-
On the Value of Correlation
Authors:
Itai Ashlagi,
Dov Monderer,
Moshe Tennenholtz
Abstract:
Correlated equilibrium (Aumann, 1974) generalizes Nash equilibrium to allow correlation devices. Aumann showed an example of a game, and of a correlated equilibrium in this game, in which the agents' surplus (expected sum of payo s) is greater than their surplus in all mixed-strategy equilibria. Following the idea initiated by the price of anarchy literature (Koutsoupias & Papadimitriou, 1999;Papa…
▽ More
Correlated equilibrium (Aumann, 1974) generalizes Nash equilibrium to allow correlation devices. Aumann showed an example of a game, and of a correlated equilibrium in this game, in which the agents' surplus (expected sum of payo s) is greater than their surplus in all mixed-strategy equilibria. Following the idea initiated by the price of anarchy literature (Koutsoupias & Papadimitriou, 1999;Papadimitriou, 2001) this suggests the study of two major measures for the value of correlation in a game with non-negative payoffs: 1. The ratio between the maximal surplus obtained in a correlated equilibrium to the maximal surplus obtained in a mixed-strategy equilibrium. We refer to this ratio as the mediation value. 2. The ratio between the maximal surplus to the maximal surplus obtained in a correlated equilibrium. We refer to this ratio as the enforcement value. In this work we initiate the study of the mediation and enforcement values, providing several general results on the value of correlation as captured by these concepts. We also present a set of results for the more specialized case of congestion games (Rosenthal,1973), a class of games that received a lot of attention in the recent literature.
△ Less
Submitted 4 July, 2012;
originally announced July 2012.
-
Robust Learning Equilibrium
Authors:
Itai Ashlagi,
Dov Monderer,
Moshe Tennenholtz
Abstract:
We introduce robust learning equilibrium. The idea of learning equilibrium is that learning algorithms in multi-agent systems should themselves be in equilibrium rather than only lead to equilibrium. That is, learning equilibrium is immune to strategic deviations: Every agent is better off using its prescribed learning algorithm, if all other agents follow their algorithms, regardless of the unkno…
▽ More
We introduce robust learning equilibrium. The idea of learning equilibrium is that learning algorithms in multi-agent systems should themselves be in equilibrium rather than only lead to equilibrium. That is, learning equilibrium is immune to strategic deviations: Every agent is better off using its prescribed learning algorithm, if all other agents follow their algorithms, regardless of the unknown state of the environment. However, a learning equilibrium may not be immune to non strategic mistakes. For example, if for a certain period of time there is a failure in the monitoring devices (e.g., the correct input does not reach the agents), then it may not be in equilibrium to follow the algorithm after the devices are corrected. A robust learning equilibrium is immune also to such non-strategic mistakes. The existence of (robust) learning equilibrium is especially challenging when the monitoring devices are 'weak'. That is, the information available to each agent at each stage is limited. We initiate a study of robust learning equilibrium with general monitoring structure and apply it to the context of auctions. We prove the existence of robust learning equilibrium in repeated first-price auctions, and discuss its properties.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2012;
originally announced June 2012.
-
K-Implementation
Authors:
D. Monderer,
M. Tennenholtz
Abstract:
This paper discusses an interested party who wishes to influence the behavior of agents in a game (multi-agent interaction), which is not under his control. The interested party cannot design a new game, cannot enforce agents' behavior, cannot enforce payments by the agents, and cannot prohibit strategies available to the agents. However, he can influence the outcome of the game by committing to n…
▽ More
This paper discusses an interested party who wishes to influence the behavior of agents in a game (multi-agent interaction), which is not under his control. The interested party cannot design a new game, cannot enforce agents' behavior, cannot enforce payments by the agents, and cannot prohibit strategies available to the agents. However, he can influence the outcome of the game by committing to non-negative monetary transfers for the different strategy profiles that may be selected by the agents. The interested party assumes that agents are rational in the commonly agreed sense that they do not use dominated strategies. Hence, a certain subset of outcomes is implemented in a given game if by adding non-negative payments, rational players will necessarily produce an outcome in this subset. Obviously, by making sufficiently big payments one can implement any desirable outcome. The question is what is the cost of implementation? In this paper we introduce the notion of k-implementation of a desired set of strategy profiles, where k stands for the amount of payment that need to be actually made in order to implement desirable outcomes. A major point in k-implementation is that monetary offers need not necessarily materialize when following desired behaviors. We define and study k-implementation in the contexts of games with complete and incomplete information. In the latter case we mainly focus on the VCG games. Our setting is later extended to deal with mixed strategies using correlation devices. Together, the paper introduces and studies the implementation of desirable outcomes by a reliable party who cannot modify game rules (i.e. provide protocols), complementing previous work in mechanism design, while making it more applicable to many realistic CS settings.
