arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Krzysztof R. Apt.
We argue that verification of recursive programs by means of the assertional method of C.A.R. Hoare can be conceptually simplified using a modular reasoning. In this approach some properties of the program are established first and subsequently used to establish other program properties. We illustrate this approach by providing a modular correctness proof of the Quicksort program.
It is well-known that for several natural decision problems no budget balanced Groves mechanisms exist. This has motivated recent research on designing variants of feasible Groves mechanisms (termed as `redistribution of VCG (Vickrey-Clarke-Groves) payments') that generate reduced deficit. With this in mind, we study sequential mechanisms and consider optimal strategies that could reduce the deficit resulting under the simultaneous mechanism. We show that such strategies exist for the sequential pivotal mechanism of the well-known public project problem. We also exhibit an optimal strategy with the property that a maximal social welfare is generated when each player follows it. Finally, we show that these strategies can be achieved by an implementation in Nash equilibrium.
We consider two simple variants of a framework for reasoning about knowledge amongst communicating groups of players. Our goal is to clarify the resulting epistemic issues. In particular, we investigate what is the impact of common knowledge of the underlying hypergraph connecting the players, and under what conditions common knowledge distributes over disjunction. We also obtain two versions of the classic result that common knowledge cannot be achieved in the absence of a simultaneous event (here a message sent to the whole group).
We propose an abstract approach to coalition formation that focuses on simple merge and split rules transforming partitions of a group of players. We identify conditions under which every iteration of these rules yields a unique partition. The main conceptual tool is a specific notion of a stable partition. The results are parametrized by a preference relation between partitions of a group of players and naturally apply to coalitional TU-games, hedonic games and exchange economy games.
We provide an epistemic analysis of arbitrary strategic games based on possibility correspondences. We first establish a generic result that links true common beliefs (and, respectively, common knowledge) of players' rationality defined by means of `monotonic' properties, with the iterated elimination of strategies that do not satisfy these properties. It allows us to deduce the customary results concerned with true common beliefs of rationality and iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies as simple corollaries. This approach relies on Tarski's Fixpoint Theorem. We also provide an axiomatic presentation of this generic result. This allows us to clarify the proof-theoretic principles assumed in players' reasoning. Finally, we provide an alternative characterization of the iterated elimination of strategies based on the concept of a public announcement. It applies to `global properties'. Both classes of properties include the notions of rationalizability and the iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies.
We are interested in mechanisms that maximize social welfare. In [1] this problem was studied for multi-unit auctions with unit demand bidders and for the public project problem, and in each case social welfare undominated mechanisms in the class of feasible and incentive compatible mechanisms were identified. One way to improve upon these optimality results is by allowing the players to move sequentially. With this in mind, we study here sequential versions of two feasible Groves mechanisms used for single item auctions: the Vickrey auction and the Bailey-Cavallo mechanism. Because of the absence of dominant strategies in this sequential setting, we focus on a weaker concept of an optimal strategy. For each mechanism we introduce natural optimal strategies and observe that in each mechanism these strategies exhibit different behaviour. However, we then show that among all optimal strategies, the one we introduce for each mechanism maximizes the social welfare when each player follows it. The resulting social welfare can be larger than the one obtained in the simultaneous setting. Finally, we show that, when interpreting both mechanisms as simultaneous ones, the vectors of the proposed strategies form a Pareto optimal Nash equilibrium in the class of optimal strategies.
We describe a structured system for distributed mechanism design. It consists of a sequence of layers. The lower layers deal with the operations relevant for distributed computing only, while the upper layers are concerned only with communication among players, including broadcasting and multicasting, and distributed decision making. This yields a highly flexible distributed system whose specific applications are realized as instances of its top layer. This design supports fault-tolerance, prevents manipulations and makes it possible to implement distributed policing. The system is implemented in Java. We illustrate it by discussing a number of implemented examples.
The notion of optimality naturally arises in many areas of applied mathematics and computer science concerned with decision making. Here we consider this notion in the context of two formalisms used for different purposes and in different research areas: graphical games and soft constraints. We relate the notion of optimality used in the area of soft constraint satisfaction problems (SCSPs) to that used in graphical games, showing that for a large class of SCSPs that includes weighted constraints every optimal solution corresponds to a Nash equilibrium that is also a Pareto efficient joint strategy.
