Search

Practical mechanisms often limit agent reports to constrained formats like trades or orderings, potentially limiting the information agents can express. We propose a novel class of mechanisms that elicit agent reports in natural language and leverage the world-modeling capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to select outcomes and assign payoffs. We identify sufficient conditions for these mechanisms to be incentive-compatible and efficient as the LLM being a good enough world model and a strong inter-agent information over-determination condition. We show situations where these LM-based mechanisms can successfully aggregate information in signal structures on which prediction markets fail., Comment: presented as a poster at ACM EC 24 Foundation Models and Game Theory Workshop

Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) has become a critical issue for blockchain ecosystems, as it enables validators or block proposers to extract value by ordering, including or censoring users' transactions. This paper aims to present a formal approach for determining the appropriate compensation for users whose transactions are executed in bundles, as opposed to individually. We explore the impact of MEV on users, discuss the Shapley value as a solution for fair compensation, and delve into the mechanisms of MEV rebates and auctions as a means to undermine the power of the block producer.

Consider a mechanism that cannot observe how many players there are directly, but instead must rely on their self-reports to know how many are participating. Suppose the players can create new identities to report to the auctioneer at some cost $c$. The usual mechanism design paradigm is equivalent to implicitly assuming that $c$ is infinity for all players, while the usual Sybil attacks literature is that it is zero or finite for one player (the attacker) and infinity for everyone else (the 'honest' players). The false-name proof literature largely assumes the cost to be 0. We consider a model with variable costs that unifies these disparate streams. A paradigmatic normal form game can be extended into a Sybil game by having the action space by the product of the feasible set of identities to create action where each player chooses how many players to present as in the game and their actions in the original normal form game. A mechanism is (dominant) false-name proof if it is (dominant) incentive-compatible for all the players to self-report as at most one identity. We study mechanisms proposed in the literature motivated by settings where anonymity and self-identification are the norms, and show conditions under which they are not Sybil-proof. We characterize a class of dominant Sybil-proof mechanisms for reward sharing and show that they achieve the efficiency upper bound. We consider the extension when agents can credibly commit to the strategy of their sybils and show how this can break mechanisms that would otherwise be false-name proof.

We consider the social welfare that can be facilitated by a constant function market maker (CFMM). When there is sufficient liquidity available to the CFMM, it can approximate the optimal social welfare when all users transactions are executed. When one of the agent has the role of proposing the block, and blockspace is scarce, they can obtain higher expected utility than otherwise identical agents. This gives a lower bound on the maximal extractable value exposed when blockspace is scarce.

Designing truthful, revenue maximizing auctions is a core problem of auction design. Multi-item settings have long been elusive. Recent work (arXiv:1706.03459) introduces effective deep learning techniques to find such auctions for the prior-dependent setting, in which distributions about bidder preferences are known. One remaining problem is to obtain priors in a way that excludes the possibility of manipulating the resulting auctions. Using techniques from differential privacy for the construction of approximately truthful mechanisms, we modify the RegretNet approach to be applicable to the prior-free setting. In this more general setting, no distributional information is assumed, but we trade this property for worse performance. We present preliminary empirical results and qualitative analysis for this work in progress.

Collective intelligence is believed to underly the remarkable success of human society. The formation of accurate shared beliefs is one of the key components of human collective intelligence. How are accurate shared beliefs formed in groups of fallible individuals? Answering this question requires a multiscale analysis. We must understand both the individual decision mechanisms people use, and the properties and dynamics of those mechanisms in the aggregate. As of yet, mathematical tools for such an approach have been lacking. To address this gap, we introduce a new analytical framework: We propose that groups arrive at accurate shared beliefs via distributed Bayesian inference. Distributed inference occurs through information processing at the individual level, and yields rational belief formation at the group level. We instantiate this framework in a new model of human social decision-making, which we validate using a dataset we collected of over 50,000 users of an online social trading platform where investors mimic each others' trades using real money in foreign exchange and other asset markets. We find that in this setting people use a decision mechanism in which popularity is treated as a prior distribution for which decisions are best to make. This mechanism is boundedly rational at the individual level, but we prove that in the aggregate implements a type of approximate "Thompson sampling"---a well-known and highly effective single-agent Bayesian machine learning algorithm for sequential decision-making. The perspective of distributed Bayesian inference therefore reveals how collective rationality emerges from the boundedly rational decision mechanisms people use.

A common use of crowd sourcing is to obtain labels for a dataset. Several algorithms have been proposed to identify uninformative members of the crowd so that their labels can be disregarded and the cost of paying them avoided. One common motivation of these algorithms is to try and do without any initial set of trusted labeled data. We analyse this class of algorithms as mechanisms in a game-theoretic setting to understand the incentives they create for workers. We find an impossibility result that without any ground truth, and when workers have access to commonly shared 'prejudices' upon which they agree but are not informative of true labels, there is always equilibria where all agents report the prejudice. A small amount amount of gold standard data is found to be sufficient to rule out these equilibria., Comment: Presented at Collective Intelligence conference, 2012 (arXiv:1204.2991)

We introduce a modular framework for market making. It combines cost-function based automated market makers with bandit algorithms. We obtain worst-case profits guarantee's relative to the best in hindsight within a class of natural "overround" cost functions . This combination allow us to have distribution-free guarantees on the regret of profits while preserving the bounded worst-case losses and computational tractability over combinatorial spaces of the cost function based approach. We present simulation results to better understand the practical behaviour of market makers from the framework., Comment: A previous version of this work appeared in the NIPS 2011 Workshop on Computational Social Science and the Wisdom of the Crowds