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2011;
originally announced July 2011.
-
Bundling Equilibrium in Combinatorial auctions
Authors:
Ron Holzman,
Noa Kfir-Dahav,
Dov Monderer,
Moshe Tennenholtz
Abstract:
This paper analyzes individually-rational ex post equilibrium in the VC (Vickrey-Clarke) combinatorial auctions. If $Σ$ is a family of bundles of goods, the organizer may restrict the participants by requiring them to submit their bids only for bundles in $Σ$. The $Σ$-VC combinatorial auctions (multi-good auctions) obtained in this way are known to be individually-rational truth-telling mechanis…
▽ More
This paper analyzes individually-rational ex post equilibrium in the VC (Vickrey-Clarke) combinatorial auctions. If $Σ$ is a family of bundles of goods, the organizer may restrict the participants by requiring them to submit their bids only for bundles in $Σ$. The $Σ$-VC combinatorial auctions (multi-good auctions) obtained in this way are known to be individually-rational truth-telling mechanisms. In contrast, this paper deals with non-restricted VC auctions, in which the buyers restrict themselves to bids on bundles in $Σ$, because it is rational for them to do so. That is, it may be that when the buyers report their valuation of the bundles in $Σ$, they are in an equilibrium. We fully characterize those $Σ$ that induce individually rational equilibrium in every VC auction, and we refer to the associated equilibrium as a bundling equilibrium. The number of bundles in $Σ$ represents the communication complexity of the equilibrium. A special case of bundling equilibrium is partition-based equilibrium, in which $Σ$ is a field, that is, it is generated by a partition. We analyze the tradeoff between communication complexity and economic efficiency of bundling equilibrium, focusing in particular on partition-based equilibrium.
△ Less
Submitted 14 January, 2002;
originally announced January 2002.
-
Dynamic Non-Bayesian Decision Making
Authors:
D. Monderer,
M. Tennenholtz
Abstract:
The model of a non-Bayesian agent who faces a repeated game with incomplete information against Nature is an appropriate tool for modeling general agent-environment interactions. In such a model the environment state (controlled by Nature) may change arbitrarily, and the feedback/reward function is initially unknown. The agent is not Bayesian, that is he does not form a prior probability neither…
▽ More
The model of a non-Bayesian agent who faces a repeated game with incomplete information against Nature is an appropriate tool for modeling general agent-environment interactions. In such a model the environment state (controlled by Nature) may change arbitrarily, and the feedback/reward function is initially unknown. The agent is not Bayesian, that is he does not form a prior probability neither on the state selection strategy of Nature, nor on his reward function. A policy for the agent is a function which assigns an action to every history of observations and actions. Two basic feedback structures are considered. In one of them -- the perfect monitoring case -- the agent is able to observe the previous environment state as part of his feedback, while in the other -- the imperfect monitoring case -- all that is available to the agent is the reward obtained. Both of these settings refer to partially observable processes, where the current environment state is unknown. Our main result refers to the competitive ratio criterion in the perfect monitoring case. We prove the existence of an efficient stochastic policy that ensures that the competitive ratio is obtained at almost all stages with an arbitrarily high probability, where efficiency is measured in terms of rate of convergence. It is further shown that such an optimal policy does not exist in the imperfect monitoring case. Moreover, it is proved that in the perfect monitoring case there does not exist a deterministic policy that satisfies our long run optimality criterion. In addition, we discuss the maxmin criterion and prove that a deterministic efficient optimal strategy does exist in the imperfect monitoring case under this criterion. Finally we show that our approach to long-run optimality can be viewed as qualitative, which distinguishes it from previous work in this area.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 1997;
originally announced November 1997.
