Aggregate learning in networks of strategic agents

We study the quality of aggregate learning in a networked dynamic quadratic game of incomplete information. We consider an ongoing generation of agents, where in each generation agents have access to a public history of noisy aggregate actions in previous generations. Each agent also receives a private noisy signal about the state in the current generation. We quantify the quality of aggregate learning as the asymptotic precision of the publicly learned signal about the current state, and study how the interactions among the agents affect the quality of aggregate learning. By characterizing the precision of aggregate learning for slow walks, we show the inefficiency of learning from history: while for a static state public history fully reveals the state, a small perturbation in the state from generation to generation significantly degrades the quality of aggregate learning. As for the effect of the interaction structure, we show that the quality of aggregate learning for slow walks is mainly determined by the local structure of the graph: the denser the locality, the higher the quality of information aggregation. For fast dynamics, the quality of aggregate learning is positively affected by the average Bonacich centrality, and is negatively affected by its variance.

[1]  Ali Jadbabaie,et al.  On performance of consensus protocols subject to noise: Role of hitting times and network structure , 2015, 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[2]  Bassam Bamieh,et al.  Coherence in Large-Scale Networks: Dimension-Dependent Limitations of Local Feedback , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[3]  Ali Jadbabaie,et al.  Slopey quantizers are locally optimal for Witsenhausen's counterexample , 2016, 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[4]  Milad Siami,et al.  Centrality Measures in Linear Consensus Networks With Structured Network Uncertainties , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[5]  Naomi Ehrich Leonard,et al.  Robustness of noisy consensus dynamics with directed communication , 2010, Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference.

[6]  Franklin Allen,et al.  Financial Contagion , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  Ali Kakhbod,et al.  Dynamic Pricing in Social Networks: The Word of Mouth Effect , 2015 .

[8]  Zeynep Önder,et al.  Information and Volatility: Evidence from an Emerging Market , 2002 .

[9]  Hamidreza Tavafoghi,et al.  Multidimensional Forward Contracts Under Uncertainty for Electricity Markets , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[10]  KoutsoukosXenofon,et al.  Sensor placement for fault location identification in water networks , 2016 .

[11]  Vasco M. Carvalho,et al.  The Network Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations , 2011 .

[12]  Munther A. Dahleh,et al.  Dynamic public learning in networks of strategic agents: The role of inter/intra-community ties , 2017, 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[13]  David M. Pennock,et al.  Prediction Markets: Does Money Matter? , 2004, Electron. Mark..

[14]  G. Caldarelli,et al.  DebtRank: Too Central to Fail? Financial Networks, the FED and Systemic Risk , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[15]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Which Networks are Least Susceptible to Cascading Failures? , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[16]  Milad Siami,et al.  Fundamental Limits and Tradeoffs on Disturbance Propagation in Linear Dynamical Networks , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[17]  Terrence August,et al.  Designing user incentives for cybersecurity , 2014, Commun. ACM.

[18]  Munther A. Dahleh,et al.  Robust Network Routing under Cascading Failures , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering.