Price of Anarchy

We present an AI-assisted mathematical addendum to Strategic Trip Planning: Striking a Balance Between Competition and Cooperation (Amar, 2018). We reconstruct selected relationships between strategic choice, cooperative stability, participant approval and enforcement. The thesis's Nash-to-core proposition is under-specified until outsider opportunities are stated. We verify two-person implications under fixed outsiders and explicit efficiency conditions. Under isolation, the original example has an empty TU core; its funded counterpart uses an explicit external subsidy. For a monotone resource model we characterize the exact financing gap. A finite negotiation procedure implemented in Lean is proved to terminate with participant approval, joint-cost non-worsening and local optimality against permitted approved moves. Supporting formalizations address bargaining geometry and regret-based efficiency. A resource-game counterinstance shows why monotonicity alone provides no uniform price-of-anarchy bound. Reproducible computations compare a documented heuristic reconstruction with the verified procedure on 44 source-based instances and 96 starting cases from four additional synthetic network families. Acceptance-matched heuristic and randomized pairwise-search controls contextualize the optimization results. The mathematical ingredients are established results; the contribution is a traceable reconstruction linking source statements, explicit assumptions, checked proofs, executable code and retained counterinstances. The study illustrates how AI-assisted investigation can turn engineering intuitions from legacy research into precise mathematical claims whose conditions and computational consequences can be inspected and reproduced.

An agentic market is a decentralized serving-time market where AI agents bid to claim each user prompt. An agent's bid is based on its expected value for the prompt, which is the expectation of the reward for its response minus its inference costs. First-price auctions (FPAs), in which the highest bidder pays its bid and receives the prompt, are a natural way to allocate prompts in such a market, since they are simple and transparent to run, and do not require central knowledge of private capabilities and costs. However, FPAs are not truthful: participants may bid less than their true value in the hope of a larger profit, and the prompt may then be allocated to someone other than the bidder who values it the most. This welfare loss is quantified by the $\textit{price-of-anarchy}$ (PoA). In this paper, we argue that agentic markets are likely to possess features that reduce the price-of-anarchy. The first is a $\textit{competitive floor}$, which occurs when multiple bidders usually value the prompt above some baseline share of the optimal welfare (e.g., because the best models are often distilled into cheaper alternatives, which perform similarly). We show that competition among them then limits the welfare loss, which can be driven to zero as the floor rises. The second feature is $\textit{near-independence}$ of values after conditioning on the prompt, which occurs when most of the predictable variation in the expected value is determined by the difficulty of the prompt. As the value distribution approaches conditional independence, we can derive an efficiency guarantee that approaches a factor of $1 - 1/e^2$ of the optimal welfare. Thus, both features give rise to welfare lower bounds that are significantly better than the well-known general case of $1 - 1/e$. We validate these results empirically using auctions with strategic bidders simulated on the EmbedLLM prompt routing dataset.

Online discussion of political and gender-related issues is often heated, and when opinions in a network draw closer, the convergence is readily taken as genuine consensus. Whether it carries a cost is a question existing methods cannot answer: coevolutionary opinion formation games measure the Price of Anarchy (PoA) of agents that update by numerical rules, while simulations with large language model (LLM) agents report only descriptive indices. We introduce the Hybrid Coevolutionary Opinion Game (H-COG), in which analytical and LLM-driven agents share one network, choose their neighbors by opinion similarity in every round, and hold stances drawn from real Reddit comments on gun control and abortion. To our knowledge, H-COG is the first framework to place Friedkin-Johnsen best-response agents and LLM agents in one coevolutionary game and to measure the social cost and PoA of LLM-driven populations. We prove that on any fixed network, given the LLM agents' opinions, the analytical agents' opinion stage has a unique equilibrium and the social optimum has a closed form, and that the convergence guarantee of Chen et al. for optimistic gradient ascent carries over to H-COG. All runs converge structurally. LLM-driven populations are less polarized yet have about five times the PoA of analytical ones; half of the gap comes from agents being pulled away from their own prior positions, a distance we prove must carry a cost whenever expressed opinions are more concentrated than intrinsic ones. Echo chambers form under every composition and grow out of the rewiring rule rather than the initial topology. Opinions in these populations draw closer largely because agents give up their own positions.

This work considers multi-agent coordination with arbitrary information networks among the agents using a game-theoretic approach. A system designer aims to assign local utility functions to the agents to guide their actions toward a desired system objective. The performance of the assigned local utilities is measured by the well known pure price of anarchy (pPoA) metric that equals the ratio of the system objective at the worst pure Nash equilibrium of the corresponding game to the optimal system objective. Our aim is to derive the utility functions which optimize the pPoA-based performance guarantees for any given information network and system objective. We develop a linear program that derives the optimal pPoA for any arbitrary information network and arbitrary system objective. Our work is the first to solve optimal utility design for arbitrary networks; our techniques generalize previous approaches which considered only the full-information setting. For supermodular objective functions, we prove that counterintuitively, a fully communication-denied utility design is optimal irrespective of the original information network. For submodular system objectives, an exhaustive numerical analysis suggests that the optimal utility design is robust to communication failures even for this case. When the system objective is weighted maximum coverage, the marginal contribution utility design provably optimizes the pPoA for a wide variety of information networks of interest.

Organizations often pool dispersed information into one ranking and then allow many agents to act on that shared view. In a discovery problem, this can improve beliefs while reducing coverage. We develop an exactly solvable benchmark with sixteen boxes, one target, eight searchers, and noisy private clues. Pooling raises the accuracy of the best single recommendation from 0.20 to 0.3835, but repeating that recommendation lowers group discovery from 0.8322 under decentralized clue-following to 0.3835. A coordinated eight-action portfolio using the same pooled reports reaches 0.8594, and seven coordinated actions recover the decentralized benchmark. The paradox is a protocol failure, not an information failure: a one-answer rule compresses a portfolio of available actions into one repeated choice. We then replace the planner with self-interested searchers who split a prize. The equal-split game is a potential game. Its anonymous symmetric equilibrium obeys a water-filling rule. In the canonical instance it achieves 0.5991: strictly above consensus, but below both private search and the planner. The exact mixed price of anarchy is 2 - 1/N. A sole-rescue reward, which pays only an agent who covers the target alone, makes every pure Nash equilibrium first-best. Finally, a latent common-cue model shows how correlated reports collapse effective discovery channels. The centralized planner gain rises strictly with copying, and in the canonical environment the symmetric market overtakes decentralized report-following at copying probability c = 0.788462. In a proportional large-market limit the five-protocol ordering survives exactly: consensus discovery vanishes while blind, market, private, and portfolio search converge to 0.500, 0.547, 0.847, and 0.874. The contribution is a compact benchmark that separates information, allocation, incentives, and dependence into exact, reusable quantities.

For decades, static solution concepts (Nash, Correlated, and Coarse Correlated Equilibria) and the Price of Anarchy (PoA) have formed the bedrock of algorithmic game theory, with no-regret learning proving fast convergence to such game-theoretic equilibria. We show that reducing multi-agent learning to static equilibrium and black-box regret analysis obscures underlying dynamic disequilibrium and game theoretic bounds. First, interior Nash equilibria lack $C^1$ vector field information, meaning agents cannot distinguish aligned from strictly opposing incentives. Inheriting this geometry, the worst-case pure Nash equilibria dictating robust PoA bounds manifest as topologically unstable strict saddles, and in canonical congestion games, as global repellers supported on almost everywhere strictly dominated strategies. Anchoring efficiency guarantees to these unstable states causes algebraic sensitivity; we prove that accommodating all strictly positive affine costs renders the PoA unbounded. Furthermore, projecting learning trajectories onto the discrete simplex of correlated play systematically accommodates non-rationalizable behavior. Evaluating dynamics via Coarse Correlated Equilibria or proximal refinements fails to preclude strictly dominated strategies. Moreover, optimal $O(1/T)$ swap-regret minimization does not preclude macroscopic turbulence, manifesting as chaotic limit sets even in minimal games. Finally, we examine the non-atomic limit of congestion games. Though considered highly stable with tight sub-linear $Θ(p/\ln p)$ PoA bounds (where $p$ is the polynomial degree), we prove that under discrete-time learning, the unique equilibrium destabilizes into Li-Yorke chaos and global attractors whose time-averaged inefficiency degrades exponentially as $2^p$. These results necessitate re-evaluating worst-case equilibrium frameworks for dynamically grounded metrics.

