Decision-making by hierarchies of discordant agents

  • Xiaotie Deng
  • Christos Papadimitriou
Session 4B
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1350)

Abstract

We study the following decision-making scenario: A linear program is solved by a set of agents arranged hierarchically in a tree, where each agent decides the level of certain variables, and has a distinct objective function, known to all agents. Authority is reflected in two ways: Agents higher in the tree set their variables first; and agents that are siblings in the tree resolve their game by focusing on the Nash equilibrium that is optimum for the agent above them. We give a necessary and sufficient condition for such a hierarchy to be efficient (i.e., to have perfect coordination, to ultimately optimize the objective of the firm). We study problems related to designing a hierarchy (assigning decision makers to positions in the tree) in order to achieve efficiency or otherwise optimize coordination.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cho, I.K., and Kreps, D., “Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), pp.179–221, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G.B.Dantzig, Linear Programming and Extensions, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Geanakoplos, P. Milgrom ”A theory of hierarchies based on limited managerial attention” J. of the Japanese and Intern. Economics, 5, pp. 205–225.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeroslow, R.G., “ The polynomial hierarchy and a simple model for competitive analysis”, Mathematical Programming, 1985, 32, pp. 146–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kohlberg, E., and Mertens, J. F., “On the Strategic Stability of Equilibria,” Econometrica, 84(5), pp.1003–1037, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. M. Kreps ”A course in microeconomic theory”, chapter 18, Princeton, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kreps, D., and Wilson, R., “Sequential Equilibria,” Econometrica, 50(4), pp.863–894, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Marschak ”On economies of scope in communication,” Economic Design, 1, 4, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. March, and H. Simon, Organizations, Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. H. Papadimitriou Computational Complexity. Addison-Welsley Publishing Company, Don Mills, Ontario, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Prat ”Hierarchies of Processors with endogenous capacity,” Stanford manuscript, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. H. Papadimitriou, and M. Yannakakis, “Linear Programming with a Matrix,” In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp.121–129, San Diego, California, 16–18 May 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Radner, and T. van Zandt, “Information processing in Firms and Returns to Scale,” Annals d'Economie et de Statitique, No.25/26, pp.265–298, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schelling, T.C., The Strategy of Conflict, New York, Oxford University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Selten, “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games,” International Journal of Game Theory, 4(1), pp.25–55, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. D. Sleator and R. E. Tarjan. ”Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules,” Communications of the ACM, 28(2): pp. 202–208, February 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaotie Deng
    • 1
  • Christos Papadimitriou
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCity University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Division of Computer ScienceBerkeley

Personalised recommendations