Decentralized air tra ffic management systems o ff er a scalable alternative to centralized control, but often assume high levels of cooperation. In practice, such assumptions frequently break down since airspace sectors operate independently and prioritize local objectives. We address the problem of sector overload in decentralized air tra ffic management by proposing a mechanism that models self-interested behaviors based on best response dynamics. Each sector adjusts the departure times of flights under its control to reduce its own congestion, without any shared decision making. A tunable cooperativeness factor models the degree to which each sector is willing to reduce overload in other sectors. We prove that the proposed mechanism satisfies a potential game structure, ensuring that best response dynamics converge to a pure Nash equilibrium, under a mild restriction. In addition, we identify a su fficient condition under which an overload-free solution corresponds to a global minimizer of the potential function. Numerical experiments using 24 hours of European flight data demonstrate that the proposed algorithm substantially reduces overload even with only minimal cooperation between sectors, while maintaining scalability and matching the solution quality of centralized solvers. Keywords: Air Tra ffi c Management, Noncooperative Coordination, Game Theory, Potential Game, Decentralized System, Sector Overload 1. Introduction Decentralized approaches to air tra ffic management (A TM) are gaining attention as scalable alternatives to centralized control [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], due to the increasing complexity of air tra ffic.

Algorithmic trading in modern financial markets is widely acknowledged to exhibit strategic, game-theoretic behaviors whose complexity can be difficult to model. A recent series of papers (Chriss, 2024b,c,a, 2025) has made progress in the setting of trading for position building. Here parties wish to buy or sell a fixed number of shares in a fixed time period in the presence of both temporary and permanent market impact, resulting in exponentially large strategy spaces. While these papers primarily consider the existence and structural properties of equilibrium strategies, in this work we focus on the algorithmic aspects of the proposed model. We give an efficient algorithm for computing best responses, and show that while the temporary impact only setting yields a potential game, best response dynamics do not generally converge for the general setting, for which no fast algorithm for (Nash) equilibrium computation is known. This leads us to consider the broader notion of Coarse Correlated Equilibria (CCE), which we show can be computed efficiently via an implementation of Follow the Perturbed Leader (FTPL). We illustrate the model and our results with an experimental investigation, where FTPL exhibits interesting behavior in different regimes of the relative weighting between temporary and permanent market impact.

We study strategic location choice by customers and sellers, termed the Bakers and Millers Game in the literature. In our generalized setting, each miller can freely choose any location for setting up a mill, while each baker is restricted in the choice of location for setting up a bakery. For optimal bargaining power, a baker would like to select a location with many millers to buy flour from and with little competition from other bakers. Likewise, a miller aims for a location with many bakers and few competing millers. Thus, both types of agents choose locations to optimize the ratio of agents of opposite type divided by agents of the same type at their chosen location. Originally raised in the context of Fractional Hedonic Games, the Bakers and Millers Game has applications that range from commerce to product design. We study the impact of location restrictions on the properties of the game. While pure Nash equilibria trivially exist in the setting without location restrictions, we show via a sophisticated, efficient algorithm that even the more challenging restricted setting admits equilibria. Moreover, the computed equilibrium approximates the optimal social welfare by a factor of at most $2\left(\frac{e}{e-1}\right)$. Furthermore, we give tight bounds on the price of anarchy/stability. On the conceptual side, the location choice feature adds a new layer to the standard setting of Hedonic Games, in the sense that agents that select the same location form a coalition. This allows to naturally restrict the possible coalitions that can be formed. With this, our model generalizes simple symmetric Fractional Hedonic Games on complete bipartite valuation graphs and also Hedonic Diversity Games with utilities single-peaked at 0. We believe that this generalization is also a very interesting direction for other types of Hedonic Games.

For a federated learning model to perform well, it is crucial to have a diverse and representative dataset. However, the data contributors may only be concerned with the performance on a specific subset of the population, which may not reflect the diversity of the wider population. This creates a tension between the principal (the FL platform designer) who cares about global performance and the agents (the data collectors) who care about local performance. In this work, we formulate this tension as a game between the principal and multiple agents, and focus on the linear experiment design problem to formally study their interaction. We show that the statistical criterion used to quantify the diversity of the data, as well as the choice of the federated learning algorithm used, has a significant effect on the resulting equilibrium. We leverage this to design simple optimal federated learning mechanisms that encourage data collectors to contribute data representative of the global population, thereby maximizing global performance.

