GTMay 1, 2023
Strategic Resource Selection with Homophilic AgentsJonathan Gadea Harder, Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner et al.
The strategic selection of resources by selfish agents is a classic research direction, with Resource Selection Games and Congestion Games as prominent examples. In these games, agents select available resources and their utility then depends on the number of agents using the same resources. This implies that there is no distinction between the agents, i.e., they are anonymous. We depart from this very general setting by proposing Resource Selection Games with heterogeneous agents that strive for joint resource usage with similar agents. So, instead of the number of other users of a given resource, our model considers agents with different types and the decisive feature is the fraction of same-type agents among the users. More precisely, similarly to Schelling Games, there is a tolerance threshold $τ\in [0,1]$ which specifies the agents' desired minimum fraction of same-type agents on a resource. Agents strive to select resources where at least a $τ$-fraction of those resources' users have the same type as themselves. For $τ=1$, our model generalizes Hedonic Diversity Games with a peak at $1$. For our general model, we consider the existence and quality of equilibria and the complexity of maximizing social welfare. Additionally, we consider a bounded rationality model, where agents can only estimate the utility of a resource, since they only know the fraction of same-type agents on a given resource, but not the exact numbers. Thus, they cannot know the impact a strategy change would have on a target resource. Interestingly, we show that this type of bounded rationality yields favorable game-theoretic properties and specific equilibria closely approximate equilibria of the full knowledge setting.
LGOct 15, 2020
Maps for Learning Indexable ClassesJulian Berger, Maximilian Böther, Vanja Doskoč et al.
We study learning of indexed families from positive data where a learner can freely choose a hypothesis space (with uniformly decidable membership) comprising at least the languages to be learned. This abstracts a very universal learning task which can be found in many areas, for example learning of (subsets of) regular languages or learning of natural languages. We are interested in various restrictions on learning, such as consistency, conservativeness or set-drivenness, exemplifying various natural learning restrictions. Building on previous results from the literature, we provide several maps (depictions of all pairwise relations) of various groups of learning criteria, including a map for monotonicity restrictions and similar criteria and a map for restrictions on data presentation. Furthermore, we consider, for various learning criteria, whether learners can be assumed consistent.
LOOct 15, 2020
Learning Languages with Decidable HypothesesJulian Berger, Maximilian Böther, Vanja Doskoč et al.
In language learning in the limit, the most common type of hypothesis is to give an enumerator for a language. This so-called $W$-index allows for naming arbitrary computably enumerable languages, with the drawback that even the membership problem is undecidable. In this paper we use a different system which allows for naming arbitrary decidable languages, namely programs for characteristic functions (called $C$-indices). These indices have the drawback that it is now not decidable whether a given hypothesis is even a legal $C$-index. In this first analysis of learning with $C$-indices, we give a structured account of the learning power of various restrictions employing $C$-indices, also when compared with $W$-indices. We establish a hierarchy of learning power depending on whether $C$-indices are required (a) on all outputs; (b) only on outputs relevant for the class to be learned and (c) only in the limit as final, correct hypotheses. Furthermore, all these settings are weaker than learning with $W$-indices (even when restricted to classes of computable languages). We analyze all these questions also in relation to the mode of data presentation. Finally, we also ask about the relation of semantic versus syntactic convergence and derive the map of pairwise relations for these two kinds of convergence coupled with various forms of data presentation.