Eva Tardos

Ariana Abel, Yoav Kolumbus, Jeronimo Martin Duque et al.

We consider learning outcomes in games with carryover effects between rounds: when outcomes in the present round affect the game in the future. An important example of such systems is routers in networking, as they use simple learning algorithms to find the best way to deliver packets to their desired destination. This simple, myopic, and distributed decision process makes large queuing systems easy to operate, but at the same time, the system needs more capacity than would be required if all traffic were centrally coordinated. Gaitonde and Tardos (EC 2020 and JACM 2023) initiated the study of such systems, modeling them as an infinitely repeated game in which routers compete for servers and the system maintains a state (the number of packets held at each queue) that results from outcomes of previous rounds. However, their model assumes that servers have no buffers at all, so routers have to resend all packets that were not served successfully, which makes their system model unrealistic. They show that in their model, even with hugely increased server capacity relative to what is needed in the centrally coordinated case, ensuring that the system is stable requires the use of timestamps and priority for older packets. We consider a system with two important changes, which make the model more realistic and allow for much higher traffic rates: first, we add a very small buffer to each server, allowing the server to hold on to a single packet to be served later (if it fails to serve it immediately), and second, we do not require timestamps or priority to older packets. Using theoretical analysis and simulations, we show that when queues are learning, a small constant-factor increase in server capacity, compared to what would be needed if centrally coordinating, suffices to keep the system stable, even if servers select randomly among packets arriving simultaneously.

David Easley, Yoav Kolumbus, Eva Tardos

We analyze the performance of heterogeneous learning agents in asset markets with stochastic payoffs. Our main focus is on comparing Bayesian learners and no-regret learners who compete in markets and identifying the conditions under which each approach is more effective. Surprisingly, we find that low regret is not sufficient for survival: an agent can have regret as low as $O(\log T)$ but still vanish when competing against a Bayesian with a finite prior and any positive prior probability on the correct model. On the other hand, we show that Bayesian learning is fragile, while no-regret learning requires less knowledge of the environment and is therefore more robust. Motivated by the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, we propose a balanced strategy for utilizing Bayesian updates that improves robustness and adaptability to distribution shifts, providing a step toward a best-of-both-worlds learning approach. The method is general, efficient, and easy to implement. Finally, we formally establish the relationship between the notions of survival and market dominance studied in economics and the framework of regret minimization, thus bridging these theories. More broadly, our work contributes to the understanding of dynamics with heterogeneous types of learning agents and their impact on markets.

Jason Gaitonde, Eva Tardos

Bounding the price of anarchy, which quantifies the damage to social welfare due to selfish behavior of the participants, has been an important area of research. In this paper, we study this phenomenon in the context of a game modeling queuing systems: routers compete for servers, where packets that do not get service will be resent at future rounds, resulting in a system where the number of packets at each round depends on the success of the routers in the previous rounds. We model this as an (infinitely) repeated game, where the system holds a state (number of packets held by each queue) that arises from the results of the previous round. We assume that routers satisfy the no-regret condition, e.g. they use learning strategies to identify the server where their packets get the best service. Classical work on repeated games makes the strong assumption that the subsequent rounds of the repeated games are independent (beyond the influence on learning from past history). The carryover effect caused by packets remaining in this system makes learning in our context result in a highly dependent random process. We analyze this random process and find that if the capacity of the servers is high enough to allow a centralized and knowledgeable scheduler to get all packets served even with double the packet arrival rate, and queues use no-regret learning algorithms, then the expected number of packets in the queues will remain bounded throughout time, assuming older packets have priority. This paper is the first to study the effect of selfish learning in a queuing system, where the learners compete for resources, but rounds are not all independent: the number of packets to be routed at each round depends on the success of the routers in the previous rounds.

Thodoris Lykouris, Eva Tardos, Drishti Wali

We study the stochastic multi-armed bandit problem with the graph-based feedback structure introduced by Mannor and Shamir. We analyze the performance of the two most prominent stochastic bandit algorithms, Thompson Sampling and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), in the graph-based feedback setting. We show that these algorithms achieve regret guarantees that combine the graph structure and the gaps between the means of the arm distributions. Surprisingly this holds despite the fact that these algorithms do not explicitly use the graph structure to select arms; they observe the additional feedback but do not explore based on it. Towards this result we introduce a "layering technique" highlighting the commonalities in the two algorithms.