A common objective in mechanism design is to choose the outcome (for example, allocation of resources) that maximizes the sum of the agents' valuations, without introducing incentives for agents to misreport their preferences. The class of Groves mechanisms achieves this; however, these mechanisms require the agents to make payments, thereby reducing the agents' total welfare. In this paper we introduce a measure for comparing two mechanisms with respect to the final welfare they generate. This measure induces a partial order on mechanisms and we study the question of finding minimal elements with respect to this partial order. In particular, we say a non-deficit Groves mechanism is welfare undominated if there exists no other non-deficit Groves mechanism that always has a smaller or equal sum of payments. We focus on two domains: (i) auctions with multiple identical units and unit-demand bidders, and (ii) mechanisms for public project problems. In the first domain we analytically characterize all welfare undominated Groves mechanisms that are anonymous and have linear payment functions, by showing that the family of optimal-in-expectation linear redistribution mechanisms, which were introduced in [6] and include the Bailey-Cavallo mechanism [1,2], coincides with the family of welfare undominated Groves mechanisms that are anonymous and linear in the setting we study. In the second domain we show that the classic VCG (Clarke) mechanism is welfare undominated for the class of public project problems with equal participation costs, but is not undominated for a more general class.
The notion of optimality naturally arises in many areas of applied mathematics and computer science concerned with decision making. Here we consider this notion in the context of three formalisms used for different purposes in reasoning about multi-agent systems: strategic games, CP-nets, and soft constraints. To relate the notions of optimality in these formalisms we introduce a natural qualitative modification of the notion of a strategic game. We show then that the optimal outcomes of a CP-net are exactly the Nash equilibria of such games. This allows us to use the techniques of game theory to search for optimal outcomes of CP-nets and vice-versa, to use techniques developed for CP-nets to search for Nash equilibria of the considered games. Then, we relate the notion of optimality used in the area of soft constraints to that used in a generalization of strategic games, called graphical games. In particular we prove that for a natural class of soft constraints that includes weighted constraints every optimal solution is both a Nash equilibrium and Pareto efficient joint strategy. For a natural mapping in the other direction we show that Pareto efficient joint strategies coincide with the optimal solutions of soft constraints.
We compare here the relative strength of four widely used procedures on finite strategic games: iterated elimination of weakly/strictly dominated strategies by a pure/mixed strategy. A complication is that none of these procedures is based on a monotonic operator. To deal with this problem we use 'global' versions of these operators.
We provide here an epistemic analysis of arbitrary strategic games based on the possibility correspondences. Such an analysis calls for the use of transfinite iterations of the corresponding operators. Our approach is based on Tarski's Fixpoint Theorem and applies both to the notions of rationalizability and the iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies.
The rationalizability concept was introduced in \cite{Ber84} and \cite{Pea84} to assess what can be inferred by rational players in a non-cooperative game in the presence of common knowledge. However, this notion can be defined in a number of ways that differ in seemingly unimportant minor details. We shed light on these differences, explain their impact, and clarify for which games these definitions coincide. Then we apply the same analysis to explain the differences and similarities between various ways the iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies was defined in the literature. This allows us to clarify the results of \cite{DS02} and \cite{CLL05} and improve upon them. We also consider the extension of these results to strict dominance by a mixed strategy. Our approach is based on a general study of the operators on complete lattices. We allow transfinite iterations of the considered operators and clarify the need for them. The advantage of such a general approach is that a number of results, including order independence for some of the notions of rationalizability and strict dominance, come for free.
In the customary VCG (Vickrey-Clarke-Groves) mechanism truth-telling is a dominant strategy. In this paper we study the sequential VCG mechanism and show that other dominant strategies may then exist. We illustrate how this fact can be used to minimize taxes using examples concerned with Clarke tax and public projects.
Arithmetic constraints on integer intervals are supported in many constraint programming systems. We study here a number of approaches to implement constraint propagation for these constraints. To describe them we introduce integer interval arithmetic. Each approach is explained using appropriate proof rules that reduce the variable domains. We compare these approaches using a set of benchmarks. For the most promising approach we provide results that characterize the effect of constraint propagation. This is a full version of our earlier paper, cs.PL/0403016.
We introduce a constraint-based framework for studying infinite qualitative simulations concerned with contingencies such as time, space, shape, size, abstracted into a finite set of qualitative relations. To define the simulations, we combine constraints that formalize the background knowledge concerned with qualitative reasoning with appropriate inter-state constraints that are formulated using linear temporal logic. We implemented this approach in a constraint programming system by drawing on ideas from bounded model checking. The resulting system allows us to test and modify the problem specifications in a straightforward way and to combine various knowledge aspects.
We propose a notion of a stable partition in a coalitional game that is parametrized by the concept of a defection function. This function assigns to each partition of the grand coalition a set of different coalition arrangements for a group of defecting players. The alternatives are compared using their social welfare. We characterize the stability of a partition for a number of most natural defection functions and investigate whether and how so defined stable partitions can be reached from any initial partition by means of simple transformations. The approach is illustrated by analyzing an example in which a set of stores seeks an optimal transportation arrangement.
We discuss here constraint programming (CP) by using a proof-theoretic perspective. To this end we identify three levels of abstraction. Each level sheds light on the essence of CP. In particular, the highest level allows us to bring CP closer to the computation as deduction paradigm. At the middle level we can explain various constraint propagation algorithms. Finally, at the lowest level we can address the issue of automatic generation and optimization of the constraint propagation algorithms.