Subsidy design for better social outcomes
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores the design of subsidies to achieve better social outcomes in games.
- It studies different game settings and analyzes how subsidies can be used to incentivize desirable behaviors.
- The paper proposes novel subsidy design approaches and evaluates their effectiveness through theoretical analysis and simulations.
Plain English Explanation
The research paper looks at how governments or organizations can use subsidies, or financial incentives, to encourage people to make decisions that are better for society as a whole. It studies different types of "games" (decision-making scenarios) where people's individual choices can have an impact on the larger community.
For example, in a traffic routing game, each driver's choice of route affects the congestion and travel times experienced by everyone. The paper explores how subsidies could be designed to motivate drivers to choose routes that reduce overall traffic and improve travel times for the community.
Similarly, the paper considers dynamic pricing scenarios, where a company may charge customers different prices based on factors like demand. The researchers analyze how subsidies could encourage the company to price products more fairly.
By taking a game-theoretic approach, the paper proposes new subsidy design methods and evaluates how effective they are at steering individual choices towards better social outcomes. The goal is to provide guidance on how subsidies can be used as a policy tool to positively influence people's decisions and benefit the broader community.
Technical Explanation
The paper studies several types of games, including congestion games, dynamic pricing games, and effort games, where individual actions can have an impact on social welfare.
It proposes novel subsidy design approaches, such as personalized subsidies that are tailored to individual players, and adaptive subsidies that adjust over time based on player behavior. The researchers analyze these subsidy designs theoretically and evaluate their performance through simulations.
The key insights from the paper include:
- Subsidies can be an effective tool for incentivizing socially desirable behaviors in strategic settings.
- Personalized and adaptive subsidy designs can outperform traditional uniform subsidies.
- The optimal subsidy strategy depends on factors like the game structure, player preferences, and social welfare objectives.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous theoretical and empirical analysis of subsidy design for improving social outcomes in strategic settings. However, some potential limitations and areas for future research include:
- The analysis is primarily focused on stylized game models, and the extent to which the findings generalize to real-world complex systems is unclear.
- The paper does not consider potential unintended consequences or side effects of subsidies, such as distortions in the broader economy.
- The evaluation is limited to simulations, and field experiments would be valuable to validate the effectiveness of the proposed subsidy designs in practice.
- The paper does not address important implementation challenges, such as the informational and computational requirements for deploying personalized or adaptive subsidies.
Overall, the research offers valuable insights into how subsidies can be designed to steer individual decision-making towards socially beneficial outcomes. However, further work is needed to understand the broader implications and practical feasibility of these subsidy design approaches.
Conclusion
This research paper proposes novel subsidy design methods to incentivize socially desirable behaviors in strategic settings, such as traffic routing, dynamic pricing, and effort provision games. The key contribution is the game-theoretic analysis of personalized and adaptive subsidy approaches, which are shown to outperform traditional uniform subsidies.
The findings suggest that subsidies can be an effective policy tool for influencing individual choices in a way that benefits the broader community. However, the practical implementation of these subsidy designs and their broader societal impacts require further investigation. The paper lays the groundwork for future research to explore how subsidies can be leveraged to achieve better social outcomes.
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
Subsidy design for better social outcomes
Maria-Florina Balcan, Matteo Pozzi, Dravyansh Sharma
Overcoming the impact of selfish behavior of rational players in multiagent systems is a fundamental problem in game theory. Without any intervention from a central agent, strategic users take actions in order to maximize their personal utility, which can lead to extremely inefficient overall system performance, often indicated by a high Price of Anarchy. Recent work (Lin et al. 2021) investigated and formalized yet another undesirable behavior of rational agents, that of avoiding freely available information about the game for selfish reasons, leading to worse social outcomes. A central planner can significantly mitigate these issues by injecting a subsidy to reduce certain costs associated with the system and obtain net gains in the system performance. Crucially, the planner needs to determine how to allocate this subsidy effectively. We formally show that designing subsidies that perfectly optimize the social good, in terms of minimizing the Price of Anarchy or preventing the information avoidance behavior, is computationally hard under standard complexity theoretic assumptions. On the positive side, we show that we can learn provably good values of subsidy in repeated games coming from the same domain. This data-driven subsidy design approach avoids solving computationally hard problems for unseen games by learning over polynomially many games. We also show that optimal subsidy can be learned with no-regret given an online sequence of games, under mild assumptions on the cost matrix. Our study focuses on two distinct games: a Bayesian extension of the well-studied fair cost-sharing game, and a component maintenance game with engineering applications.
