Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Game-Theoretic Analysis of Shard-Based Permissionless Blockchains
161
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Anindya Maiti
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Low transaction throughput and poor scalability are significant issues in public blockchain consensus protocols such as Bitcoins. Recent research efforts in this direction have proposed shard-based consensus protocols where the key idea is to split the transactions among multiple committees (or shards), which then process these shards or set of transactions in parallel. Such a parallel processing of disjoint sets of transactions or shards by multiple committees significantly improves the overall scalability and transaction throughout of the system. However, one significant research gap is a lack of understanding of the strategic behavior of rational processors within committees in such shard-based consensus protocols. Such an understanding is critical for designing appropriate incentives that will foster cooperation within committees and prevent free-riding. In this paper, we address this research gap by analyzing the behavior of processors using a game-theoretic model, where each processor aims at maximizing its reward at a minimum cost of participating in the protocol. We first analyze the Nash equilibria in an N-player static game model of the sharding protocol. We show that depending on the reward sharing approach employed, processors can potentially increase their payoff by unilaterally behaving in a defective fashion, thus resulting in a social dilemma. In order to overcome this social dilemma, we propose a novel incentive-compatible reward sharing mechanism to promote cooperation among processors. Our numerical results show that achieving a majority of cooperating processors (required to ensure a healthy state of the blockchain network) is easier to achieve with the proposed incentive-compatible reward sharing mechanism than with other reward sharing mechanisms.
rate research
Read More
In this paper, we address the much-anticipated deployment of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) in society by modeling and analyzing the social-mobility dilemma in a game-theoretic approach. We formulate this dilemma as a normal-form game of players making a binary decision: whether to travel with a CAV (CAV travel) or not (non-CAV travel) and by constructing an intuitive payoff function inspired by the socially beneficial outcomes of a mobility system consisting of CAVs. We show that the game is equivalent to the Prisoners dilemma, which implies that the rational collective decision is the opposite of the socially optimum. We present two different solutions to tackle this phenomenon: one with a preference structure and the other with institutional arrangements. In the first approach, we implement a social mechanism that incentivizes players to non-CAV travel and derive a lower bound on the players that ensures an equilibrium of non-CAV travel. In the second approach, we investigate the possibility of players bargaining to create an institution that enforces non-CAV travel and show that as the number of players increases, the incentive ratio of non-CAV travel over CAV travel tends to zero. We conclude by showcasing the last result with a numerical study.
We present the design and analysis of a multi-level game-theoretic model of hierarchical policy-making, inspired by policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our model captures the potentially mismatched priorities among a hierarchy of policy-makers (e.g., federal, state, and local governments) with respect to two main cost components that have opposite dependence on the policy strength, such as post-intervention infection rates and the cost of policy implementation. Our model further includes a crucial third factor in decisions: a cost of non-compliance with the policy-maker immediately above in the hierarchy, such as non-compliance of state with federal policies. Our first contribution is a closed-form approximation of a recently published agent-based model to compute the number of infections for any implemented policy. Second, we present a novel equilibrium selection criterion that addresses common issues with equilibrium multiplicity in our setting. Third, we propose a hierarchical algorithm based on best response dynamics for computing an approximate equilibrium of the hierarchical policy-making game consistent with our solution concept. Finally, we present an empirical investigation of equilibrium policy strategies in this game in terms of the extent of free riding as well as fairness in the distribution of costs depending on game parameters such as the degree of centralization and disagreements about policy priorities among the agents.
Distributed adaptive filtering has been considered as an effective approach for data processing and estimation over distributed networks. Most existing distributed adaptive filtering algorithms focus on designing different information diffusion rules, regardless of the nature evolutionary characteristic of a distributed network. In this paper, we study the adaptive network from the game theoretic perspective and formulate the distributed adaptive filtering problem as a graphical evolutionary game. With the proposed formulation, the nodes in the network are regarded as players and the local combiner of estimation information from different neighbors is regarded as different strategies selection. We show that this graphical evolutionary game framework is very general and can unify the existing adaptive network algorithms. Based on this framework, as examples, we further propose two error-aware adaptive filtering algorithms. Moreover, we use graphical evolutionary game theory to analyze the information diffusion process over the adaptive networks and evolutionarily stable strategy of the system. Finally, simulation results are shown to verify the effectiveness of our analysis and proposed methods.
Coded distributed computing (CDC) has emerged as a promising approach because it enables computation tasks to be carried out in a distributed manner while mitigating straggler effects, which often account for the long overall completion times. Specifically, by using polynomial codes, computed results from only a subset of edge servers can be used to reconstruct the final result. However, incentive issues have not been studied systematically for the edge servers to complete the CDC tasks. In this paper, we propose a tractable two-level game-theoretic approach to incentivize the edge servers to complete the CDC tasks. Specifically, in the lower level, a hedonic coalition formation game is formulated where the edge servers share their resources within their coalitions. By forming coalitions, the edge servers have more Central Processing Unit (CPU) power to complete the computation tasks. In the upper level, given the CPU power of the coalitions of edge servers, an all-pay auction is designed to incentivize the edge servers to participate in the CDC tasks. In the all-pay auction, the bids of the edge servers are represented by the allocation of their CPU power to the CDC tasks. The all-pay auction is designed to maximize the utility of the cloud server by determining the allocation of rewards to the winners. Simulation results show that the edge servers are incentivized to allocate more CPU power when multiple rewards are offered, i.e., there are multiple winners, instead of rewarding only the edge server with the largest CPU power allocation. Besides, the utility of the cloud server is maximized when it offers multiple homogeneous rewards, instead of heterogeneous rewards.
Federated learning is a distributed learning paradigm where multiple agents, each only with access to local data, jointly learn a global model. There has recently been an explosion of research aiming not only to improve the accuracy rates of federated learning, but also provide certain guarantees around social good properties such as total error. One branch of this research has taken a game-theoretic approach, and in particular, prior work has viewed federated learning as a hedonic game, where error-minimizing players arrange themselves into federating coalitions. This past work proves the existence of stable coalition partitions, but leaves open a wide range of questions, including how far from optimal these stable solutions are. In this work, we motivate and define a notion of optimality given by the average error rates among federating agents (players). First, we provide and prove the correctness of an efficient algorithm to calculate an optimal (error minimizing) arrangement of players. Next, we analyze the relationship between the stability and optimality of an arrangement. First, we show that for some regions of parameter space, all stable arrangements are optimal (Price of Anarchy equal to 1). However, we show this is not true for all settings: there exist examples of stable arrangements with higher cost than optimal (Price of Anarchy greater than 1). Finally, we give the first constant-factor bound on the performance gap between stability and optimality, proving that the total error of the worst stable solution can be no higher than 9 times the total error of an optimal solution (Price of Anarchy bound of 9).
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
