BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Samuel D. Johnson

Samuel D. Johnson appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computer Science and Game Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
1topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Strategic Seeding of Rival Opinions

We present a network influence game that models players strategically seeding the opinions of nodes embedded in a social network. A social learning dynamic, whereby nodes repeatedly update their opinions to resemble those of their neighbors, spreads the seeded opinions through the network. After a fixed period of time, the dynamic halts and each player's utility is determined by the relative strength of the opinions held by each node in the network vis-a-vis the other players. We show that the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium cannot be guaranteed in general. However, if the dynamics are allowed to progress for a sufficient amount of time so that a consensus among all of the nodes is obtained, then the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium can be guaranteed. The computational complexity of finding a pure strategy best response is shown to be NP-complete, but can be efficiently approximated to within a (1 - 1/e) factor of optimal by a simple greedy algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Algorithm Instance Games

This paper introduces algorithm instance games (AIGs) as a conceptual classification applying to games in which outcomes are resolved from joint strategies algorithmically. For such games, a fundamental question asks: How do the details of the algorithm's description influence agents' strategic behavior? We analyze two versions of an AIG based on the set-cover optimization problem. In these games, joint strategies correspond to instances of the set-cover problem, with each subset (of a given universe of elements) representing the strategy of a single agent. Outcomes are covers computed from the joint strategies by a set-cover algorithm. In one variant of this game, outcomes are computed by a deterministic greedy algorithm, and the other variant utilizes a non-deterministic form of the greedy algorithm. We characterize Nash equilibrium strategies for both versions of the game, finding that agents' strategies can vary considerably between the two settings. In particular, we find that the version of the game based on the deterministic algorithm only admits Nash equilibrium in which agents choose strategies (i.e., subsets) containing at most one element, with no two agents picking the same element. On the other hand, in the version of the game based on the non-deterministic algorithm, Nash equilibrium strategies can include agents with zero, one, or every element, and the same element can appear in the strategies of multiple agents.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Inequality and Network Formation Games

This paper addresses the matter of inequality in network formation games. We employ a quantity that we are calling the Nash Inequality Ratio (NIR), defined as the maximal ratio between the highest and lowest costs incurred to individual agents in a Nash equilibrium strategy, to characterize the extent to which inequality is possible in equilibrium. We give tight upper bounds on the NIR for the network formation games of Fabrikant et al. (PODC '03) and Ehsani et al. (SPAA '11). With respect to the relationship between equality and social efficiency, we show that, contrary to common expectations, efficiency does not necessarily come at the expense of increased inequality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access