We study the problem of computing Nash equilibria of zero-sum games.Many natural zero-sum games have exponentially many strategies, but highly structured payoffs. For example, in the well-studied Colonel Blotto game (introduced by Borel in 1921), players must divide a pool of troops among a set of battlefields with the goal of winning (i.e., having more troops in) a majority. The Colonel Blotto game is commonly used for analyzing a wide range of applications from the U.S presidential election, to innovative technology competitions, toadvertisement, to sports.However, because of the size of the strategy space, standard methods for computing equilibria of zero-sum games fail to be computationally feasible.Indeed, despite its importance, only few solutions for special variants of the problem are known. In this paper we show how to compute equilibria of Colonel Blotto games. Moreover, our approach takes the form of a general reduction: to find a Nash equilibrium of a zero-sum game, it suffices to design a separation oracle for the strategy polytope of any bilinear game that is payoff-equivalent. We then apply this technique to obtain the first polytime algorithms for a variety of games. In addition to Colonel Blotto, we also show how to compute equilibria in an infinite-strategy variant called the General Lotto game; this involves showing how to prune the strategy space to a finite subset before applying our reduction. We also consider the class of dueling games, first introduced by Immorlica et al. (2011). We show that our approach provably extends the class of dueling games for which equilibria can be computed: we introduce a new dueling game, the matching duel, on which prior methods fail to be computationally feasible but upon which our reduction can be applied.

We prove the first non-trivial performance ratios strictly above 0.5 for weighted versions of the oblivious matching problem. Even for the unweighted version, since Aronson, Dyer, Frieze, and Suen first proved a non-trivial ratio above 0.5 in the mid-1990s, during the next twenty years several attempts have been made to improve this ratio, until Chan, Chen, Wu and Zhao successfully achieved a significant ratio of 0.523 very recently (SODA 2014). To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first in the literature that considers the node-weighted and edge-weighted versions of the problem in arbitrary graphs (as opposed to bipartite graphs). (1) For arbitrary node weights, we prove that a weighted version of the Ranking algorithm has ratio strictly above 0.5. We have discovered a new structural property of the ranking algorithm: if a node has two unmatched neighbors at the end of algorithm, then it will still be matched even when its rank is demoted to the bottom. This property allows us to form LP constraints for both the node-weighted and the unweighted oblivious matching problems. As a result, we prove that the ratio for the node-weighted case is at least 0.501512. Interestingly via the structural property, we can also improve slightly the ratio for the unweighted case to 0.526823 (from the previous best 0.523166 in SODA 2014). (2) For a bounded number of distinct edge weights, we show that ratio strictly above 0.5 can be achieved by partitioning edges carefully according to the weights, and running the (unweighted) Ranking algorithm on each part. Our analysis is based on a new primal-dual framework known as \emph{matching coverage}, in which dual feasibility is bypassed. Instead, only dual constraints corresponding to edges in an optimal matching are satisfied. Using this framework we also design and analyze an algorithm for the edge-weighted online bipartite matching problem with free disposal. We prove that for the case of bounded online degrees, the ratio is strictly above 0.5.

We study competition in a general framework introduced by Immorlica, Kalai, Lucier, Moitra, Postlewaite, and Tennenholtz and answer their main open question. Immorlica et al. considered classic optimization problems in terms of competition and introduced a general class of games called dueling games. They model this competition as a zero-sum game, where two players are competing for a user’s satisfaction. In their main and most natural game, the ranking duel, a user requests a webpage by submitting a query and players output an ordering over all possible webpages based on the submitted query. The user tends to choose the ordering which displays her requested webpage in a higher rank. The goal of both players is to maximize the probability that her ordering beats that of her opponent and gets the user's attention. Immorlica et al. show this game directs both players to provide suboptimal search results. However, they leave the following as their main open question: "does competition between algorithms improve or degrade expected performance?" (see the introduction for more quotes) In this paper, we resolve this question for the ranking duel and a more general class of dueling games. More precisely, we study the quality of orderings in a competition between two players. This game is a zero-sum game, and thus any Nash equilibrium of the game can be described by minimax strategies. Let the value of the user for an ordering be a function of the position of her requested item in the corresponding ordering, and the social welfare for an ordering be the expected value of the corresponding ordering for the user. We propose the price of competition which is the ratio of the social welfare for the worst minimax strategy to the social welfare obtained by asocial planner. Finding the price of competition is another approach to obtain structural results of Nash equilibria. We use this criterion for analyzing the quality of orderings in the ranking duel. Although Immorlica et al. show that the competition leads to suboptimal strategies, we prove the quality of minimax results is surprisingly close to that of the optimum solution. In particular, via a novel factor-revealing LP for computing price of anarchy, we prove if the value of the user for an ordering is a linear function of its position, then the price of competition is at least 0.612 and bounded above by 0.833. Moreover we consider the cost minimization version of the problem. We prove, the social cost of the worst minimax strategy is at most 3 times the optimal social cost. Last but not least, we go beyond linear valuation functions and capture the main challenge for bounding the price of competition for any arbitrary valuation function. We present a principle which states that the lower bound for the price of competition for all 0-1 valuation functions is the same as the lower bound for the price of competition for all possible valuation functions. It is worth mentioning that this principle not only works for the ranking duel but also for all dueling games. This principle says, in any dueling game, the most challenging part of bounding the price of competition is finding a lower bound for 0-1 valuation functions. We leverage this principle to show that the price of competition is at least 0.25 for the generalized ranking duel.

