Assignment games represent a tractable yet versatile model of two-sided markets with transfers. We study the likely properties of the core of randomly generated assignment games. If the joint productivities of every firm and worker are i.i.d bounded random variables, then with high probability all workers are paid roughly equal wages, and all firms make similar profits. This implies that core allocations vary significantly in balanced markets, but that there is core convergence in even slightly unbalanced markets. For the benchmark case of uniform distribution, we provide a tight bound for the workers' share of the surplus under the firm-optimal core allocation. We present simulation results suggesting that the phenomena analyzed appear even in medium-sized markets. Finally, we briefly discuss the effects of unbounded distributions and the ways in which they may affect wage dispersion.
Assignment games were introduced by @cite_10 and thoroughly analyzed by @cite_6 . A (non-comprehensive) list of further work on assignment games includes the study of strategic incentives @cite_3 , entry @cite_2 , convergence via decentralized processes @cite_11 @cite_28 @cite_29 , elongation of the core @cite_16 and its dimensions @cite_14 , and median stable matchings @cite_9 .
@cite_14 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_9 @cite_3 @cite_6 @cite_2 @cite_16 @cite_10 @cite_11
2810102121 1981192311 2570514057 2072113937 2034600319 2002430844 2111140566 2057183894 2010577317 2021785901
We consider multi-player repeated games involving a large number of players with large strategy spaces and enmeshed utility structures. In these ldquolarge-scalerdquo games, players are inherently faced with limitations in both their observational and computational capabilities. Accordingly, players in large-scale games need to make their decisions using algorithms that accommodate limitations in information gathering and processing. This disqualifies some of the well known decision making models such as ldquoFictitious Playrdquo (FP), in which each player must monitor the individual actions of every other player and must optimize over a high dimensional probability space. We will show that Joint Strategy Fictitious Play (JSFP), a close variant of FP, alleviates both the informational and computational burden of FP. Furthermore, we introduce JSFP with inertia, i.e., a probabilistic reluctance to change strategies, and establish the convergence to a pure Nash equilibrium in all generalized ordinal potential games in both cases of averaged or exponentially discounted historical data. We illustrate JSFP with inertia on the specific class of congestion games, a subset of generalized ordinal potential games. In particular, we illustrate the main results on a distributed traffic routing problem and derive tolling procedures that can lead to optimized total traffic congestion. The set of optimal matchings in the assignment matrix allows to define a reflexive and symmetric binary relation on each side of the market, the equal-partner binary relation. The number of equivalence classes of the transitive closure of the equal-partner binary relation determines the dimension of the core of the assignment game. This result provides an easy procedure to determine the dimension of the core directly from the entries of the assignment matrix and shows that the dimension of the core is not as much determined by the number of optimal matchings as by their relative position. We consider the problem of distributed convergence to efficient outcomes in coordination games through dynamics based on aspiration learning. Our first contribution is the characterization of the asymptotic behavior of the induced Markov chain of the iterated process in terms of an equivalent finite-state Markov chain. We then characterize explicitly the behavior of the proposed aspiration learning in a generalized version of coordination games, examples of which include network formation and common-pool games. In particular, we show that in generic coordination games the frequency at which an efficient action profile is played can be made arbitrarily large. Although convergence to efficient outcomes is desirable, in several coordination games, such as common-pool games, attainability of fair outcomes, i.e., sequences of plays at which players experience highly rewarding returns with the same frequency, might also be of special interest. To this end, we demonstrate through analysis and simulations that aspiration learning also establishes fair outcomes in all symmetric coordination games, including common-pool games. @PARASPLIT Read More: http: epubs.siam.org doi abs 10.1137 110852462 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. In citepapa, Papadimitriou formalized the notion of routing stability in BGP as the following coalitional game theoretic problem: Given a network with a multicommodity flow satisfying node capacity and demand constraints, the payoff of a node is the total flow originated or terminated at it. A payoff allocation is in the core if and only if there is no subset of nodes that can increase their payoff by seceding from the network. We answer one of the open problems in citepapa by proving that for any network, the core is non-empty in both the transferable (where the nodes can compensate each other with side payments) and the non-transferable case. In the transferable case we show that such an allocation can be computed in polynomial time. We also generalize this result to the case where a strictly concave utility function is associated with each commodity. The assignment game is a model for a two-sided market in which a product that comes in large, indivisible units (e.g., houses, cars, etc.) is exchanged for money, and in which each participant either supplies or demands exactly one unit. The units need not be alike, and the same unit may have different values to different participants. It is shown here that the outcomes in thecore of such a game — i.e., those that cannot be improved upon by any subset of players — are the solutions of a certain linear programming problem dual to the optimal assignment problem, and that these outcomes correspond exactly to the price-lists that competitively balance supply and demand. The geometric structure of the core is then described and interpreted in economic terms, with explicit attention given to the special case (familiar in the classic literature) in which there is no product differentiation — i.e., in which the units are interchangeable. Finally, a critique of the core solution reveals an insensitivity to some of the bargaining possibilities inherent in the situation, and indicates that further analysis would be desirable using other game-theoretic solution concepts. Game-theoretic tools are becoming a popular design choice for distributed resource allocation algorithms. A central component of this design choice is the assignment of utility functions to the individual agents. The goal is to assign each agent an admissible utility function such that the resulting game possesses a host of desirable properties, including scalability, tractability, and existence and efficiency of pure Nash equilibria. In this paper we formally study this question of utility design on a class of games termed distributed welfare games. We identify several utility design methodologies that guarantee desirable game properties irrespective of the specific application domain. Lastly, we illustrate the results in this paper on two commonly studied classes of resource allocation problems: “coverage” problems and “coloring” problems. This paper contributes to the program of numerical characterization and classification of simple games outlined in the classic monograph of von Neumann and Morgenstern. We suggest three possible ways to classify simple games beyond the classes of weighted and roughly weighted games. To this end we introduce three hierarchies of games and prove some relationships between their classes. We prove that our hierarchies are true (i.e., infinite) hierarchies. In particular, they are strict in the sense that more of the key “resource” (which may, for example, be the size or structure of the “tie-breaking” region where the weights of the different coalitions are considered so close that we are allowed to specify either winningness or nonwinningness of the coalition) yields the flexibility to capture strictly more games. In this paper we give structural characterizations of disjunctive and conjunctive hierarchical simple games by characterizing them as complete games with a unique shift-maximal losing coalition, and a unique shift-minimal winning coalition, respectively. We prove canonical representation theorems for both types of hierarchical games and establish duality between them. We characterize the disjunctive and conjunctive hierarchical games that are weighted majority games. This paper was inspired by (2008) and Farras and Padro (2010) characterizations of ideal weighted threshold access structures of secret sharing schemes. Abstract This paper presents several comparative statics results concerning the entry problem in assignment games. The results compare sets of equilibria, and hence do not require the usual assumption of a unique equilibrium. By the device of a “competing-group generator,” the set of players is decomposed into three interest groups, for which three forms of entry effects are identified. For the group with the strongest entry effect, it is found that, generically, (1) the benefit functions form a complete ordering and (2) the turnover effect dominates the unemployment effect. The implications of these results to bargaining, immigrations, and matching problems are discussed.