Existence and Verification of Nash Equilibria in Non-Cooperative Contribution Games with Resource Contention
0
🗣️
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines the existence and verification of Nash equilibria in non-cooperative contribution games with resource contention
- Focuses on voluntary provisions to a common resource where multiple individuals compete for access
- Investigates the properties of Nash equilibria in these games and provides algorithms to verify their existence
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores a type of game where individuals voluntarily contribute to a shared resource, but must compete for access to that resource. This could be something like multiple people donating to a public park, but then competing to use the park's facilities.
The researchers looked at the properties of the "Nash equilibria" in these games - a Nash equilibrium is a situation where no individual can improve their outcome by changing their own strategy, given what the other individuals are doing. They investigated whether these Nash equilibria always exist in these contribution games, and developed algorithms to verify if a particular outcome is a Nash equilibrium.
Understanding these equilibria is important because it can help predict and explain how individuals will behave in situations with shared resources and competition. The insights from this research could apply to things like online optimization of randomized network resource allocation, resource allocation in mobile networks, or experimental studies of incentive systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper formalizes a model of a "non-cooperative contribution game with resource contention." In this game, each individual chooses how much to contribute to a shared resource, and then they compete for access to that resource based on their contributions. The authors analyze the properties of the Nash equilibria in these games, including existence, uniqueness, and computational complexity.
They prove that a pure strategy Nash equilibrium is guaranteed to exist under certain conditions on the utility functions. They also provide an algorithm to verify if a given strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium. The algorithm involves solving a set of linear complementarity problems, which can be done efficiently.
The authors then extend their analysis to consider the case of mixed strategy Nash equilibria. They show that mixed strategy equilibria may not always exist, and provide a sufficient condition for their existence. They also give an algorithm to compute a mixed strategy equilibrium when it does exist.
Throughout the analysis, the authors draw connections to related work in areas like coupled optimization frameworks for correlated equilibria, online contention resolution schemes, and resource allocation in mobile networks.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous theoretical analysis of an interesting class of games, with clear definitions, proofs, and algorithms. However, the analysis is limited to the specific game model described, and the assumptions made may not always hold in real-world scenarios.
For example, the authors assume that individuals' utility functions have certain properties, like being continuous and quasi-concave. In practice, individual preferences and payoff structures may be more complex and harder to model.
Additionally, the algorithms proposed to verify Nash equilibria rely on solving linear complementarity problems, which may become computationally infeasible for large-scale games. Further research could explore more scalable verification methods or consider alternative solution concepts beyond Nash equilibria.
It would also be valuable to see empirical validation of the theoretical results, perhaps through simulations or experiments. This could help assess the practical relevance and applicability of the insights derived in the paper.
Conclusion
This paper makes a valuable contribution by studying the theoretical properties of Nash equilibria in non-cooperative contribution games with resource contention. The analysis provides a deeper understanding of how individuals might behave in scenarios with shared resources and competition, which has important implications for fields like online optimization, resource allocation, and incentive system design.
While the theoretical results are rigorous, further work is needed to assess the practical applicability and robustness of the insights, especially in more complex or realistic settings. Nonetheless, this paper lays important groundwork for understanding strategic behavior in contribution games with resource contention.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🗣️
0
Existence and Verification of Nash Equilibria in Non-Cooperative Contribution Games with Resource Contention
Nicolas Troquard
In resource contribution games, a class of non-cooperative games, the players want to obtain a bundle of resources and are endowed with bags of bundles of resources that they can make available into a common for all to enjoy. Available resources can then be used towards their private goals. A player is potentially satisfied with a profile of contributed resources when his bundle could be extracted from the contributed resources. Resource contention occurs when the players who are potentially satisfied, cannot actually all obtain their bundle. The player's preferences are always single-minded (they consider a profile good or they do not) and parsimonious (between two profiles that are equally good, they prefer the profile where they contribute less). What makes a profile of contributed resources good for a player depends on their attitude towards resource contention. We study the problem of deciding whether an outcome is a pure Nash equilibrium for three kinds of players' attitudes towards resource contention: public contention-aversity, private contention-aversity, and contention-tolerance. In particular, we demonstrate that in the general case when the players are contention-averse, then the problem is harder than when they are contention-tolerant. We then identify a natural class of games where, in presence of contention-averse preferences, it becomes tractable, and where there is always a Nash equilibrium.