People make decisions and express their opinions according to their communities. A natural idea for controlling the diffusion of a behavior is to find influential people, and employ them to spread a desired behavior. We investigate an influencing problem when individuals' behaviors are affected by their friends in an opinion formation process. Our goal is to design efficient algorithms for finding opinion leaders such that changing their opinions has a great impact on the overall external behaviors in the society. We study directed social networks and define a set of problems like maximizing the sum of individuals' behaviors or maximizing the number of individuals whose external behaviors are above a threshold. We discuss the complexity of the defined problems and design polynomial-time optimum algorithms for the non NP-hard variants of them. We also propose polynomial-time approximation algorithms with guaranteed performances and prove inapproximability results for the NP-hard variants of these problems. Furthermore, we run simulations on real-world social networks and show our proposed algorithm outperforms the classical algorithms such as degree-based algorithm, closeness-based algorithm, and pagerank-based algorithm.

In social networks, opinions and behaviors tend to spread quickly. When an idea seeks to gain attention, success requires both attracting individual users and a careful understanding of cascading behavior -- an idea that attracts a small set of highly influential individuals can easily overwhelm an idea with a much larger, but less influential, support base. Understanding exactly how the choices of individuals propagate through a network, however, poses significant challenges. In this work, we consider a model recently studied by Chierichetti, Kleinberg, and Panconesi (EC 2012) to model cascading behavior when members of a social network must each choose one of two opposing ideas. The model captures the struggle between a desire to follow personal preferences and to match the choices of those you interact with.

We study the power of fractional allocations of resources to maximize our influence in a network. This work extends in a natural way the well-studied model by Kleinberg, Kempe, and Tardos (2003), where a designer selects a (small) seed set of nodes in a social network to influence directly, this influence cascades when other nodes reach certain thresholds of neighbor influence, and the goal is to maximize the final number of influenced nodes. Despite extensive study from both practical and theoretical viewpoints, this model limits the designer to a binary choice for each node, with no chance to apply intermediate levels of influence. This model captures some settings precisely, such as exposure to an idea or pathogen, but it fails to capture very relevant concerns in others, for example, a manufacturer promoting a new product by distributing five "20% off" coupons instead of giving away a single free product.

We study Nash equilibria in the setting of network creation games introduced recently by Fabrikant, Luthra, Maneva, Papadimitriou, and Shenker. In this game we have a set of selfish node players, each creating some incident links, and the goal is to minimize α times the cost of the created links plus sum of the distances to all other players. Fabrikant et al. proved an upper bound O (√α) on the price of anarchy: the relative cost of the lack of coordination. Albers, Eilts, Even-Dar, Mansour, and Roditty show that the price of anarchy is constant for α = O (√ n ) and for α ≥ 12 n ⌈ lg n ⌉, and that the price of anarchy is 15(1+(min{α 2 / n , n 2 /α}) 1/3 ) for any α. The latter bound shows the first sublinear worst-case bound, O ( n 1/3 ), for all α. But no better bound is known for α between ω(√ n ) and o ( n lg n ). Yet α ≈ n is perhaps the most interesting range, for it corresponds to considering the average distance (instead of the sum of distances) to other nodes to be roughly on par with link creation (effectively dividing α by n ). In this article, we prove the first o ( n ε ) upper bound for general α, namely 2 O (√ lg n ) . We also prove a constant upper bound for α = O ( n 1-ε ) for any fixed ε > 0, substantially reducing the range of α for which constant bounds have not been obtained. Along the way, we also improve the constant upper bound by Albers et al. (with the lead constant of 15 ) to 6 for α < ( n /2) 1/2 and to 4 for α < ( n /2) 1/3 . Next we consider the bilateral network variant of Corbo and Parkes, in which links can be created only with the consent of both endpoints and the link price is shared equally by the two. Corbo and Parkes show an upper bound of O (√α) and a lower bound of Ω(lgα) for α ≤ n . In this article, we show that in fact the upper bound O (√α) is tight for α ≤ n , by proving a matching lower bound of Ω(√α). For α > n , we prove that the price of anarchy is Θ( n /√ α). Finally we introduce a variant of both network creation games, in which each player desires to minimize α times the cost of its created links plus the maximum distance (instead of the sum of distances) to the other players. This variant of the problem is naturally motivated by considering the worst case instead of the average case. Interestingly, for the original (unilateral) game, we show that the price of anarchy is at most 2 for α ≥ n , O (min {4 √lg n , ( n /α) 1/3 }) for 2√ lg n ≤ α ≤ n , and O ( n 2/α ) for α < 2√ lg n . For the bilateral game, we prove matching upper and lower bounds of Θ( n /α + 1) for α ≤ n , and an upper bound of 2 for α > n .