Disaggregated inference architectures physically separate prefill and decode phases onto distinct GPU pools, creating competing "agents" that share a fixed hardware budget. We provide, to our knowledge, the first formal game-theoretic analysis of this architecture, using NVIDIA Dynamo as a concrete case study. We model disaggregated serving as three coupled games: a two-player resource game between prefill and decode pools, a selfish caching game over the hierarchical KV cache, and a congestion game with positive externalities for request routing. We empirically validate the latter two; the P/D resource game is treated analytically (Section 9.2). We characterize how GPU saturation induces regime transitions that shift the game's payoff structure: below saturation, selfish behavior has bounded Price of Anarchy (PoA); at saturation, superlinear latency and cache externalities drive our empirical estimator PoA-hat (defined in Section 6.4) upward. Based on this analysis, we design an adaptive controller that detects saturation transitions in real time and adjusts routing parameters accordingly, shifting from cache-affinity exploitation to load-balanced congestion avoidance. We instantiate our framework on a 3-node NVIDIA B200 cluster running Dynamo with two models, Nemotron-4-340B (TP=8, full-node workers with cross-InfiniBand KV transfers) and Llama-3.1-70B (TP=4), and find the same three-regime PoA-hat structure with the same first post-knee grid point (C=128) on both models. Adaptive routing shifts each model to a better operating point. Our strongest result is on the 70B 1P/5D topology, where PoA-hat drops 3.1x (66.4 to 21.5) in the saturated phase at a 13% throughput cost. On the 70B 1P/2D, PoA-hat drops 2.2x and TTFT P99 drops 7.6x (see Section 8.5).

Probabilistic prediction systems often aggregate probability estimates from multiple models into a single decision. A common assumption is that if each model is individually calibrated, the aggregate prediction will also be well calibrated. We show that this assumption fails in multi-agent settings: individually calibrated predictors can become collectively miscalibrated when their predictions interact strategically, in the game-theoretic sense of Brier-optimal local response, even without deliberate coordination. This phenomenon arises naturally when agents are independently trained on overlapping data. We prove that under Brier-score-based aggregation with positively correlated beliefs, each agent's individually optimal report systematically underestimates the positive-class probability, yielding a Price of Anarchy greater than one whenever Cov(b_i, b_j) > 0. In a canonical setting (n = 5 agents, pairwise correlation = 0.5, base rate = 0.3), the empirically measured PoA in false-negative rate reaches 7.25x. In contrast, VCG-based aggregation aligns incentives by rewarding marginal contribution, achieving dominant-strategy incentive compatibility and near-optimal performance. Experiments on three real-world datasets (NSL-KDD, UNSW-NB15, Credit Card Fraud) show that VCG provides strong robustness while maintaining comparable accuracy. It performs particularly well in data-sparse and adversarial settings, and adaptive weighting further improves performance under distribution shift.

The rise of automated bidding strategies in online advertising presents new challenges in designing and analyzing efficient auction mechanisms. In this paper, we focus on proportional mechanisms within the context of auto-bidding and study the efficiency of pure Nash equilibria, specifically the price of anarchy (PoA), under the liquid welfare objective. We first establish a tight PoA bound of 2 for the standard proportional mechanism. Next, we introduce a modified version with an alternative payment scheme that achieves a PoA bound of $1 + \frac{O(1)}{n-1}$ where $n \geq 2$ denotes the number of bidding agents. This improvement surpasses the existing PoA barrier of 2 and approaches full efficiency as the number of agents increases. Our methodology leverages duality and the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions from linear and convex programming. Due to its conceptual simplicity, our approach may offer broader applications for establishing PoA bounds.