selection, and group formation, where a central authority can direct agents towards a strategy but agents may defect if they have better alternatives. We show that for any given instance, we can either compute a high quality approximate equilibrium or a near-optimal solution that can be stabilized by providing small payments to some players. We then generalize our model to encompass situations where player relationships may exhibit complementarities and present an algorithm to compute an Approximate Equilibrium whose stability factor is linear in the degree of complementarity. Our results imply that a little influence is necessary in order to ensure that selfish players coordinate and form socially efficient solutions.Comment: A preliminary version of this work will appear in AAAI-14: Twenty-Eighth Conference on Artificial Intelligenc

A Stackelberg Strategy for Routing Flow over Time

Routing games are used to to understand the impact of individual users' decisions on network efficiency. Most prior work on routing games uses a simplified model of network flow where all flow exists simultaneously, and users care about either their maximum delay or their total delay. Both of these measures are surrogates for measuring how long it takes to get all of a user's traffic through the network. We attempt a more direct study of how competition affects network efficiency by examining routing games in a flow over time model. We give an efficiently computable Stackelberg strategy for this model and show that the competitive equilibrium under this strategy is no worse than a small constant times the optimal, for two natural measures of optimality

Price Competition in Networked Markets: How do monopolies impact social welfare?

We study the efficiency of allocations in large markets with a network structure where every seller owns an edge in a graph and every buyer desires a path connecting some nodes. While it is known that stable allocations in such settings can be very inefficient, the exact properties of equilibria in markets with multiple sellers are not fully understood even in single-source single-sink networks. In this work, we show that for a large class of natural buyer demand functions, we are guaranteed the existence of an equilibrium with several desirable properties. The crucial insight that we gain into the equilibrium structure allows us to obtain tight bounds on efficiency in terms of the various parameters governing the market, especially the number of monopolies M. All of our efficiency results extend to markets without the network structure. While it is known that monopolies can cause large inefficiencies in general, our main results for single-source single-sink networks indicate that for several natural demand functions the efficiency only drops linearly with M. For example, for concave demand we prove that the efficiency loss is at most a factor 1+M/2 from the optimum, for demand with monotone hazard rate it is at most 1+M, and for polynomial demand the efficiency decreases logarithmically with M. In contrast to previous work that showed that monopolies may adversely affect welfare, our main contribution is showing that monopolies may not be as `evil' as they are made out to be; the loss in efficiency is bounded in many natural markets. Finally, we consider more general, multiple-source networks and show that in the absence of monopolies, mild assumptions on the network topology guarantee an equilibrium that maximizes social welfare.Comment: To appear in Proceedings of WINE 2015: 11th Conference on Web and Internet Economic

Optimizing Multiple Simultaneous Objectives for Voting and Facility Location

We study the classic facility location setting, where we are given $n$ clients and $m$ possible facility locations in some arbitrary metric space, and want to choose a location to build a facility. The exact same setting also arises in spatial social choice, where voters are the clients and the goal is to choose a candidate or outcome, with the distance from a voter to an outcome representing the cost of this outcome for the voter (e.g., based on their ideological differences). Unlike most previous work, we do not focus on a single objective to optimize (e.g., the total distance from clients to the facility, or the maximum distance, etc.), but instead attempt to optimize several different objectives simultaneously. More specifically, we consider the $l$-centrum family of objectives, which includes the total distance, max distance, and many others. We present tight bounds on how well any pair of such objectives (e.g., max and sum) can be simultaneously approximated compared to their optimum outcomes. In particular, we show that for any such pair of objectives, it is always possible to choose an outcome which simultaneously approximates both objectives within a factor of $1+\sqrt{2}$, and give a precise characterization of how this factor improves as the two objectives being optimized become more similar. For $q>2$ different centrum objectives, we show that it is always possible to approximate all $q$ of these objectives within a small constant, and that this constant approaches 3 as $q\rightarrow \infty$. Our results show that when optimizing only a few simultaneous objectives, it is always possible to form an outcome which is a significantly better than 3 approximation for all of these objectives.Comment: To be published in the Proceedings of 37th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2023