Read more9/6/2024
👀
0
Fairness Incentives in Response to Unfair Dynamic Pricing
Jesse Thibodeau, Hadi Nekoei, Afaf Taik, Janarthanan Rajendran, Golnoosh Farnadi
The use of dynamic pricing by profit-maximizing firms gives rise to demand fairness concerns, measured by discrepancies in consumer groups' demand responses to a given pricing strategy. Notably, dynamic pricing may result in buyer distributions unreflective of those of the underlying population, which can be problematic in markets where fair representation is socially desirable. To address this, policy makers might leverage tools such as taxation and subsidy to adapt policy mechanisms dependent upon their social objective. In this paper, we explore the potential for AI methods to assist such intervention strategies. To this end, we design a basic simulated economy, wherein we introduce a dynamic social planner (SP) to generate corporate taxation schedules geared to incentivizing firms towards adopting fair pricing behaviours, and to use the collected tax budget to subsidize consumption among underrepresented groups. To cover a range of possible policy scenarios, we formulate our social planner's learning problem as a multi-armed bandit, a contextual bandit and finally as a full reinforcement learning (RL) problem, evaluating welfare outcomes from each case. To alleviate the difficulty in retaining meaningful tax rates that apply to less frequently occurring brackets, we introduce FairReplayBuffer, which ensures that our RL agent samples experiences uniformly across a discretized fairness space. We find that, upon deploying a learned tax and redistribution policy, social welfare improves on that of the fairness-agnostic baseline, and approaches that of the analytically optimal fairness-aware baseline for the multi-armed and contextual bandit settings, and surpassing it by 13.19% in the full RL setting.
Read more4/24/2024
0
Paying to Do Better: Games with Payments between Learning Agents
Yoav Kolumbus, Joe Halpern, 'Eva Tardos
In repeated games, such as auctions, players typically use learning algorithms to choose their actions. The use of such autonomous learning agents has become widespread on online platforms. In this paper, we explore the impact of players incorporating monetary transfers into their agents' algorithms, aiming to incentivize behavior in their favor. Our focus is on understanding when players have incentives to make use of monetary transfers, how these payments affect learning dynamics, and what the implications are for welfare and its distribution among the players. We propose a simple game-theoretic model to capture such scenarios. Our results on general games show that in a broad class of games, players benefit from letting their learning agents make payments to other learners during the game dynamics, and that in many cases, this kind of behavior improves welfare for all players. Our results on first- and second-price auctions show that in equilibria of the ``payment policy game,'' the agents' dynamics can reach strong collusive outcomes with low revenue for the auctioneer. These results highlight a challenge for mechanism design in systems where automated learning agents can benefit from interacting with their peers outside the boundaries of the mechanism.
Read more6/3/2024
🏅
0
Adaptive Incentive Design with Learning Agents
Chinmay Maheshwari, Kshitij Kulkarni, Manxi Wu, Shankar Sastry
How can the system operator learn an incentive mechanism that achieves social optimality based on limited information about the agents' behavior, who are dynamically updating their strategies? To answer this question, we propose an emph{adaptive} incentive mechanism. This mechanism updates the incentives of agents based on the feedback of each agent's externality, evaluated as the difference between the player's marginal cost and society's marginal cost at each time step. The proposed mechanism updates the incentives on a slower timescale compared to the agents' learning dynamics, resulting in a two-timescale coupled dynamical system. Notably, this mechanism is agnostic to the specific learning dynamics used by agents to update their strategies. We show that any fixed point of this adaptive incentive mechanism corresponds to the optimal incentive mechanism, ensuring that the Nash equilibrium coincides with the socially optimal strategy. Additionally, we provide sufficient conditions that guarantee the convergence of the adaptive incentive mechanism to a fixed point. Our results apply to both atomic and non-atomic games. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed mechanism, we verify the convergence conditions in two practically relevant games: atomic networked quadratic aggregative games and non-atomic network routing games.
Read more9/4/2024