Search for: All records

In this work we propose a model where the value of a buyer for some product (like a slice of pizza) is a combination of their personal desire for the product (how hungry they are for pizza) and the quality of the product (how good the pizza is). Sellers in this setting have a two-dimensional optimization problem of determining both the quality level at which to make their product (how expensive ingredients to use) and the price at which to sell it. We analyze optimal seller strategies as well as analogs of Walrasian equilibria in this setting. A key question we are interested in is: to what extent will the price of a good be a reliable indicator of the good’s quality? One result we show is that indeed in this model, price will be a surprisingly robust signal for quality under optimal seller behavior. In particular, while the specific quality and price that a seller should choose will depend highly on the specific distribution of buyers, for optimal sellers, price and quality will be linearly related, independent of that distribution. We also show that for the case of multiple buyers and sellers, an analog of Walrasian equilibrium exists in this setting, and can be found via a natural tatonnement process. Finally, we analyze markets with a combination of “locals” (who know the quality of each good) and “tourists” (who do not) and analyze under what conditions the market will become a tourist trap, setting quality to zero while keeping prices high. 

Mixed strategies are often evaluated based on the expected payoff that they guarantee. This is not always desirable. In this paper, we consider games for which maximizing the expected payoff deviates from the actual goal of the players. To address this issue, we introduce the notion of a (u,p)-maxmin strategy which ensures receiving a minimum utility of u with probability at least p. We then give approximation algorithms for the problem of finding a (u, p)-maxmin strategy for these games. The first game that we consider is Colonel Blotto, a well-studied game that was introduced in 1921. In the Colonel Blotto game, two colonels divide their troops among a set of battlefields. Each battlefield is won by the colonel that puts more troops in it. The payoff of each colonel is the weighted number of battlefields that she wins. We show that maximizing the expected payoff of a player does not necessarily maximize her winning probability for certain applications of Colonel Blotto. For example, in presidential elections, the players’ goal is to maximize the probability of winning more than half of the votes, rather than maximizing the expected number of votes that they get. We give an exact algorithm for a natural variant of continuous version of this game. More generally, we provide constant and logarithmic approximation algorithms for finding (u, p)-maxmin strategies. We also introduce a security game version of Colonel Blotto which we call auditing game. It is played between two players, a defender and an attacker. The goal of the defender is to prevent the attacker from changing the outcome of an instance of Colonel Blotto. Again, maximizing the expected payoff of the defender is not necessarily optimal. Therefore we give a constant approximation for (u, p)-maxmin strategies. 

We consider a collaborative PAC learning model, in which k players attempt to learn the same underlying concept. We ask how much more information is required to learn an accurate classifier for all players simultaneously. We refer to the ratio between the sample complexity of collaborative PAC learning and its non-collaborative (single-player) counterpart as the overhead. We design learning algorithms with O(ln(k)) and O(ln2 (k)) overhead in the personalized and centralized variants our model. This gives an exponential improvement upon the naïve algorithm that does not share information among players. We complement our upper bounds with an Ω(ln(k)) overhead lower bound, showing that our results are tight up to a logarithmic factor. 

We revisit the problem of designing optimal, individually rational matching mechanisms (in a general sense, allowing for cycles in directed graphs), where each player — who is associated with a subset of vertices — matches as many of his own vertices when he opts into the matching mechanism as when he opts out. We offer a new perspective on this problem by considering an arbitrary graph, but assuming that vertices are associated with players at random. Our main result asserts that, under certain conditions, any fixed optimal matching is likely to be individually rational up to lower-order terms. We also show that a simple and practical mechanism is (fully) individually rational, and likely to be optimal up to lower-order terms. We discuss the implications of our results for market design in general, and kidney exchange in particular. 

In recent years crowdsourcing has become the method of choice for gathering labeled training data for learning algorithms. Standard approaches to crowdsourcing view the process of acquiring labeled data separately from the process of learning a classifier from the gathered data. This can give rise to computational and statistical challenges. For example, in most cases there are no known computationally efficient learning algorithms that are robust to the high level of noise that exists in crowdsourced data, and efforts to eliminate noise through voting often require a large number of queries per example. In this paper, we show how by interleaving the process of labeling and learning, we can attain computational efficiency with much less overhead in the labeling cost. In particular, we consider the realizable setting where there exists a true target function in F and consider a pool of labelers. When a noticeable fraction of the labelers are perfect, and the rest behave arbitrarily, we show that any F that can be efficiently learned in the traditional realizable PAC model can be learned in a computationally efficient manner by querying the crowd, despite high amounts of noise in the responses. Moreover, we show that this can be done while each labeler only labels a constant number of examples and the number of labels requested per example, on average, is a constant. When no perfect labelers exist, a related task is to find a set of the labelers which are good but not perfect. We show that we can identify all good labelers, when at least the majority of labelers are good. 

We develop the first polynomial-time algorithm for co-training of homogeneous linear separators under \em weak dependence, a relaxation of the condition of independence given the label. Our algorithm learns from purely unlabeled data, except for a single labeled example to break symmetry of the two classes, and works for any data distribution having an inverse-polynomial margin and with center of mass at the origin.