The Power of Two in Token Systems

Itai Ashlagi; Süleyman Kerimov; Omer Tamuz; Geng Zhao

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2405.12414

The Power of Two in Token Systems

Itai Ashlagi·Süleyman Kerimov·Omer Tamuz·Geng Zhao

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In economies without monetary transfers, token systems serve as an alternative to sustain cooperation, alleviate free riding, and increase efficiency. This paper studies whether a token-based economy can be effective in marketplaces with thin exogenous supply. We consider a marketplace in which at each time period one agent requests a service, one agent provides the service, and one token (artificial currency) is used to pay for service provision. The number of tokens each agent has represents the difference between the amount of service provisions and service requests by the agent. We are interested in the behavior of this economy when very few agents are available to provide the requested service. Since balancing the number of tokens across agents is key to sustain cooperation, the agent with the minimum amount of tokens is selected to provide service among the available agents. When exactly one random agent is available to provide service, we show that the token distribution is unstable. However, already when just two random agents are available to provide service, the token distribution is stable, in the sense that agents' token balance is unlikely to deviate much from their initial endowment, and agents return to their initial endowment in finite expected time. Our results mirror the power of two choices paradigm in load balancing problems. Supported by numerical simulations using kidney exchange data, our findings suggest that token systems may generate efficient outcomes in kidney exchange marketplaces by sustaining cooperation between hospitals.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Itai Ashlagi, Süleyman Kerimov, Omer Tamuz, Geng Zhao. 2025-08-01. The Power of Two in Token Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12414

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Ascending Auctions for Combinatorial Markets with Frictions: A Unified Framework via Discrete Convex Analysis

We develop a unified ascending-auction framework for computing Walrasian equilibria in combinatorial markets with strong substitutes valuations and piecewise-linear payment functions. Our auction extends the celebrated ascending auctions of Gul and Stacchetti (2000) and Ausubel (2006) to accommodate payment frictions (e.g., transaction taxes or commission fees). This is achieved by incorporating directional price updates that reflect heterogeneous payment structures. Our framework also generalizes the unit-demand imperfectly transferable utility models of Alkan (1989, 1992) to a fully combinatorial setting, thereby unifying these paradigms. Furthermore, this is the first study to compute the minimum -- also known as the buyer-optimal -- equilibrium in combinatorial markets with such frictions. Our analysis builds upon discrete convex analysis. Our main technical contribution is a characterization of valid price-update directions, together with a strongly polynomial-time algorithm for computing them. Notably, the algorithm uses only demand- and exchange-oracle queries and never requires handling information of exponential size. To compute such a direction, we formulate a lexicographic extension of the polymatroid sum problem and characterize its dual solution via a reduction to a convex flow problem. Exploiting the $\text{L}^\natural$-convexity of the dual objective, we show that the desired direction can be constructed from the minimal dual solution. This convexity also yields transparent economic and potential-based interpretations of the auction dynamics, strengthening the connection between ascending auctions and discrete optimization.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Mechanism Design Is Not Enough: Prosocial Agents for Cooperative AI

Ensuring that AI agents behave safely and beneficially when interacting with other parties has emerged as one of the central challenges of modern AI safety. While mechanism design, as the theory of designing rules to align individual and collective objectives, can incentivize cooperative behavior, it is still an open question whether it alone is sufficient to maximize LLM agents' social welfare. This work proves that the answer is negative: drawing from incomplete contract theory, we formally show that when contracts cannot distinguish all relevant future contingencies, there is a strictly positive welfare loss that no realistic mechanism can eliminate. We show that prosocial agents, who weigh others' welfare alongside their own, can close this gap and achieve outcomes that are socially superior and individually beneficial. Experimentally, we show that in multi-agent resource-allocation environments and canonical social dilemmas where agents are powered by large language models, prosociality is beneficial. The implication for AI safety is clear: to enable cooperative interactions at scale, designing adequate mechanisms is not sufficient; agents must be built to be intrinsically prosocial.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Efficient Nash Equilibrium Computation for Cybersecurity Games

Game-theoretic analyses of cyber defence often compute equilibria of games whose payoffs exist only as the output of a simulator. Iterative equilibrium-finding methods grow a set of attacker and defender policies and need the payoff of every attacker--defender pair, so they are bottlenecked by payoff estimation: each payoff costs many simulator runs. We introduce Regret-Weighted Payoff Sampling (RWPS), which spends a fixed simulation budget on the payoffs the equilibrium actually depends on and predicts the rest with a model trained on every payoff measured so far. Standard error bounds for estimated games are driven by the worst-estimated payoff, so they cannot credit an estimator that is inaccurate only where accuracy does not matter. We prove a bound that weights payoff errors by the opponent's equilibrium strategy, a certificate that can be computed from simulated payoffs alone, and a condition under which errors in the predicted payoffs cannot change either player's regret. On three synthetic general-sum games, one of them a Colonel Blotto game of military resource allocation, the new bounds are four to six times tighter than the standard one, and RWPS finds less exploitable equilibria than minimum-regret-first search, information-gain search and progressive sampling at the same budget. On two cyber-defence simulators, CyGym and a new game whose hosts are LLM agents exposed to prompt injection, it gives the least exploitable equilibria at the smallest budgets.

cs.GT↗