We consider the obnoxious facility location problem (in which agents prefer the facility location to be far from them) and propose a hierarchy of distance-based proportional fairness concepts for the problem. These fairness axioms ensure that groups of agents at the same location are guaranteed to be a distance from the facility proportional to their group size. We consider deterministic and randomized mechanisms, and compute tight bounds on the price of proportional fairness. In the deterministic setting, not only are our proportional fairness axioms incompatible with strategyproofness, the Nash equilibria may not guarantee welfare within a constant factor of the optimal welfare. On the other hand, in the randomized setting, we identify proportionally fair and strategyproof mechanisms that give an expected welfare within a constant factor of the optimal welfare.

This paper studies the existence of pure Nash equilibria in resource graph games, a general class of strategic games succinctly representing the players’ private costs. These games are defined relative to a finite set of resources and the strategy set of each player corresponds to a set of subsets of resources. The cost of a resource is an arbitrary function of the load vector of a certain subset of resources. As our main result, we give complete characterizations of the cost functions guaranteeing the existence of pure Nash equilibria for weighted and unweighted players, respectively. For unweighted players, pure Nash equilibria are guaranteed to exist for any choice of the players’ strategy space if and only if the cost of each resource is an arbitrary function of the load of the resource itself and linear in the load of all other resources where the linear coefficients of mutual influence of different resources are symmetric. This implies in particular that for any other cost structure there is a resource graph game that does not have a pure Nash equilibrium. For weighted games where players have intrinsic weights and the cost of each resource depends on the aggregated weight of its users, pure Nash equilibria are guaranteed to exist if and only if the cost of a resource is linear in all resource loads, and the linear factors of mutual influence are symmetric, or there is no interaction among resources and the cost is an exponential function of the local resource load. We further discuss the computational complexity of pure Nash equilibria in resource graph games showing that for unweighted games where pure Nash equilibria are guaranteed to exist, it is coNP-complete to decide for a given strategy profile whether it is a pure Nash equilibrium. For general resource graph games, we prove that the decision whether a pure Nash equilibrium exists is Σ p 2 -complete.

Machine learning algorithms often make decisions on behalf of agents with varied and sometimes conflicting interests. In domains where agents can choose to take their own action or delegate their action to a central mediator, an open question is how mediators should take actions on behalf of delegating agents. The main existing approach uses delegating agents to punish non-delegating agents in an attempt to get all agents to delegate, which tends to be costly for all. We introduce a Pareto Mediator which aims to improve outcomes for delegating agents without making any of them worse off. Our experiments in random normal form games, a restaurant recommendation game, and a reinforcement learning sequential social dilemma show that the Pareto Mediator greatly increases social welfare. Also, even when the Pareto Mediator is based on an incorrect model of agent utility, performance gracefully degrades to the pre-intervention level, due to the individual autonomy preserved by the voluntary mediator.

In this paper, we analyze an emerging economic form, called fans economy, in which a fan donates money to the host and gets allocated proportional to the amount of his donation (normalized by the overall amount of donation). Fans economy is the major way live streaming apps monetize and includes a number of popular economic forms ranging from crowdfunding to mutual fund. We propose an auction game, coined all-pay auctions with proportional allocation (APAPA), to model the fans economy and analyze the auction from the perspective of revenue. Comparing to the standard all-pay auction, which normally has no pure Nash-Equilibrium in the complete information setting, we solve the pure Nash-Equilibrium of the APAPA in closed form and prove its uniqueness. Motivated by practical concerns, we then analyze the case where APAPA is equipped with a reserve and show that there might be multiple equilibria in this case. We give an efficient algorithm to compute all equilibria in this case. For either case, with or without reserve, we show that APAPA always extracts revenue that 2-approximates the second-highest valuation. Furthermore, we conduct experiments to show how revenue changes with respect to different reserves.

We consider a voting setting where candidates have preferences about the outcome of the election and are free to join or leave the election. The corresponding candidacy game, where candidates choose strategically to participate or not, has been studied by Dutta et al. [6], who showed that no non-dictatorial voting procedure satisfying unanimity is candidacy-strategyproof, that is, is such that the joint action where all candidates enter the election is always a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. In [7] Dutta et al. also showed that for some voting tree procedures, there are candidacy games with no pure Nash equilibria, and that for the rule that outputs the sophisticated winner of voting by successive elimination, all games have a pure Nash equilibrium. No results were known about other voting rules. Here we prove several such results. For four candidates, the message is, roughly, that most scoring rules (with the exception of Borda) do not guarantee the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium but that Condorcet-consistent rules, for an odd number of voters, do. For five candidates, most rules we study no longer have this guarantee. Finally, we identify one prominent rule that guarantees the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium for any number of candidates (and for an odd number of voters): the Copeland rule. We also show that under mild assumptions on the voting rule, the existence of strong equilibria cannot be guaranteed.

In cooperation with a social startup, FoodBank Local, we have been helping Food Bank Australia develop technologies We study an online model of fair division designed to operate more effectively. So far, this has involved building to capture features of a real world charity problem.