More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Public Access

Mean Field Games in Nudge Systems for Societal Networks

Authors:

Srinivas Shakkottai,

Vijay Subramanian,

Le XieAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems (TOMPECS), Volume 3, Issue 4

Article No.: 15, Pages 1 - 31

https://doi.org/10.1145/3232076

Published: 31 August 2018 Publication History

Abstract

We consider the general problem of resource sharing in societal networks, consisting of interconnected communication, transportation, energy, and other networks important to the functioning of society. Participants in such network need to take decisions daily, both on the quantity of resources to use as well as the periods of usage. With this in mind, we discuss the problem of incentivizing users to behave in such a way that society as a whole benefits. To perceive societal level impact, such incentives may take the form of rewarding users with lottery tickets based on good behavior and periodically conducting a lottery to translate these tickets into real rewards. We will pose the user decision problem as a mean field game and the incentives question as one of trying to select a good mean field equilibrium (MFE). In such a framework, each agent (a participant in the societal network) takes a decision based on an assumed distribution of actions of his/her competitors and the incentives provided by the social planner. The system is said to be at MFE if the agent’s action is a sample drawn from the assumed distribution. We will show the existence of such an MFE under general settings, and also illustrate how to choose an attractive equilibrium using as an example demand-response in the (smart) electricity network.

References

[1]

S. Adlakha, R. Johari, and G. Weintraub. 2015. Equilibria of dynamic games with many players: Existence, approximation, and market structure. J. Econ. Theory 156 (2015), 269--316.

[2]

M. H. Albadi and E. F. El-Saadany. 2008. A summary of demand response in electricity markets. Electric Power Syst. Res. 78, 11 (2008), 1989--1996.

[3]

H. Allcott and J. Kessler. 2015. The Welfare Effects of Nudges: A Case Study of Energy Use Social Comparisons. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.

[4]

P. Billingsley. 2013. Convergence of Probability Measures. John Wiley 8 Sons.

[5]

E. Bitar. 2015. Coordinated aggregation of distributed demand-side resources. Retrieved from http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/03/adding-renewable-energy-power-grid-requires-flexibility.

[6]

Vivek S. Borkar and Rajesh Sundaresan. 2013. Asymptotics of the invariant measure in mean field models with jumps. Stochast. Syst. 2, 2 (2013), 322--380.

[7]

D. S. Callaway. 2009. Tapping the energy storage potential in electric loads to deliver load following and regulation, with application to wind energy. Energy Convers. Manage. 50, 5 (2009), 1389--1400.

[8]

S. Chen and J. Wang. 2010. Tax evasion and fraud detection: A theoretical evaluation of Taiwan’s business tax policy for internet auctions. Asian Soc. Sci. 6, 12 (2010), 23.

[9]

D. D. Clark, J. Wroclawski, K. R. Sollins, and R. Braden. 2002. Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 32, 4 (2002), 347--356.

Digital Library

[10]

ERCOT. 2014. Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Retrieved from http://www.ercot.com/.

[11]

S. Gao, E. Frejinger, and M. Ben-Akiva. 2010. Adaptive route choices in risky traffic networks: A prospect theory approach. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 18, 5 (2010), 727--740.

[12]

D. Gomes, J. Mohr, and R. R. Souza. 2010. Discrete time, finite state space mean field games. J. Math. Pures Appl. 93, 3 (2010), 308--328.

[13]

C. Graham and S. Méléard. 1994. Chaos hypothesis for a system interacting through shared resources. Probabil. Theory Relat. Fields 100, 2 (1994), 157--174.

[14]

H. Hao, B. M. Sanandaji, K. Poolla, and T. L. Vincent. 2015. Aggregate flexibility of thermostatically controlled loads. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 30, 1 (2015), 189--198.

[15]

M. Hao and L. Xie. 2014. Analysis of coupon incentive-based demand response with bounded consumer rationality. In Proceedings of the North American Power Symposium. 1--6.

[16]

G. W. Harrison and E. E. Rutström. 2009. Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Exper. Econ. 12, 2 (2009), 133--158.

[17]

M. Huang, R. P. Malhamé, and P. E. Caines. 2006. Large population stochastic dynamic games: Closed-loop McKean-Vlasov systems and the nash certainty equivalence principle. Commun. Info. Syst. 6, 3 (2006), 221--252.

[18]

D. R. Hunter. 2004. MM algorithms for generalized bradley-terry models. Ann. Stat. (2004).

[19]

K. Iyer, R. Johari, and M. Sundararajan. 2014. Mean field equilibria of dynamic auctions with learning. Manage. Sci. 60, 12 (2014), 2949--2970.

