Hu, Zehong (Nanyang Technological University) | Sha, Meng (Nanyang Technological University) | Jarrah, Moath (Nanyang Technological University) | Zhang, Jie (Nanyang Technological University) | Xi, Hui (Royce Singapore Pte Ltd)
In agent-based simulation, emergent equilibrium describes the macroscopic steady states of agents' interactions. While the state of individual agents might be changing, the collective behavior pattern remains the same in macroscopic equilibrium states. Traditionally, these emergent equilibriums are calculated using Monte Carlo methods. However, these methods require thousands of repeated simulation runs, which are extremely time-consuming. In this paper, we propose a novel three-layer framework to efficiently compute emergent equilibriums. The framework consists of a macro-level pseudo-arclength equilibrium solver (PAES), a micro-level simulator (MLS) and a macro-micro bridge (MMB). It can adaptively explore parameter space and recursively compute equilibrium states using the predictor-corrector scheme. We apply the framework to the popular opinion dynamics and labour market models. The experimental results show that our framework outperformed Monte Carlo experiments in terms of computation efficiency while maintaining the accuracy.
One of the challenges of multiagent decision making is that the behavior needed to maximize utility can depend on what other agents choose to do: sometimes there is no "right" answer in the absence of knowledge of how opponents will act. The Nash equilibrium is a sensible choice of behavior because it represents a mutual best response. But, even when there is a unique equilibrium, other players are under no obligation to take part in it. This observation has been forcefully illustrated in the behavioral economics community where repeated experiments have shown individuals playing Nash equilibria and performing badly as a result. In this paper, we show how to apply a tool from behavioral economics called the Cognitive Hierarchy (CH) to the design of agents in general sum games. We attack the recently introduced Lemonade Game'' and show how the results of an open competition are well explained by CH. We believe this game, and perhaps many other similar games, boils down to predicting how deeply other agents in the game will be reasoning. An agent that does not reason enough risks being exploited by its opponents, while an agent that reasons too much may not be able to interact productively with its opponents. We demonstrate these ideas by presenting empirical results using agents from the competition and idealizations arising from a CH analysis.
Previous work on machine scheduling has considered the case of agents who control the scheduled jobs and attempt to minimize their own completion time. We argue that in cloud and grid computing settings, different machines cannot be considered to be fully cooperative as they may belong to competing economic entities, and that agents can easily move their jobs between competing providers. We therefore consider a setting in which the machines are also controlled by selfish agents, and attempt to maximize their own gains by strategically selecting their scheduling policy. We analyze the equilibria that arise due to competition in this 2-sided setting. In particular, not only do we require that the jobs will be in equilibrium with one another, but also that the schedulers' policies will be in equilibrium. We also consider different mixtures of classic deterministic scheduling policies and random scheduling policies.
Consider the problem of a group of agents trying to find a stable strategy profile for a joint interaction. A standard approach is to describe the situation as a single multi-player game and find an equilibrium strategy profile of that game. However, most algorithms for finding equilibria are computationally expensive; they are also centralized, requiring that all relevant payoff information be available to a single agent (or computer) who must determine the entire equilibrium profile. In this paper, we exploit two ideas to address these problems. We consider structured game representations, where the interaction between the agents is sparse, an assumption that holds in many real-world situations.
Department of Economics University of Bristol 8 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1TNFEngland Abstract This paper analyzes automated distributive negotiation where agents have firm deadlines that are private information. The agents are allowed to make and accept offers in any order in continuous time. We show that the only sequential equilibrium outcome is one where the agents walt until the first deadline, at which point that agent concedes everything to the other. This holds for pure and mixed strategies. So, interestingly, rational agents can never agree to a nontrivial split because offers signal enough weakness of bargaining power (early deadline) so that the recipient should never accept. Similarly, the offerer knows that it offered too much if the offer gets accepted: the offerer could have done better by out-waiting the opponent. In most cases, the deadline effect completely overrides time discounting and risk aversion: an agent's payoff does not change with its discount factor or risk attitude. Several implications for the design of negotiating agents are discussed. We also present an effective protocol that implements the equilibrium outcome in dominant strategies. 1 Introduction Multiagent systems for automated negotiation between self-interested agents are becoming increasingly important due to both technology push and application pull. The competitive pressure on the side with many agents often reduces undesirable strategic effects. On the other handFmarket mechanisms often have difficulty in "scaling down" to small numbers of agents (Osborne & Rubinstein 1990). In the limit of one-to-one negotiationFstrategic considerations become prevalent.