Abstract We design and analyze a multi-level game-theoretic model of hierarchical policy interventions for epidemic control, such as those in response 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 cost components that have opposite dependence on the policy strength—post-intervention infection rates and the socio-economic cost of policy implementation. Additionally, our model 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 counties with state-level policies. We propose two novel algorithms for approximating solutions to such games. The first is based on best response dynamics (BRD) and exploits the tree structure of the game. The second combines quadratic integer programming (QIP), which enables us to collapse the two lowest levels of the game, with the best response dynamics. We experimentally characterize the scalability and equilibrium approximation quality of our two approaches against model parameters. Finally, we conduct experiments in simulations based on both synthetic and real-world data under various parameter configurations and analyze the resulting (approximate) equilibria to gain insight into the impact of decentralization on overall welfare (measured as the negative sum of costs) as well as emergent properties like social welfare, free-riding, and fairness in cost distribution among policy-makers.

We revisit the setting of fairly allocating indivisible items when agents have different weights representing their entitlements. First, we propose a parameterized family of relaxations for weighted envy-freeness and the same for weighted proportionality; the parameters indicate whether smaller-weight or larger-weight agents should be given a higher priority. We show that each notion in these families can always be satisfied, but any two cannot necessarily be fulfilled simultaneously. We then introduce an intuitive weighted generalization of maximin share fairness and establish the optimal approximation of it that can be guaranteed. Furthermore, we characterize the implication relations between the various weighted fairness notions introduced in this and prior work, and relate them to the lower and upper quota axioms from apportionment.

From large-scale organizations to decentralized political systems, hierarchical strategic decision making is commonplace. We introduce a novel class of structured hierarchical games (SHGs) that formally capture such hierarchical strategic interactions. In an SHG, each player is a node in a tree, and strategic choices of players are sequenced from root to leaves, with root moving first, followed by its children, then followed by their children, and so on until the leaves. A player’s utility in an SHG depends on its own decision, and on the choices of its parent and all the tree leaves. SHGs thus generalize simultaneous-move games, as well as Stackelberg games with many followers. We leverage the structure of both the sequence of player moves as well as payoff dependence to develop a gradient-based back propagation-style algorithm, which we call Differential Backward Induction (DBI), for approximating equilibria of SHGs. We provide a sufficient condition for convergence of DBI and demonstrate its efficacy in finding approximate equilibrium solutions to several SHG models of hierarchical policy-making problems.

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible items to agents with different entitlements, which captures, for example, the distribution of ministries among political parties in a coalition government. Our focus is on picking sequences derived from common apportionment methods, including five traditional divisor methods and the quota method. We paint a complete picture of these methods in relation to known envy-freeness and proportionality relaxations for indivisible items as well as monotonicity properties with respect to the resource, population, and weights. In addition, we provide characterizations of picking sequences satisfying each of the fairness notions, and show that the well-studied maximum Nash welfare solution fails resource- and population-monotonicity even in the unweighted setting. Our results serve as an argument in favor of using picking sequences in weighted fair division problems.

In this paper, we study the problem of matching a set of items to a set of agents partitioned into types so as to balance fairness towards the types against overall utility/efficiency. We extend multiple desirable properties of indivisible goods allocation to our model and investigate the possibility and hardness of achieving combinations of these properties, e.g. we prove that maximizing utilitarian social welfare under constraints of typewise envy-freeness up to one item (TEF1) is computationally intractable. We also define a new concept of waste for this setting, show experimentally that augmenting an existing algorithm with a marginal utility maximization heuristic can produce a TEF1 solution with reduced waste, and also provide a polynomial-time algorithm for computing a non-wasteful TEF1 allocation for binary agent-item utilities.