We analyze the structure of equilibria and the price of anarchy in the family of network creation games considered extensively in the past few years, which attempt to unify the network design and network routing problems by modeling both creation and usage costs. In general, the games are played on a host graph, where each node is a selfish independent agent (player) and each edge has a fixed link creation cost~$\alpha$. Together the agents create a network (a subgraph of the host graph) while selfishly minimizing the link creation costs plus the sum of the distances to all other players (usage cost). In this paper, we pursue two important facets of the network creation~game. First, we study extensively a natural version of the game, called the cooperative model, where nodes can collaborate and share the cost of creating any edge in the host graph. We prove the first nontrivial bounds in this model, establishing that the price of anarchy is polylogarithmic in $n$ for all values of~$\alpha$ in complete host graphs. This bound is the first result of this type for any version of the network creation game; most previous general upper bounds are polynomial in~$n$. Interestingly, we also show that equilibrium graphs have polylogarithmic diameter for the most natural range of~$\alpha$ (at most $n \mathop{\rm polylg}\nolimits n$). Second, we study the impact of the natural assumption that the host graph is a general graph, not necessarily complete. This model is a simple example of nonuniform creation costs among the edges (effectively allowing weights of $\alpha$ and~$\infty$). We prove the first assemblage of upper and lower bounds for this context, establishing nontrivial tight bounds for many ranges of~$\alpha$, for both the unilateral and cooperative versions of network creation. In particular, we establish polynomial lower bounds for both versions and many ranges of~$\alpha$, even for this simple nonuniform cost model, which sharply contrasts the conjectured constant bounds for these games in complete (uniform) graphs.

We give approximation algorithms and inapproximability results for a class of movement problems. In general, these problems involve planning the coordinated motion of a large collection of objects (representing anything from a robot swarm or firefighter team to map labels or network messages) to achieve a global property of the network while minimizing the maximum or average movement. In particular, we consider the goals of achieving connectivity (undirected and directed), achieving connectivity between a given pair of vertices, achieving independence (a dispersion problem), and achieving a perfect matching (with applications to multicasting). This general family of movement problems encompasses an intriguing range of graph and geometric algorithms, with several real-world applications and a surprising range of approximability. In some cases, we obtain tight approximation and inapproximability results using direct techniques (without use of PCP), assuming just that P ≠ NP.

We study permutation betting markets, introduced by Chen, Fortnow, Nikolova, and Pennock [3]. For these markets, we consider subset bettings in which each trader can bet on a subset of candidates ending up in a subset of positions. We consider the revenue maximization problem for the auctioneer in two main frameworks: the risk-free revenue maximization (studied in [3]), and the probabilistic revenue maximization. We also explore the use of some certain knowledge or extra information about the possible outcomes of the market. We first show that finding the optimal revenue in the risk-free model for the subset betting problem is inapproximable. This resolves an open question posed by Chen et al. [3]. In order to identify solvable variants of the problem, we propose the singleton betting language which allows traders to bet an arbitrary value on one candidate for one position. For singleton bettings, we first provide a linear-time implementable necessary and sufficient condition for existence of a solution with positive revenue for any possible outcome. Furthermore, we develop an LP-based polynomial-time algorithm to find the optimum solution of this problem. In addition, we show how to extend this LP-based method to handle some extra information about the possible outcomes. Finally, we consider the revenue maximization problem in a probabilistic setting. For this variant, we observe that the problem of maximizing the expected revenue is polynomial-time solvable, but we show that maximizing the probability of achieving a pre-specified revenue is #P-Complete.

We study Nash equilibria in the setting of network creation games introduced recently by Fabrikant, Luthra, Maneva, Papadimitriou and Shenker. In this game we have a set of selfish node players, each creating some incident links, and the goal is to minimize α times the cost of the created links plus sum of the distances to all other players. Fabrikant et al. proved an upper bound O(√α) on the price of anarchy, i.e., the relative cost of the lack of coordination. Albers, Eilts, Even-Dar, Mansour, and Roditty show that the price of anarchy is constant for α = O(√n) and for α ≥ 12n[lg n], and that the price of anarchy is 15(1+min {α2 n, n2 α})1/3) for any α. The latter bound shows the first sublinear worst-case bound, O(n1/3), for all α. But no better bound is known for α between ω(√n) and o(n lg n). Yet α ≈ n is perhaps the most interesting range, for it corresponds to considering the average distance (instead ofthe sum of distances) to other nodes to be roughly on par with link creation (effectively dividing α by n).