Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Data-Driven Automated Mechanism Design using Multi-Agent Revealed Preferences (2404.15391v2)

Published 23 Apr 2024 in cs.GT, econ.GN, and q-fin.EC

Abstract: Suppose a black box, representing multiple agents, generates decisions from a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium of a game. Assume that we can choose the input vector to the black box and this affects the utilities of the agents, but we do not know the utilities of the individual agents. By viewing the decisions from the black box, how can we steer the Nash equilibrium to a socially optimal point? This paper constructs a reinforcement learning (RL) framework for adaptively achieving this mechanism design objective. We first derive a novel multi-agent revealed preference test for Pareto optimality -- this yields necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of utility functions under which empirically observed mixed-strategy Nash equilibria are socially optimal. These conditions take the form of a testable linear program, and this result is of independent interest. We utilize this result to construct an inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) step to determine the Pareto gap, i.e., the distance of observed strategies from Pareto optimality. We pair this IRL step with an RL policy gradient algorithm and prove convergence to a mechanism which minimizes the Pareto gap, thereby inducing social optimality in equilibria strategies. We also reveal an intimate connection between our constructed loss function and several robust revealed preference metrics; this allows us to reason about algorithmic suboptimality through the lens of these well-established microeconomic principles. Finally, in the case when only finitely many i.i.d. samples from mixed-strategies (partial strategy specifications) are available, we derive concentration bounds for our algorithm's convergence, and we construct a distributionally robust RL procedure which achieves mechanism design for the fully specified strategies.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (15)
  1. C. Yi, J. Cai, C. Yi, and J. Cai, “Fundamentals of Mechanism Design,” Market-Driven Spectrum Sharing in Cognitive Radio, pp. 17–34, 2016.
  2. D. Mookherjee, “Decentralization, hierarchies, and incentives: A mechanism design perspective,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 367–390, 2006.
  3. S. Sengupta and M. Chatterjee, “An economic framework for dynamic spectrum access and service pricing,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1200–1213, 2009.
  4. N. Nisan and A. Ronen, “Algorithmic mechanism design,” in Proceedings of the thirty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1999, pp. 129–140.
  5. V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm, “Complexity of mechanism design,” arXiv preprint cs/0205075, 2002.
  6. F. Forges and E. Minelli, “Afriat’s theorem for general budget sets,” Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 135–145, 2009.
  7. P. A. Samuelson, “A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour,” Economica, vol. 5, no. 17, pp. 61–71, 1938.
  8. S. N. Afriat, “The construction of utility functions from expenditure data,” International economic review, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67–77, 1967.
  9. J. L. Maryak and D. C. Chin, “Global random optimization by simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation,” in Proceedings of the 2001 American control conference.(Cat. No. 01CH37148), vol. 2.   IEEE, 2001, pp. 756–762.
  10. M. Welling and Y. W. Teh, “Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient langevin dynamics,” in Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11).   Citeseer, 2011, pp. 681–688.
  11. X. Guo and Y. Zhang, “Towards an analytical framework for potential games,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02259, 2023.
  12. J. B. Rosen, “Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave n-person games,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 520–534, 1965.
  13. J. Krawczyk and J. Zuccollo, “Nira-3: An improved MATLAB package for finding Nash equilibria in infinite games,” 2006.
  14. L. Cherchye, B. De Rock, and F. Vermeulen, “The revealed preference approach to collective consumption behaviour: Testing and sharing rule recovery,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 176–198, 2011.
  15. R. M. Freund, “Postoptimal analysis of a linear program under simultaneous changes in matrix coefficients,” in Mathematical Programming Essays in Honor of George B. Dantzig Part I.   Springer, 2009, pp. 1–13.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com