This paper considers a time-varying game with @math players. Every time slot, players observe their own random events and then take a control action. The events and control actions affect the individual utilities earned by each player. The goal is to maximize a concave function of time average utilities subject to equilibrium constraints. Specifically, participating players are provided access to a common source of randomness from which they can optimally correlate their decisions. The equilibrium constraints incentivize participation by ensuring that players cannot earn more utility if they choose not to participate. This form of equilibrium is similar to the notions of Nash equilibrium and correlated equilibrium, but is simpler to attain. A Lyapunov method is developed that solves the problem in an online fashion by selecting actions based on a set of time-varying weights. The algorithm does not require knowledge of the event probabilities and has polynomial convergence time. A similar method can be used to compute a standard correlated equilibrium, albeit with increased complexity.
The notion of (CCE) was introduced in @cite_5 in the static case where there is no event process @math . The CCE definition is similar to a (CE) @cite_3 @cite_19 @cite_4 . The difference is as follows: A correlated equilibrium (CE) is more stringent and requires the utility achieved by each player @math to be at least as large as the utility she could achieve if she did not participate . It is known that both CCE and CE constraints can be written as linear programs. Adaptive methods that converge to a CE for static games are developed in @cite_0 @cite_10 @cite_9 . The concept of (NE) is more stringent still: The NE constraint requires all players to act independently and without the aid of a message process @math @cite_6 @cite_4 . Unfortunately, the problem of computing a Nash equilibrium is nonconvex.
@cite_4 @cite_9 @cite_3 @cite_6 @cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_5 @cite_10
1975651137 2136917018 2072113937 2070394877
We analyze the number of payoff queries needed to compute approximate equilibria of multi-player games. We find that query complexity is an effective tool for distinguishing the computational difficulty of alternative solution concepts, and we develop new techniques for upper- and lower bounding the query complexity. For binary-choice games, we show logarithmic upper and lower bounds on the query complexity of approximate correlated equilibrium. For well-supported approximate correlated equilibrium (a restriction where a player’s behavior must always be approximately optimal, in the worst case over draws from the distribution) we show a linear lower bound, thus separating the query complexity of well supported approximate correlated equilibrium from the standard notion of approximate correlated equilibrium. Finally, we give a query-efficient reduction from the problem of computing an approximate well-supported Nash equilibrium to the problem of verifying a well supported Nash equilibrium, where the additional query overhead is proportional to the description length of the game. This gives a polynomial-query algorithm for computing well supported approximate Nash equilibria (and hence correlated equilibria) in concisely represented games. We identify a class of games (which includes congestion games) in which the reduction can be made not only query efficient, but also computationally efficient. This paper introduces a particular game formulation and its corresponding notion of equilibrium, namely the satisfaction form (SF) and the satisfaction equilibrium (SE). A game in SF models the case where players are uniquely interested in the satisfaction of some individual performance constraints, instead of individual performance optimization. Under this formulation, the notion of equilibrium corresponds to the situation where all players can simultaneously satisfy their individual constraints. The notion of SE, models the problem of QoS provisioning in decentralized self-configuring networks. Here, radio devices are satisfied if they are able to provide the requested QoS. Within this framework, the concept of SE is formalized for both pure and mixed strategies considering finite sets of players and actions. In both cases, sufficient conditions for the existence and uniqueness of the SE are presented. When multiple SE exist, we introduce the idea of effort or cost of satisfaction and we propose a refinement of the SE, namely the efficient SE (ESE). At the ESE, all players adopt the action which requires the lowest effort for satisfaction. A learning method that allows radio devices to achieve a SE in pure strategies in finite time and requiring only one-bit feedback is also presented. Finally, a power control game in the interference channel is used to highlight the advantages of modeling QoS problems following the notion of SE rather than other equilibrium concepts, e.g., generalized Nash equilibrium. In the traffic assignment problem, first proposed by Wardrop in 1952, commuters select the shortest available path to travel from their origins to their destinations. We study a generalization of this problem in which competitors, who may control a nonnegligible fraction of the total flow, ship goods across a network. This type of games, usually referred to as atomic games, readily applies to situations in which the competing freight companies have market power. Other applications include intelligent transportation systems, competition among telecommunication network service providers, and scheduling with flexible machines. Our goal is to determine to what extent these systems can benefit from some form of coordination or regulation. We measure the quality of the outcome of the game without centralized control by computing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. The main conclusion is that although self-interested competitors will not achieve a fully efficient solution from the system's point of view, the loss is not too severe. We show how to compute several bounds for the worst-case inefficiency that depend on the characteristics of cost functions and on the market structure in the game. In addition, building upon the work of Catoni and Pallotino, we show examples in which market aggregation (or collusion) adversely impacts the aggregated competitors, even though their market power increases. For example, Nash equilibria of atomic network games may be less efficient than the corresponding Wardrop equilibria. When competitors are completely symmetric, we provide a characterization of the Nash equilibrium using a potential function, and prove that this counterintuitive phenomenon does not arise. Finally, we study a pricing mechanism that elicits more coordination from the players by reducing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. We resolve the worst-case price of anarchy (POA) of atomic splittable congestion games. Prior to this work, no tight bounds on the POA in such games were known, even for the simplest non-trivial special case of affine cost functions. We make two distinct contributions. On the upper-bound side, we define the framework of "local smoothness", which refines the standard smoothness framework for games with convex strategy sets. While standard smoothness arguments cannot establish tight bounds on the POA in atomic splittable congestion games, we prove that local smoothness arguments can. Further, we prove that every POA bound derived via local smoothness applies automatically to every correlated equilibrium of the game. Unlike standard smoothness arguments, bounds proved using local smoothness do not always apply to the coarse correlated equilibria of the game. Our second contribution is a very general lower bound: for every set L that satisfies mild technical conditions, the worst-case POA of pure Nash equilibria in atomic splittable congestion games with cost functions in L is exactly the smallest upper bound provable using local smoothness arguments. In particular, the worst-case POA of pure Nash equilibria, mixed Nash equilibria, and correlated equilibria coincide in such games.