Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2502.00260

Strong Equilibria in Bayesian Games with Bounded Group Size

Qishen Han·Grant Schoenebeck·Biaoshuai Tao·Lirong Xia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study the group strategic behaviors in Bayesian games. Equilibria in previous work do not consider group strategic behaviors with bounded sizes and are too ``strong'' to exist in many scenarios. We propose the ex-ante Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium and the Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium, where no group of at most $k$ agents can benefit from deviation. The two solution concepts differ in how agents calculate their utilities when contemplating whether a deviation is beneficial. Intuitively, agents are more conservative in the Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium than in the ex-ante Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium. With our solution concepts, we study collusion in the peer prediction mechanisms, as a representative of the Bayesian games with group strategic behaviors. We characterize the thresholds of the group size $k$ so that truthful reporting in the peer prediction mechanism is an equilibrium for each solution concept, respectively. Our solution concepts can serve as criteria to evaluate the robustness of a peer prediction mechanism against collusion. Besides the peer prediction problem, we also discuss two other potential applications of our new solution concepts, voting and Blotto games, where introducing bounded group sizes provides more fine-grained insights into the behavior of strategic agents.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Qishen Han, Grant Schoenebeck, Biaoshuai Tao, Lirong Xia. 2025-02-01. Strong Equilibria in Bayesian Games with Bounded Group Size. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696410.3714585

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Minimizing Inequity in Facility Location Games

This paper studies the problem of minimizing group-level inequity in facility location games on the real line, where agents belong to different groups and may act strategically. We explore a fairness-oriented objective that minimizes the maximum group effect introduced by Marsh and Schilling (1994). Each group's effect is defined as its total or maximum distance to the nearest facility, weighted by group-specific factors. We show that this formulation generalizes several prominent optimization objectives, including the classical utilitarian (social cost) and egalitarian (maximum cost) objectives, as well as two group-fair objectives, maximum total and average group cost. In order to minimize the maximum group effect, we first propose two novel mechanisms for the single-facility case, the BALANCED mechanism and the MajorPhantom mechanism. Both are strategyproof and achieve tight approximation guarantees under distinct formulations of the maximum group effect objective. Our mechanisms recover the known tight approximation guarantees for classical group-fair objectives as special cases, while extending them to a broader weighted framework and unifying several classical truthful mechanisms.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Do Large Language Model Voters Strategize? An Oracle-Based Benchmark for Manipulation under Voting Rules

Strategic voting is a canonical failure mode for collective choice: a voter may obtain a more preferred outcome by reporting a ballot that differs from its true preferences. This paper introduces an oracle-based benchmark for testing whether large language model (LLM) voters can discover and execute such manipulations. Each instance gives an LLM voter a true preference ranking, the other voters' ballots, a deterministic voting rule, and a prompt condition. An exact oracle enumerates every feasible report by the LLM voter, computes the sincere outcome, identifies all profitable reports, and records the best achievable outcome. The benchmark therefore supplies ground truth for strategic success without human labels or subjective grading of explanations. The benchmark covers plurality, Borda, approval, instant-runoff voting, and Copeland-style pairwise majority voting; prompt conditions separate sincere, strategic, civic, and expert framings. To keep the primary study defensible while preserving the main comparisons, the registered core design fixes a single electorate size, uses 600 balanced election instances, and produces 9,600 model--prompt responses when run with four model configurations and four prompt conditions. Because existing peer-reviewed work does not report manipulation discovery, optimal manipulation, false manipulation, near-miss, or invalid-ballot rates for this exact task, we do not impute LLM performance from unrelated studies. Instead, we report exact oracle-calibration baselines that bound and contextualize subsequent model results. By reducing strategic-voting behavior to exact counterfactual evaluation, the benchmark turns the question ``Do LLM voters vote sincerely or strategically?'' into a reproducible social-choice experiment.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $α$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+ε}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $ε> 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