In this paper, we introduce a multi-agent multi-armed bandit-based model for ad hoc teamwork with expensive communication. The goal of the team is to maximize the total reward gained from pulling arms of a bandit over a number of epochs. In each epoch, each agent decides whether to pull an arm, or to broadcast the reward it obtained in the previous epoch to the team and forgo pulling an arm. These decisions must be made only on the basis of the agent’s private information and the public information broadcast prior to that epoch. We first benchmark the achievable utility by analyzing an idealized version of this problem where a central authority has complete knowledge of rewards acquired from all arms in all epochs and uses a multiplicative weights update algorithm for allocating arms to agents. We then introduce an algorithm for the decentralized setting that uses a value-of-information based communication strategy and an exploration-exploitation strategy based on the centralized algorithm, and show experimentally that it converges rapidly to the performance of the centralized method.

The logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR), the most common automated market making rule for prediction markets, is typically studied in the framework of dealer markets, where the market maker takes one side of every transaction. The continuous double auction (CDA) is a much more widely used microstructure for general financial markets in practice. In this paper, we study the properties of CDA prediction markets with zero-intelligence traders in which an LMSR-style market maker participates actively. We extend an existing idea of Robin Hanson for integrating LMSR with limit order books in order to provide a new, self-contained market making algorithm that does not need “special” access to the order book and can participate as another trader. We find that, as expected, the presence of the market maker leads to generally lower bid-ask spreads and higher trader surplus (or price improvement), but, surprisingly, does not necessarily improve price discovery and market efficiency; this latter effect is more pronounced when there is higher variability in trader beliefs.

A market scoring rule (MSR) – a popular tool for designing algorithmic prediction markets – is an incentive-compatible mechanism for the aggregation of probabilistic beliefs from myopic risk-neutral agents. In this paper, we add to a growing body of research aimed at understanding the precise manner in which the price process induced by a MSR incorporates private information from agents who deviate from the assumption of risk-neutrality. We first establish that, for a myopic trading agent with a risk-averse utility function, a MSR satisfying mild regularity conditions elicits the agent’s risk-neutral probability conditional on the latest market state rather than her true subjective probability. Hence, we show that a MSR under these conditions effectively behaves like a more traditional method of belief aggregation, namely an opinion pool, for agents’ true probabilities. In particular, the logarithmic market scoring rule acts as a logarithmic pool for constant absolute risk aversion utility agents, and as a linear pool for an atypical budget-constrained agent utility with decreasing absolute risk aversion. We also point out the interpretation of a market maker under these conditions as a Bayesian learner even when agent beliefs are static.

We describe the design of Instructor Rating Markets (IRMs) where human participants interact through intelligent automated market-makers in order to provide dynamic collective feedback to instructors on the progress of their classes. The markets are among the first to enable the empirical study of prediction markets where traders can affect the very outcomes they are trading on. More than 200 students across the Rensselaer campus participated in markets for ten classes in the Fall 2010 semester. In this paper, we describe how we designed these markets in order to elicit useful information, and analyze data from the deployment. We show that market prices convey useful information on future instructor ratings and contain significantly more information than do past ratings. The bulk of useful information contained in the price of a particular class is provided by students who are in that class, showing that the markets are serving to disseminate insider information. At the same time, we find little evidence of attempted manipulation by raters. The markets are also a laboratory for comparing different market designs and the resulting price dynamics, and we show how they can be used to compare market making algorithms.

Ensuring sufficient liquidity is one of the key challenges for designers of prediction markets. Variants of the logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR) have emerged as the standard. LMSR market makers are loss-making in general and need to be subsidized. Proposed variants, including liquidity sensitive market makers, suffer from an inability to react rapidly to jumps in population beliefs. In this paper we propose a Bayesian Market Maker for binary outcome (or continuous 0-1) markets that learns from the informational content of trades. By sacrificing the guarantee of bounded loss, the Bayesian Market Maker can simultaneously offer: (1) significantly lower expected loss at the same level of liquidity, and, (2) rapid convergence when there is a jump in the underlying true value of the security. We present extensive evaluations of the algorithm in experiments with intelligent trading agents and in human subject experiments. Our investigation also elucidates some general properties of market makers in prediction markets. In particular, there is an inherent tradeoff between adaptability to market shocks and convergence during market equilibrium.