Game theory studies situations in which strategic players can modify the state of a given system, due to the absence of a central authority. Solution concepts, such as Nash equilibrium, are defined to predict the outcome of such situations. In multi-player settings, it has been pointed out that to be realistic, a solution concept should be obtainable via processes that are decentralized and reasonably simple. Accordingly we look at the computation of solution concepts by means of decentralized dynamics. These are algorithms in which players move in turns to improve their own utility and the hope is that the system reaches an "equilibrium" quickly. We study these dynamics for the class of opinion games, recently introduced by [, FOCS2011]. These are games, important in economics and sociology, that model the formation of an opinion in a social network. We study best-response dynamics and show upper and lower bounds on the convergence to Nash equilibria. We also study a noisy version of best-response dynamics, called logit dynamics, and prove a host of results about its convergence rate as the noise in the system varies. To get these results, we use a variety of techniques developed to bound the mixing time of Markov chains, including coupling, spectral characterizations and bottleneck ratio.
 We investigate from the computational viewpoint multi-player games that are guaranteed to have pure Nash equilibria. We focus on congestion games, and show that a pure Nash equilibrium can be computed in polynomial time in the symmetric network case, while the problem is PLS-complete in general. We discuss implications to non-atomic congestion games, and we explore the scope of the potential function method for proving existence of pure Nash equilibria. Many natural games have both high and low cost Nash equilibria: their Price of Anarchy is high and yet their Price of Stability is low. In such cases, one could hope to move behavior from a high cost equilibrium to a low cost one by a "public service advertising campaign" encouraging players to follow the low-cost equilibrium, and if every player follows the advice then we are done. However, the assumption that everyone follows instructions is unrealistic. A more natural assumption is that some players will follow them, while other players will not. In this paper we consider the question of to what extent can such an advertising campaign cause behavior to switch from a bad equilibrium to a good one even if only a fraction of people actually follow the given advice, and do so only temporarily. Unlike the "value of altruism" model, we assume everyone will ultimately act in their own interest. We analyze this question for several important and widely studied classes of games including network design with fair cost sharing, scheduling with unrelated machines, and party affiliation games (which include consensus and cut games). We show that for some of these games (such as fair cost sharing), a random α fraction of the population following the given advice is sufficient to get a guarantee within an O(1 α) factor of the price of stability for any α > 0. For other games (such as party affiliation games), there is a strict threshold (in this case, α 1 2 is enough to reach near-optimal behavior). Finally, for some games, such as scheduling, no value α < 1 is sufficient. We also consider a "viral marketing" model in which certain players are specifically targeted, and analyze the ability of such targeting to influence behavior using a much smaller number of targeted players.