arXiv subjects

Vade Shah

Publications and source records attributed to Vade Shah.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Alliance Mechanisms in General Lotto Games

How do different alliance mechanisms compare? In this work, we analyze various methods of forming an alliance in the Coalitional General Lotto game, a simple model of competitive resource allocation. In the game, Players 1 and 2 independently compete against a common Adversary by allocating their limited resource budgets towards separate sets of contests; an agent wins a contest by allocating more resources towards it than their opponent. In this setting, we study three alliance mechanisms: budget transfers (resource donation), contest transfers (contest redistribution), and joint transfers (both simultaneously). For all three mechanisms, we study when they present opportunities for collective improvement (the sum of the Players' payoffs increases) or mutual improvement (both Players' individual payoffs increase). In our first result, we show that all three are fundamentally different with regards to mutual improvement; in particular, mutually beneficial budget and contest transfers exist in distinct, limited subsets of games, whereas mutually beneficial joint transfers exist in almost all games. However, in our second result, we demonstrate that all three mechanisms are equivalent when it comes to collective improvement; that is, collectively beneficial budget, contest, and joint transfers exist in almost all game instances, and all three mechanisms achieve the same maximum collective payoff. Together, these results demonstrate that differences between mechanisms depend fundamentally on the objective of the alliance.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Playing with Peaks: A Game-Theoretic Comparison of Electricity Pricing Mechanisms

As electricity consumption grows, reducing peak demand--the maximum load on the grid--has become critical for preventing infrastructure strain and blackouts. Pricing mechanisms that incentivize consumers with flexible loads to shift consumption away from high-demand periods have emerged as effective tools, yet different mechanisms are used in practice with unclear relative performance. This work compares two widely implemented approaches: anytime peak pricing (AP), where consumers pay for their individual maximum consumption, and coincident peak pricing (CP), where consumers pay for their consumption during the system-wide peak period. To compare these mechanisms, we model the electricity market as a strategic game and characterize the peak demand in equilibrium under both AP and CP. Our main result demonstrates that with perfect information, equilibrium peak demand under CP never exceeds that under AP; on the other hand, with imperfect information, the coordination introduced by CP can backfire and induce larger equilibrium peaks than AP. These findings demonstrate that potential gains from coupling users' costs (as done in CP) must be weighed against these miscoordination risks. We conclude with preliminary results indicating that progressive demand cost structures--rather than per-unit charges--may mitigate these risks while preserving coordination benefits, achieving desirable performance in both deterministic and stochastic settings.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Cooling Under Convexity: An Inventory Control Perspective on Industrial Refrigeration

Industrial refrigeration systems have substantial energy needs, but optimizing their operation remains challenging due to the tension between minimizing energy costs and meeting strict cooling requirements. Load shifting--strategic overcooling in anticipation of future demands--offers substantial efficiency gains. This work seeks to rigorously quantify these potential savings through the derivation of optimal load shifting policies. Our first contribution establishes a novel connection between industrial refrigeration and inventory control problems with convex ordering costs, where the convexity arises from the relationship between energy consumption and cooling capacity. Leveraging this formulation, we derive three main theoretical results: (1) an optimal algorithm for deterministic demand scenarios, along with proof that optimal trajectories are non-increasing (a valuable structural insight for practical control); (2) performance bounds that quantify the value of load shifting as a function of cost convexity, demand variability, and temporal patterns; (3) a computationally tractable load shifting heuristic with provable near-optimal performance under uncertainty. Numerical simulations validate our theoretical findings, and a case study using real industrial refrigeration data demonstrates an opportunity for improved load shifting.

math.OC↗

arXiv2025

The Price of Simplicity: Analyzing Decoupled Policies for Multi-Location Inventory Control

What is the performance cost of using simple, decoupled control policies in inherently coupled systems? Motivated by industrial refrigeration systems, where centralized compressors exhibit economies of scale yet traditional control employs decoupled room-by-room temperature regulation, we address this question through the lens of multi-location inventory control. Here, a planner manages multiple inventories to meet stochastic demand while minimizing costs that are coupled through nonlinear ordering functions reflecting economies of scale. Our main contributions are: (i) a surprising equivalence result showing that optimal stationary base-stock levels for individual locations remain unchanged despite the coupling when restricting attention to decoupled strategies; (ii) tight performance bounds for simple decoupled policies relative to optimal coupled policies, revealing that the worst-case ratio depends primarily on the degree of nonlinearity in the cost function and scales with the number of locations for systems with fixed costs; and (iii) analysis of practical online algorithms that achieve competitive performance without solving complex dynamic programs. Numerical simulations demonstrate that while decoupled policies significantly outperform their worst-case guarantees in typical scenarios, they still exhibit meaningful suboptimality compared to fully coordinated strategies. These results provide actionable guidance for system operators navigating the trade-off between control complexity and operational efficiency in coupled systems.

math.OC↗

arXiv2024

Trial-and-Error Learning in Decentralized Matching Markets

Two-sided matching markets, environments in which two disjoint groups of agents seek to partner with one another, arise in several contexts. In static, centralized markets where agents know their preferences, standard algorithms can yield a stable matching. However, in dynamic, decentralized markets where agents must learn their preferences through interaction, such algorithms cannot be used. Our goal in this paper is to identify achievable stability guarantees in decentralized matching markets where (i) agents have limited information about their preferences and (ii) no central entity determines the match. Surprisingly, our first result demonstrates that these constraints do not preclude stability--simple "trial and error" learning policies guarantee convergence to a stable matching without requiring coordination between agents. Our second result shows that more sophisticated policies can direct the system toward a particular group's optimal stable matching. This finding highlights an important dimension of strategic learning: when agents can accurately model others' policies, they can adapt their own behavior to systematically influence outcomes in their favor--a phenomenon with broad implications for learning in multi-agent systems.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Inefficient Alliance Formation in Coalitional Blotto Games

When multiple agents are engaged in a network of conflict, some can advance their competitive positions by forming alliances with each other. However, the costs associated with establishing an alliance may outweigh the potential benefits. This study investigates costly alliance formation in the framework of coalitional Blotto games, in which two players compete separately against a common adversary, and are able to collude by exchanging resources with one another. Previous work has shown that both players in the alliance can mutually benefit if one player unilaterally donates, or transfers, a portion of their budget to the other. In this letter, we consider a variation where the transfer of resources is inherently inefficient, meaning that the recipient of the transfer only receives a fraction of the donation. Our findings reveal that even in the presence of inefficiencies, mutually beneficial transfers are still possible. More formally, our main result provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such transfers, offering insights into the robustness of alliance formation in competitive environments with resource constraints.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Learning Optimal Stable Matches in Decentralized Markets with Unknown Preferences

Matching algorithms have demonstrated great success in several practical applications, but they often require centralized coordination and plentiful information. In many modern online marketplaces, agents must independently seek out and match with another using little to no information. For these kinds of settings, can we design decentralized, limited-information matching algorithms that preserve the desirable properties of standard centralized techniques? In this work, we constructively answer this question in the affirmative. We model a two-sided matching market as a game consisting of two disjoint sets of agents, referred to as proposers and acceptors, each of whom seeks to match with their most preferable partner on the opposite side of the market. However, each proposer has no knowledge of their own preferences, so they must learn their preferences while forming matches in the market. We present a simple online learning rule that guarantees a strong notion of probabilistic convergence to the welfare-maximizing equilibrium of the game, referred to as the proposer-optimal stable match. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first completely decoupled, communication-free algorithm that guarantees probabilistic convergence to an optimal stable match, irrespective of the structure of the matching market.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Battlefield Transfers in Coalitional Blotto Games

In competitive resource allocation environments, agents often choose to form alliances; however, for some agents, doing so may not always be beneficial. Is there a method of forming alliances that always reward each of their members? We study this question using the framework of the coalitional Blotto game, in which two players compete against a common adversary by allocating their budgeted resources across disjoint sets of valued battlefields. On any given battlefield, the agent that allocates a greater amount of resources wins the corresponding battlefield value. Existing work has shown the surprising result that in certain game instances, if one player donates a portion of their budget to the other player, then both players win larger amounts in their separate competitions against the adversary. However, this transfer-based method of alliance formation is not always mutually beneficial, which motivates the search for alternate strategies. In this vein, we study a new method of alliance formation referred to as a joint transfer, whereby players publicly transfer battlefields and budgets between one another before they engage in their separate competitions against the adversary. We show that in almost all game instances, there exists a mutually beneficial joint transfer that strictly increases the payoff of each player.

cs.GT↗