No Arabic abstract
We consider a game in which players are the vertices of a directed graph. Initially, Nature chooses one player according to some fixed distribution and gives her a buck, which represents the request to perform a chore. After completing the task, the player passes the buck to one of her out-neighbors in the graph. The procedure is repeated indefinitely and each players cost is the asymptotic expected frequency of times that she receives the buck. We consider a deterministic and a stochastic version of the game depending on how players select the neighbor to pass the buck. In both cases we prove the existence of pure equilibria that do not depend on the initial distribution; this is achieved by showing the existence of a generalized ordinal potential. We then use the price of anarchy and price of stability to measure fairness of these equilibria. We also study a buck-holding variant of the game in which players want to maximize the frequency of times they hold the buck, which includes the PageRank game as a special case.
Is there a joint distribution of $n$ random variables over the natural numbers, such that they always form an increasing sequence and whenever you take two subsets of the set of random variables of the same cardinality, their distribution is almost the same? We show that the answer is yes, but that the random variables will have to take values as large as $2^{2^{dots ^{2^{Thetaleft(frac{1}{epsilon}right)}}}}$, where $epsilonleq epsilon_n$ measures how different the two distributions can be, the tower contains $n-2$ $2$s and the constants in the $Theta$ notation are allowed to depend on $n$. This result has an important consequence in game theory: It shows that even though you can define extensive form games that cannot be implemented on players who can tell the time, you can have implementations that approximate the game arbitrarily well.
We want to introduce another smoothing approach by treating each geometric element as a player in a game: a quest for the best element quality. In other words, each player has the goal of becoming as regular as possible. The set of strategies for each element is given by all translations of its vertices. Ideally, he would like to quantify this regularity using a quality measure which corresponds to the utility function in game theory. Each player is aware of the other players utility functions as well as their set of strategies, which is analogous to his own utility function and strategies. In the simplest case, the utility functions only depend on the regularity. In more complicated cases this utility function depends on the element size, the curvature, or even the solution to a differential equation. This article is a sketch of a possible game-theoretical approach to mesh smoothing and still on-going research.
We formalize the current practice of strategic mining in multi-cryptocurrency markets as a game, and prove that any better-response learning in such games converges to equilibrium. We then offer a reward design scheme that moves the system configuration from any initial equilibrium to a desired one for any better-response learning of the miners. Our work introduces the first multi-coin strategic attack for adaptive and learning miners, as well as the study of reward design in a multi-agent system of learning agents.
The classic paper of Shapley and Shubik cite{Shapley1971assignment} characterized the core of the assignment game using ideas from matching theory and LP-duality theory and their highly non-trivial interplay. Whereas the core of this game is always non-empty, that of the general graph matching game can be empty. This paper salvages the situation by giving an imputation in the $2/3$-approximate core for the latter. This bound is best possible, since it is the integrality gap of the natural underlying LP. Our profit allocation method goes further: the multiplier on the profit of an agent is often better than ${2 over 3}$ and lies in the interval $[{2 over 3}, 1]$, depending on how severely constrained the agent is. Next, we provide new insights showing how discerning core imputations of an assignment games are by studying them via the lens of complementary slackness. We present a relationship between the competitiveness of individuals and teams of agents and the amount of profit they accrue in imputations that lie in the core, where by {em competitiveness} we mean whether an individual or a team is matched in every/some/no maximum matching. This also sheds light on the phenomenon of degeneracy in assignment games, i.e., when the maximum weight matching is not unique. The core is a quintessential solution concept in cooperative game theory. It contains all ways of distributing the total worth of a game among agents in such a way that no sub-coalition has incentive to secede from the grand coalition. Our imputation, in the $2/3$-approximate core, implies that a sub-coalition will gain at most a $3/2$ factor by seceding, and less in typical cases.
Payment channels were introduced to solve various eminent cryptocurrency scalability issues. Multiple payment channels build a network on top of a blockchain, the so-called layer 2. In this work, we analyze payment networks through the lens of network creation games. We identify betweenness and closeness centrality as central concepts regarding payment networks. We study the topologies that emerge when players act selfishly and determine the parameter space in which they constitute a Nash equilibrium. Moreover, we determine the social optima depending on the correlation of betweenness and closeness centrality. When possible, we bound the price of anarchy. We also briefly discuss the price of stability.