arXiv++ Combinatorics

People, robots, and companies mostly divide time and effort between projects, and \defined{shared effort games} model people investing resources in public endeavors and sharing the generated values. In linear $θ$ sharing (effort) games, a project's value is linear in the total contribution, thus modelling predictable, uniform, and scalable activities. The threshold $θ$ for effort defines which contributors win and receive their share, equal share modelling standard salaries, equity-minded projects, etc. Thresholds between 0 and 1 model games such as paper co-authorship and shared assignments, where a minimum positive contribution is required for sharing in the value. We constructively characterise the conditions for the existence of a pure equilibrium for $θ\in\{0,1\}$, and for two-player games with a general threshold, and find the prices of anarchy and stability. We also provide existence and efficiency results for more than two players, and use generalised fictitious play simulations to show when a pure equilibrium exists and what its efficiency is. We propose a novel method for studying solution concepts by defining a new concept and proving its equivalence to a previously known on a large subclass of games. This means that the original concept narrows down to a more demanding concepts on certain games, providing new insights and opening a path to study both concepts conveniently. We also prove mixed equilibria always exist and bound their efficiency.

We consider an environment where sellers compete over buyers. All sellers are a-priori identical and strategically signal buyers about the product they sell. In a setting motivated by on-line advertising in display ad exchanges, where firms use second price auctions, a firm's strategy is a decision about its signaling scheme for a stream of goods (e.g. user impressions), and a buyer's strategy is a selection among the firms. In this setting, a single seller will typically provide partial information and consequently a product may be allocated inefficiently. Intuitively, competition among sellers may induce sellers to provide more information in order to attract buyers and thus increase efficiency. Surprisingly, we show that such a competition among firms may yield significant loss in consumers' social welfare with respect to the monopolistic setting. Although we also show that in some cases the competitive setting yields gain in social welfare, we provide a tight bound on that gain, which is shown to be small in respect to the above possible loss. Our model is tightly connected with the literature on bundling in auctions.