Digital Library

[20]

B. Jovanovic and R. W. Rosenthal. 1988. Anonymous sequential games. J. Math. Econ. 17, 1 (Feb. 1988), 77--87.

[21]

D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econ.: J. Econ. Soc. (1979), 263--291.

[22]

D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. Amer. Psychol. 39, 4 (1984), 341.

[23]

J. M. Lasry and P. L. Lions. 2007. Mean field games. Japan. J. Math. 2, 1 (2007), 229--260.

[24]

J. Li, R. Bhattacharyya, S. Paul, S. Shakkottai, and V. Subramanian. 2016. Incentivizing sharing in realtime D2D streaming networks: A mean field game perspective. IEEE/ACM Trans. Network. 25, 1 (2016), 3--17.

Digital Library

[25]

J. Li, R. Bhattacharyya, S. Paul, S. Shakkottai, and V. Subramanian. 2016. Incentivizing sharing in realtime D2D streaming networks: A mean field game perspective. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1604.02435 (2016).

Digital Library

[26]

J. Li, B. Xia, X. Geng, M. Hao, S. Shakkottai, V. Subramanian, and X. Le. 2015. Energy coupon: A mean field game perspective on demand response in smart grids. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Measurement and Evaluation (SIGMETRICS’15). 455--456.

Digital Library

[27]

T. Li and N. B. Mandayam. 2012. Prospects in a wireless random access game. In Proceedings of Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS’12). 1--6.

[28]

P. Loiseau, G. A. Schwartz, J. Musacchio, S. Amin, and S. S. Sastry. 2014. Incentive mechanisms for internet congestion management: Fixed-budget rebate versus time-of-day pricing. IEEE/ACM Trans. Network. 22, 2 (Apr. 2014), 647--661.

Digital Library

[29]

J. A. Lozano and E. Irurozki. 2012. Probabilistic modeling on rankings. Retrieved from http://www.sc.ehu.es/ccwbayes/members/ekhine/tutorial_ranking/info.html.

[30]

M. Manjrekar, V. Ramaswamy, and S. Shakkottai. 2014. A mean field game approach to scheduling in cellular systems. In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom.

[31]

D. Merugu, B. S. Prabhakar, and N. S. Rama. 2009. An incentive mechanism for decongesting the roads: A pilot program in bangalore. In Proceedings the ACM Workshop on the Economics of Networked Systems (NetEcon’09).

[32]

S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie. 2009. Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability. Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

[33]

J. Naritomi. 2013. Consumers as Tax Auditors. working paper, International Development Department and Institute of Public Affairs, London School of Economics.

[34]

OhmConnect. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ohmconnect.com/.

[35]

Pecan-Street. 2014. Retrieved from https://dataport.pecanstreet.org/.

[36]

M. Poco, C. Lopes, and A. Silva. 2015. Perception of Tax Evasion and Tax Fraud in Portugal: A Sociological Study. working paper.

[37]

B. Prabhakar. 2013. Designing large-scale nudge engines. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Measurement and Evaluation (SIGMETRICS’13). 1--2.

Digital Library

[38]

D. Prelec. 1998. The probability weighting function. Econometrica (1998), 497--527.

[39]

M. L. Puterman. 1994. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc.

Digital Library

[40]

T. Qin, X. Geng, and T. Liu. 2010. A new probabilistic model for rank aggregation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1948--1956.

Digital Library

[41]

Sheldon M. Ross. 2013. Applied Probability Models with Optimization Applications. Courier Corporation.

[42]

G. A. Schwartz, H. Tembine, S. Amin, and S. S. Sastry. 2012. Electricity demand shaping via randomized rewards: A mean field game approach. In Proceedings of the Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing.

[43]

A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 4481 (1981), 453--458.

[44]

A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 4 (1992), 297--323.

[45]

Y. Wang, W. Saad, N. B. Mandayam, and H. V. Poor. 2014. Integrating energy storage into the smart grid: A prospect theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’14). 7779--7783.

[46]

L. Xiao, N. B. Mandayam, and H. V. Poor. 2015. Prospect theoretic analysis of energy exchange among microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 6, 1 (Jan. 2015), 63--72.

[47]

J. Yu, M. H. Cheung, and J. Huang. 2014. Spectrum investment with uncertainty based on prospect theory. In Proceedings of International Conference on Communications (ICC’14). 1620--1625.

[48]

H. Zhong, L. Xie, and Q. Xia. 2013. Coupon incentive-based demand response: Theory and case study. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28, 2 (May 2013), 1266--1276.

Cited By

Liao GSu YZiani JWierman AHuang J(2024)The Privacy Paradox and Optimal Bias–Variance Trade-offs in Data AcquisitionMathematics of Operations Research10.1287/moor.2023.002249:4(2749-2767)Online publication date: Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2023.0022
Zhao TLi WQin BWang LZomaya A(2023)Pulsed Power Load Coordination in Mission- and Time-critical Cyber-physical SystemsACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems10.1145/35731978:1-2(1-27)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3573197
Huang LHuang L(2023)Summary and DiscussionsLearning for Decision and Control in Stochastic Networks10.1007/978-3-031-31597-8_5(69-71)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31597-8_5
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Mean Field Games in Nudge Systems for Societal Networks
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
  2. Operations research
2. Networks
  1. Network algorithms
    1. Network economics
  2. Network performance evaluation

Recommendations

Mean Field Equilibria of Pricing Games in Internet Marketplaces
SIGMETRICS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science

We model an Internet marketplace using a set of servers that choose prices for performing jobs. Each server has a queue of unfinished jobs, and is penalized for delay by the market maker via a holding cost. A server completes jobs with a low or high "...
Mean Field Equilibria of Pricing Games in Internet Marketplaces
Performance evaluation review

We model an Internet marketplace using a set of servers that choose prices for performing jobs. Each server has a queue of unfinished jobs, and is penalized for delay by the market maker via a holding cost. A server completes jobs with a low or high "...
Empirical Game-Theoretic Analysis for Mean Field Games
AAMAS '23: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

We present a simulation-based approach for solution of mean field games (MFGs), using the framework of empirical game-theoretical analysis (EGTA). Our primary method employs a version of the double oracle, iteratively adding strategies based on best ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems

ACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems Volume 3, Issue 4

December 2018

175 pages

ISSN:2376-3639

EISSN:2376-3647

DOI:10.1145/3271433

Editors:
Sem Borst
Nokia Bell Labs / Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
,
Carey Williamson
University of Calgary, Canada

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 31 August 2018

Accepted: 01 June 2018

Revised: 01 March 2018

Received: 01 December 2016

Published in TOMPECS Volume 3, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
546
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)113
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)35

Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Liao GSu YZiani JWierman AHuang J(2024)The Privacy Paradox and Optimal Bias–Variance Trade-offs in Data AcquisitionMathematics of Operations Research10.1287/moor.2023.002249:4(2749-2767)Online publication date: Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2023.0022
Zhao TLi WQin BWang LZomaya A(2023)Pulsed Power Load Coordination in Mission- and Time-critical Cyber-physical SystemsACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems10.1145/35731978:1-2(1-27)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3573197
Huang LHuang L(2023)Summary and DiscussionsLearning for Decision and Control in Stochastic Networks10.1007/978-3-031-31597-8_5(69-71)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31597-8_5
Xie LRajagopal RWeng YXie LWeng YRajagopal R(2023)Adapt Load Behavior as Technology Agnostic SolutionData Science and Applications for Modern Power Systems10.1007/978-3-031-29100-5_4(45-125)Online publication date: 28-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29100-5_4
Xia BLee KShakkottai SKalathil D(2022)A Market for Retail Electric Provider Based Demand Response2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029395(8429-8434)Online publication date: 28-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029395
Yasodharan SSundaresan R(2022)Large-time behaviour and the second eigenvalue problem for finite-state mean-field interacting particle systemsAdvances in Applied Probability10.1017/apr.2022.1155:1(85-125)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.1017/apr.2022.11
Kumar RTripathi R(2021)DBTP2SFTransactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies10.1002/ett.422232:4Online publication date: 5-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/ett.4222
Ming HXia BLee KAdepoju AShakkottai SXie L(2020)Prediction and assessment of demand response potential with coupon incentives in highly renewable power systemsProtection and Control of Modern Power Systems10.1186/s41601-020-00155-x5:1Online publication date: 6-Apr-2020
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601-020-00155-x
Bourget ECuppens FCuppens-Boulahia NKatsikas SAlcaraz C(2020)PROS2E, a Probabilistic Representation of Safety and Security Events for DiagnosisProceedings of the 6th ACM on Cyber-Physical System Security Workshop10.1145/3384941.3409590(30-41)Online publication date: 6-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3384941.3409590
Manjrekar MRamaswamy VReddyvari Raja VShakkottai S(2020)A Mean Field Game Approach to Scheduling in Cellular SystemsIEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems10.1109/TCNS.2019.29591647:2(568-578)Online publication date: Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2019.2959164
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents