Profit Sharing and Efficiency in Utility Games

Authors Sreenivas Gollapudi, Kostas Kollias, Debmalya Panigrahi, Venetia Pliatsika

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 478 kB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Sreenivas Gollapudi
Kostas Kollias
Debmalya Panigrahi
Venetia Pliatsika

Cite AsGet BibTex

Sreenivas Gollapudi, Kostas Kollias, Debmalya Panigrahi, and Venetia Pliatsika. Profit Sharing and Efficiency in Utility Games. In 25th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 87, pp. 43:1-43:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)


We study utility games (Vetta, FOCS 2002) where a set of players join teams to produce social utility, and receive individual utility in the form of payments in return. These games have many natural applications in competitive settings such as labor markets, crowdsourcing, etc. The efficiency of such a game depends on the profit sharing mechanism - the rule that maps utility produced by the players to their individual payments. We study three natural and widely used profit sharing mechanisms - egalitarian or equal sharing, marginal gain or value addition when a player joins, and marginal loss or value depletion when a player leaves. For these settings, we give tight bounds on the price of anarchy, thereby allowing comparison between these popular mechanisms from a (worst case) social welfare perspective.
  • Price of anarchy
  • submodular maximization
  • coverage functions


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Y. Bachrach, V. Syrgkanis, and M. Vojnovic. Incentives and efficiency in uncertain collaborative environments. In WINE, pages 26-39, 2013. Google Scholar
  2. G. Calinescu, C. Chekuri, M. Pal, and J. Vondrak. Maximizing a submodular set function subject to a matroid constraint (extended abstract). In IPCO, pages 182-196, 2007. Google Scholar
  3. H. Chen, T. Roughgarden, and G. Valiant. Designing network protocols for good equilibria. SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(5):1799-1832, 2010. Google Scholar
  4. S. Dobzinski and M. Schapira. An improved approximation algorithm for combinatorial auctions with submodular bidders. In SODA, pages 1064-1073, 2006. Google Scholar
  5. Y. Filmus and J. Ward. The Power of Local Search: Maximum Coverage over a Matroid. In STACS, pages 601-612, 2012. Google Scholar
  6. Y. Filmus and J. Ward. Monotone submodular maximization over a matroid via non-oblivious local search. SIAM Journal on Computing, 43(2):514-542, 2014. Google Scholar
  7. M. Gairing. Covering games: Approximation through non-cooperation. In WINE, pages 184-195, 2009. Google Scholar
  8. V. Gkatzelis, K. Kollias, and T. Roughgarden. Optimal cost-sharing in weighted congestion games. In WINE, 2014. Google Scholar
  9. T. Harks and K. Miller. The worst-case efficiency of cost sharing methods in resource allocation games. Operations Research, 59(6):1491-1503, 2011. Google Scholar
  10. E. Kalai and D. Samet. On weighted Shapley values. International Journal of Game Theory, 16(3):205-222, 1987. Google Scholar
  11. S. Khot, R. J. Lipton, E. Markakis, and A. Mehta. Inapproximability results for combinatorial auctions with submodular utility functions. Algorithmica, 52(1):3-18, 2008. Google Scholar
  12. K. Kollias and T. Roughgarden. Restoring pure equilibria to weighted congestion games. In ICALP, 2011. Google Scholar
  13. J. R. Marden and T. Roughgarden. Generalized efficiency bounds in distributed resource allocation. In CDC, pages 2233-2238. IEEE, 2010. Google Scholar
  14. J. R. Marden and A. Wierman. Distributed welfare games. Operations Research, 61(1):155-168, 2013. Google Scholar
  15. D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley. Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior, 14(1):124-143, 1996. Google Scholar
  16. I. Post, M. Kapralov, and J. Vondrak. Online submodular welfare maximization: Greedy is optimal. In SODA, pages 1216-1225, 2013. Google Scholar
  17. R. W. Rosenthal. A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory, 2(1):65-67, 1973. Google Scholar
  18. T. Roughgarden. Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy. In STOC, pages 513-522, 2009. Google Scholar
  19. L. S. Shapley. Additive and Non-Additive Set Functions. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, 1953. Google Scholar
  20. A. Vetta. Nash equilibria in competitive societies, with applications to facility location, traffic routing and auctions. In FOCS, 2002. Google Scholar