Thodoris Lykouris, Karthik Sridharan, Eva Tardos

We consider the problem of adversarial (non-stochastic) online learning with partial information feedback, where at each round, a decision maker selects an action from a finite set of alternatives. We develop a black-box approach for such problems where the learner observes as feedback only losses of a subset of the actions that includes the selected action. When losses of actions are non-negative, under the graph-based feedback model introduced by Mannor and Shamir, we offer algorithms that attain the so called "small-loss" $o(αL^{\star})$ regret bounds with high probability, where $α$ is the independence number of the graph, and $L^{\star}$ is the loss of the best action. Prior to our work, there was no data-dependent guarantee for general feedback graphs even for pseudo-regret (without dependence on the number of actions, i.e. utilizing the increased information feedback). Taking advantage of the black-box nature of our technique, we extend our results to many other applications such as semi-bandits (including routing in networks), contextual bandits (even with an infinite comparator class), as well as learning with slowly changing (shifting) comparators. In the special case of classical bandit and semi-bandit problems, we provide optimal small-loss, high-probability guarantees of $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{dL^{\star}})$ for actual regret, where $d$ is the number of actions, answering open questions of Neu. Previous bounds for bandits and semi-bandits were known only for pseudo-regret and only in expectation. We also offer an optimal $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{κL^{\star}})$ regret guarantee for fixed feedback graphs with clique-partition number at most $κ$.

Tim Roughgarden, Vasilis Syrgkanis, Eva Tardos

This survey outlines a general and modular theory for proving approximation guarantees for equilibria of auctions in complex settings. This theory complements traditional economic techniques, which generally focus on exact and optimal solutions and are accordingly limited to relatively stylized settings. We highlight three user-friendly analytical tools: smoothness-type inequalities, which immediately yield approximation guarantees for many auction formats of interest in the special case of complete information and deterministic strategies; extension theorems, which extend such guarantees to randomized strategies, no-regret learning outcomes, and incomplete-information settings; and composition theorems, which extend such guarantees from simpler to more complex auctions. Combining these tools yields tight worst-case approximation guarantees for the equilibria of many widely-used auction formats.

Dylan J. Foster, Zhiyuan Li, Thodoris Lykouris et al.

We show that learning algorithms satisfying a $\textit{low approximate regret}$ property experience fast convergence to approximate optimality in a large class of repeated games. Our property, which simply requires that each learner has small regret compared to a $(1+ε)$-multiplicative approximation to the best action in hindsight, is ubiquitous among learning algorithms; it is satisfied even by the vanilla Hedge forecaster. Our results improve upon recent work of Syrgkanis et al. [SALS15] in a number of ways. We require only that players observe payoffs under other players' realized actions, as opposed to expected payoffs. We further show that convergence occurs with high probability, and show convergence under bandit feedback. Finally, we improve upon the speed of convergence by a factor of $n$, the number of players. Both the scope of settings and the class of algorithms for which our analysis provides fast convergence are considerably broader than in previous work. Our framework applies to dynamic population games via a low approximate regret property for shifting experts. Here we strengthen the results of Lykouris et al. [LST16] in two ways: We allow players to select learning algorithms from a larger class, which includes a minor variant of the basic Hedge algorithm, and we increase the maximum churn in players for which approximate optimality is achieved. In the bandit setting we present a new algorithm which provides a "small loss"-type bound with improved dependence on the number of actions in utility settings, and is both simple and efficient. This result may be of independent interest.

Jason Hartline, Vasilis Syrgkanis, Eva Tardos

Recent price-of-anarchy analyses of games of complete information suggest that coarse correlated equilibria, which characterize outcomes resulting from no-regret learning dynamics, have near-optimal welfare. This work provides two main technical results that lift this conclusion to games of incomplete information, a.k.a., Bayesian games. First, near-optimal welfare in Bayesian games follows directly from the smoothness-based proof of near-optimal welfare in the same game when the private information is public. Second, no-regret learning dynamics converge to Bayesian coarse correlated equilibrium in these incomplete information games. These results are enabled by interpretation of a Bayesian game as a stochastic game of complete information.