Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe Complexity of Interactively Learning a Stable Matching by Trial and Error
145
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Yannai A. Gonczarowski
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In a stable matching setting, we consider a query model that allows for an interactive learning algorithm to make precisely one type of query: proposing a matching, the response to which is either that the proposed matching is stable, or a blocking pair (chosen adversarially) indicating that this matching is unstable. For one-to-one matching markets, our main result is an essentially tight upper bound of $O(n^2log n)$ on the deterministic query complexity of interactively learning a stable matching in this coarse query model, along with an efficient randomized algorithm that achieves this query complexity with high probability. For many-to-many matching markets in which participants have responsive preferences, we first give an interactive learning algorithm whose query complexity and running time are polynomial in the size of the market if the maximum quota of each agent is bounded; our main result for many-to-many markets is that the deterministic query complexity can be made polynomial (more specifically, $O(n^3 log n)$) in the size of the market even for arbitrary (e.g., linear in the market size) quotas.
rate research
Read More
In 1979, Hylland and Zeckhauser cite{hylland} gave a simple and general scheme for implementing a one-sided matching market using the power of a pricing mechanism. Their method has nice properties -- it is incentive compatible in the large and produces an allocation that is Pareto optimal -- and hence it provides an attractive, off-the-shelf method for running an application involving such a market. With matching markets becoming ever more prevalant and impactful, it is imperative to finally settle the computational complexity of this scheme. We present the following partial resolution: 1. A combinatorial, strongly polynomial time algorithm for the special case of $0/1$ utilities. 2. An example that has only irrational equilibria, hence proving that this problem is not in PPAD. Furthermore, its equilibria are disconnected, hence showing that the problem does not admit a convex programming formulation. 3. A proof of membership of the problem in the class FIXP. We leave open the (difficult) question of determining if the problem is FIXP-hard. Settling the status of the special case when utilities are in the set ${0, {frac 1 2}, 1 }$ appears to be even more difficult.
Similar to the role of Markov decision processes in reinforcement learning, Stochastic Games (SGs) lay the foundation for the study of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) and sequential agent interactions. In this paper, we derive that computing an approximate Markov Perfect Equilibrium (MPE) in a finite-state discounted Stochastic Game within the exponential precision is textbf{PPAD}-complete. We adopt a function with a polynomially bounded description in the strategy space to convert the MPE computation to a fixed-point problem, even though the stochastic game may demand an exponential number of pure strategies, in the number of states, for each agent. The completeness result follows the reduction of the fixed-point problem to {sc End of the Line}. Our results indicate that finding an MPE in SGs is highly unlikely to be textbf{NP}-hard unless textbf{NP}=textbf{co-NP}. Our work offers confidence for MARL research to study MPE computation on general-sum SGs and to develop fruitful algorithms as currently on zero-sum SGs.
We study the following communication variant of local search. There is some fixed, commonly known graph $G$. Alice holds $f_A$ and Bob holds $f_B$, both are functions that specify a value for each vertex. The goal is to find a local maximum of $f_A+f_B$ with respect to $G$, i.e., a vertex $v$ for which $(f_A+f_B)(v)geq (f_A+f_B)(u)$ for every neighbor $u$ of $v$. Our main result is that finding a local maximum requires polynomial (in the number of vertices) bits of communication. The result holds for the following families of graphs: three dimensional grids, hypercubes, odd graphs, and degree 4 graphs. Moreover, we provide an emph{optimal} communication bound of $Omega(sqrt{N})$ for the hypercube, and for a constant dimensional greed, where $N$ is the number of vertices in the graph. We provide applications of our main result in two domains, exact potential games and combinatorial auctions. First, we show that finding a pure Nash equilibrium in $2$-player $N$-action exact potential games requires polynomial (in $N$) communication. We also show that finding a pure Nash equilibrium in $n$-player $2$-action exact potential games requires exponential (in $n$) communication. The second domain that we consider is combinatorial auctions, in which we prove that finding a local maximum in combinatorial auctions requires exponential (in the number of items) communication even when the valuations are submodular. Each one of the results demonstrates an exponential separation between the non-deterministic communication complexity and the randomized communication complexity of a total search problem.
Candidate control of elections is the study of how adding or removing candidates can affect the outcome. However, the traditional study of the complexity of candidate control is in the model in which all candidates and votes are known up front. This paper develops a model for studying online control for elections where the structure is sequential with respect to the candidates, and in which the decision regarding adding and deleting must be irrevocably made at the moment the candidate is presented. We show that great complexity---PSPACE-completeness---can occur in this setting, but we also provide within this setting polynomial-time algorithms for the most important of election systems, plurality.
We provide the first separation in the approximation guarantee achievable by truthful and non-truthful combinatorial auctions with polynomial communication. Specifically, we prove that any truthful mechanism guaranteeing a $(frac{3}{4}-frac{1}{240}+varepsilon)$-approximation for two buyers with XOS valuations over $m$ items requires $exp(Omega(varepsilon^2 cdot m))$ communication, whereas a non-truthful algorithm by Dobzinski and Schapira [SODA 2006] and Feige [2009] is already known to achieve a $frac{3}{4}$-approximation in $poly(m)$ communication. We obtain our separation by proving that any {simultaneous} protocol ({not} necessarily truthful) which guarantees a $(frac{3}{4}-frac{1}{240}+varepsilon)$-approximation requires communication $exp(Omega(varepsilon^2 cdot m))$. The taxation complexity framework of Dobzinski [FOCS 2016] extends this lower bound to all truthful mechanisms (including interactive truthful mechanisms).
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
