We study competition in a general framework introduced by Immorlica et al.
and answer their main open question. Immorlica et al. considered classic
optimization problems in terms of competition and introduced a general class of
games called dueling games. They model this competition as a zero-sum game,
where two players are competing for a user's satisfaction. In their main and
most natural game, the ranking duel, a user requests a webpage by submitting a
query and players output an ordering over all possible webpages based on the
submitted query. The user tends to choose the ordering which displays her
requested webpage in a higher rank. The goal of both players is to maximize the
probability that her ordering beats that of her opponent and gets the user's
attention. Immorlica et al. show this game directs both players to provide
suboptimal search results. However, they leave the following as their main open
question: "does competition between algorithms improve or degrade expected
performance?" In this paper, we resolve this question for the ranking duel and
a more general class of dueling games.
More precisely, we study the quality of orderings in a competition between
two players. This game is a zero-sum game, and thus any Nash equilibrium of the
game can be described by minimax strategies. Let the value of the user for an
ordering be a function of the position of her requested item in the
corresponding ordering, and the social welfare for an ordering be the expected
value of the corresponding ordering for the user. We propose the price of
competition which is the ratio of the social welfare for the worst minimax
strategy to the social welfare obtained by a social planner. We use this
criterion for analyzing the quality of orderings in the ranking duel. We prove
the quality of minimax results is surprisingly close to that of the optimum
solution