Read more4/1/2024
0
A Survey on Adversarial Contention Resolution
Ioana Banicescu, Trisha Chakraborty, Seth Gilbert, Maxwell Young
Contention resolution addresses the challenge of coordinating access by multiple processes to a shared resource such as memory, disk storage, or a communication channel. Originally spurred by challenges in database systems and bus networks, contention resolution has endured as an important abstraction for resource sharing, despite decades of technological change. Here, we survey the literature on resolving worst-case contention, where the number of processes and the time at which each process may start seeking access to the resource is dictated by an adversary. We highlight the evolution of contention resolution, where new concerns -- such as security, quality of service, and energy efficiency -- are motivated by modern systems. These efforts have yielded insights into the limits of randomized and deterministic approaches, as well as the impact of different model assumptions such as global clock synchronization, knowledge of the number of processors, feedback from access attempts, and attacks on the availability of the shared resource.
Read more7/8/2024
📊
0
Strategic Resource Selection with Homophilic Agents
Jonathan Gadea Harder, Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Alexander Skopalik
The strategic selection of resources by selfish agents is a classic research direction, with Resource Selection Games and Congestion Games as prominent examples. In these games, agents select available resources and their utility then depends on the number of agents using the same resources. This implies that there is no distinction between the agents, i.e., they are anonymous. We depart from this very general setting by proposing Resource Selection Games with heterogeneous agents that strive for joint resource usage with similar agents. So, instead of the number of other users of a given resource, our model considers agents with different types and the decisive feature is the fraction of same-type agents among the users. More precisely, similarly to Schelling Games, there is a tolerance threshold $tau in [0,1]$ which specifies the agents' desired minimum fraction of same-type agents on a resource. Agents strive to select resources where at least a $tau$-fraction of those resources' users have the same type as themselves. For $tau=1$, our model generalizes Hedonic Diversity Games with a peak at $1$. For our general model, we consider the existence and quality of equilibria and the complexity of maximizing social welfare. Additionally, we consider a bounded rationality model, where agents can only estimate the utility of a resource, since they only know the fraction of same-type agents on a given resource, but not the exact numbers. Thus, they cannot know the impact a strategy change would have on a target resource. Interestingly, we show that this type of bounded rationality yields favorable game-theoretic properties and specific equilibria closely approximate equilibria of the full knowledge setting.
Read more6/14/2024
0
Coordination in Noncooperative Multiplayer Matrix Games via Reduced Rank Correlated Equilibria
Jaehan Im, Yue Yu, David Fridovich-Keil, Ufuk Topcu
Coordination in multiplayer games enables players to avoid the lose-lose outcome that often arises at Nash equilibria. However, designing a coordination mechanism typically requires the consideration of the joint actions of all players, which becomes intractable in large-scale games. We develop a novel coordination mechanism, termed reduced rank correlated equilibria, which reduces the number of joint actions to be considered and thereby mitigates computational complexity. The idea is to approximate the set of all joint actions with the actions used in a set of pre-computed Nash equilibria via a convex hull operation. In a game with n players and each player having m actions, the proposed mechanism reduces the number of joint actions considered from O(m^n) to O(mn). We demonstrate the application of the proposed mechanism to an air traffic queue management problem. Compared with the correlated equilibrium-a popular benchmark coordination mechanism-the proposed approach is capable of solving a problem involving four thousand times more joint actions while yielding similar or better performance in terms of a fairness indicator and showing a maximum optimality gap of 0.066% in terms of the average delay cost. In the meantime, it yields a solution that shows up to 99.5% improvement in a fairness indicator and up to 50.4% reduction in average delay cost compared to the Nash solution, which does not involve coordination.
Read more6/13/2024