The complexity of equilibria: Hardness results for economies via a correspondence with games

17Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We give a reduction from any two-player game to a special case of the Leontief exchange economy, with the property that the Nash equilibria of the game and the equilibria of the market are in one-to-one correspondence. Our reduction exposes a computational hurdle inherent in solving certain families of market equilibrium problems: finding an equilibrium for Leontief economies is at least as hard as finding a Nash equilibrium for two-player nonzero sum games, a problem recently proven to be P P A D-complete. As a corollary of the one-to-one correspondence, we obtain a number of hardness results for questions related to the computation of market equilibria, using results already established for games [I. Gilboa, E. Zemel, Nash and correlated equilibria: Some complexity considerations, Games and Economic Behavior 1 (1989) 80-93]. In particular, among other results, we show that it is N P-hard to say whether a particular family of Leontief exchange economies, that is guaranteed to have at least one equilibrium, has more than one equilibrium. Perhaps more importantly, we also prove that it is N P-hard to decide whether a Leontief exchange economy has an equilibrium. This fact should be contrasted against the known P P A D-completeness result of [C.H. Papadimitriou, On the complexity of the parity argument and other inefficient proofs of existence, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 48 (1994) 498-532], which holds when the problem satisfies some standard sufficient conditions that make it equivalent to the computational version of Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Codenotti, B., Saberi, A., Varadarajan, K., & Ye, Y. (2008). The complexity of equilibria: Hardness results for economies via a correspondence with games. Theoretical Computer Science, 408(2–3), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2008.08.007

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free