Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.06548

On the Fragility of Efficiency: Uncoupled Learning with a Deviant

Abstract

An important question in learning in games is whether players can learn to achieve efficient outcomes, those that maximize the sum of their utilities, without communication or coordination. Completely uncoupled learning algorithms, which use only each player's own past actions and utilities, can guarantee this in broad classes of games, but they typically require every player to follow the same algorithm. In this work, we ask whether one can design welfare-maximizing learning algorithms that are robust to a deviant player. To study this question, we take a well-studied welfare-maximizing learning algorithm as a testbed and consider what happens when every player except one follows it. First, we consider a deviant player who either (i) always plays the same action or (ii) selects their action uniformly at random. We show that such a player can significantly alter the long-run behavior of this algorithm, leading to states that are far from welfare-maximizing, and that no completely uncoupled learning algorithm is robust to such a player in every game. Next, we consider a strategic deviant player who acts in their own interest and show that this player can adopt a different learning algorithm to shift the long-run outcome in their favor. Moreover, we show that under any completely uncoupled welfare-maximizing learning algorithm, there is a game in which some player benefits from switching to a different completely uncoupled learning algorithm. These results show that completely uncoupled welfare-maximizing learning is fragile, even to a single deviant player, suggesting that robustness may require communication or coordination.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vade Shah, Jason R. Marden. 2026-10-05. On the Fragility of Efficiency: Uncoupled Learning with a Deviant. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06548

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Multidimensional Bayesian Utility Maximization: Tight Approximations to Welfare

We initiate the study of multidimensional Bayesian utility maximization, focusing on the unit-demand setting where values are i.i.d. across both items and buyers. The seminal result of Hartline and Roughgarden '08 studies simple, information-robust mechanisms that maximize utility for $n$ i.i.d. agents and $m$ identical items via an approximation to social welfare as an upper bound, and they prove this gap between optimal utility and social welfare is $Θ(1+\log{n/m})$ in this setting. We extend these results to the multidimensional setting. To do so, we develop simple, prior-independent, approximately-optimal mechanisms, targeting the simplest benchmark of optimal welfare. We give a $(1- 1/e)$-approximation when there are more items than buyers, and a $Θ(\log{n/m})$-approximation when there are more buyers than items, and we prove that this bound is tight in both $n$ and $m$ by reducing the i.i.d. unit-demand setting to the identical items setting. Finally, we include an extensive discussion section on why Bayesian utility maximization is a promising research direction. In particular, we characterize complexities in this setting that defy our intuition from the welfare and revenue literature, and motivate why coming up with a better benchmark than welfare is a hard problem itself.

cs.GT↗

Non-Obvious Manipulability in Additively Separable and Fractional Hedonic Games

Hedonic Games are a well-established model for describing the formation of coalitions. In this work, we considered the design of Non-Obviously Manipulable (NOM) mechanisms, that are mechanisms that bounded rational agents may fail to recognize as manipulable, for two relevant classes of succinctly representable Hedonic Games, namely Additively Separable and Fractional Hedonic Games. In these classes, agents have cardinal scores towards other agents, and their preferences towards different coalitions are determined by aggregating these scores. Moreover, the quality of an outcome can also be easily evaluated through these scores by means of the utilitarian social welfare. We first prove that, when scores can be arbitrary, every welfare-maximizing mechanism is NOM, and, when scores are limited in a continuous interval, then there exist tie-breaking rules making welfare-maximizing mechanisms NOM. Next, we focus on efficient NOM mechanisms, since there is no known polynomial-time algorithm to compute welfare-maximizing outcomes in the considered classes of hedonic games. To this aim, we first prove a characterization of NOM mechanisms that simplifies the class of mechanisms of interest. Then, we design a NOM mechanism returning approximations that essentially match the best-known approximation achievable in polynomial time. Finally, we turn our attention to discrete scores, and specifically, the case that scores are $\{-x, 0, 1\}$ for $x > 0$. We prove that the ability to design welfare-maximizing NOM mechanisms depends on the magnitude of the scores. In particular, for $x > 1$, we prove that a welfare-maximizing NOM mechanism exists only when $x$ is very large. For $x \leq 1$, instead, we observe that a welfare-maximizing NOM mechanism always exists except when $x$ lies in the interval $[a, b]$ where $a \approx 2/n^2$ and $b \approx 1/n$.

cs.GT↗

Core-Stable Kidney Exchange via Altruistic Donors

Kidney exchange creates gains by pooling patient-donor pairs across hospitals and countries, but cooperation may unravel when coalitions can profitably withdraw. We introduce the supplemented core, in which the platform uses voluntarily registered altruistic donors to restore stability. Because an altruistic donor adds a kidney without adding another patient, it provides an in-kind instrument for relaxing participation constraints when monetary transfers are unavailable. In worst-case compatibility graphs, the required number of donors can grow linearly with market size, even when cycle length is unrestricted. Under a standard heterogeneous random-compatibility model, however, a logarithmic number suffices for any fixed cycle-length bound, in expectation and with high probability. Calibrated simulations find donor-free, maximum-cardinality weak-core exchanges in virtually all markets. The main challenge is selection, not existence: a representative lexicographic heuristic reflecting priorities used by kidney-exchange programs selects an unstable exchange in up to 35% of markets even when a stable alternative exists. A small reserve of altruistic donors eliminates this implementation gap without sacrificing the heuristic's operational objectives. Thus, altruistic donors do more than increase transplants: they sustain cooperation.

cs.GT↗