REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 35 references
Task Allocation in Customer-led Two-sided Markets with Satellite Constellation Services
T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A customer-led Stackelberg game for two-sided markets is claimed to guarantee stable task allocation and to cut customer payments by 23% while boosting company revenue 6.7-fold.
desk verdict Interesting model, broken proof: the main existence theorems are unsupported and the headline numbers are unreliable. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the potential function $\Phi(\mathrm{spf}) = \sum_{m \in M^{\mathrm{spf}}_K} E_m[\mathrm{spf}]$, the sum of expected profits over all teams formed by a company strategy profile. The paper uses this to argue that the follower game is an ordinal potential game—a game in which every profitable unilateral deviation raises a common potential value—which gives the finite improvement property and hence a pure Nash equilibrium. The leader game is then shown to have an equilibrium by finite best-response reasoning once the followers' equilibrium is fixed. In the experimental implementation, the operative mechanism is a similarity threshold on the company social network: a greedy algorithm forms teams from companies whose service offerings overlap below the threshold, and each task is allocated to the team with the minimum total offer price. The customer side uses a group-buying discount $\delta(d^s_k)$ that decreases as more customers in a task share the same service need.
What would settle it
Take a market with two companies and two tasks, where each company can cover both tasks alone, so every team formation yields the same total expected profit $\Phi$. Give company $y$ a unilateral deviation that moves it from its current team to a different team and strictly increases $y$'s own revenue while leaving $\Phi$ unchanged. If such a configuration exists, then $\Delta r_y > 0$ while $\Delta \Phi = 0$, disproving the ordinal-potential equivalence that Theorem 1 depends on.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that reversing the usual Stackelberg hierarchy—customers as leaders who post tasks, companies as followers who form teams—preserves the game-theoretic guarantees that market designers rely on. Theorem 1 asserts that for any given feasible set of tasks, the companies' follower game has at least one pure-strategy Nash equilibrium, and Corollary 1 gives uniqueness when the potential function has a unique global maximum. Theorem 2 asserts that the customer-led Stackelberg game has at least one pure-strategy Stackelberg equilibrium, with a uniqueness corollary under strict monotonicity. The mechanism combines customer group-buying discounts with company team formation based on service similarity, and allocates each task to the team with the lowest expected offer price. The experimental section reports that, across five scenarios of the satellite constellation market, the customer-led model cuts average customer payments by up to 23% and lifts company revenues by factors ranging from about 2.4 to 14, with the abstract citing a 6.7-fold average increase.
Load-bearing premise
The proof that the follower game has a pure Nash equilibrium rests on the unproved assertion that whenever a company can improve its own revenue by switching teams, the total expected profit of all teams changes in the same direction; this equivalence fails in general because the total can be identical for different team formations that serve the same set of tasks.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 hold, platforms in crowdsourcing, ride-sharing, and cloud computing can adopt customer-initiated design while retaining stability guarantees.
- The 23% customer payment reduction indicates that group-buying among customers with similar service needs can substantially lower costs even when individual preferences are heterogeneous.
- The revenue gains reported across all scenarios suggest that company team formation unlocks high-value tasks that a single provider cannot serve, which is a direct economic argument for encouraging partnerships.
- The uniqueness corollaries imply that, under strict monotonicity, the market outcome is predictable, which would let platform operators compute the equilibrium in advance rather than rely on tatonnement.
Reading between the lines
- A concrete way to stress-test Theorem 1 is to search small market instances for a unilateral deviation that improves a company's revenue while leaving the total team-profit potential unchanged; if found, the existence proof would need a different argument even if the equilibrium itself still exists.
- The similarity threshold for team formation acts as a market-design lever: the experiments locate the point of near-100% task completion at different thresholds per scenario, suggesting an operator could tune this threshold to the market's density rather than fixing it.
- The model assumes a static set of feasible tasks chosen by customers; extending it to dynamic entry and exit of customers would require re-checking the equilibrium conditions, since the follower best response could shift as tasks change.
- The reported revenue multipliers are computed against a company-led baseline in which no team formation occurs; a fair comparison with a company-led model that also allows teams would isolate the effect of leadership reversal from the effect of allowing cooperation.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a customer-led Stackelberg game model for task allocation in two-sided markets. Customers act as leaders and may use a group-buying discount to form tasks; companies act as followers and may form teams to cover the requested services. The main theoretical claims are that a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium exists in the follower game for any feasible task set (Theorem 1), that a pure-strategy Stackelberg equilibrium exists (Theorem 2), and that uniqueness holds under a 'strict monotonicity' condition. The paper also reports satellite-constellation simulation experiments claiming a 23% reduction in customer payments and a 6.7-fold increase in company revenues. The theoretical proof in Appendix B.1 is an ordinal-potential argument, and the experimental comparison is between a customer-led treatment with group-buying discounts and a company-led baseline without them.
Significance. The setting is relevant: customer-led mechanisms with team formation are natural for markets such as Earth-observation services, and the paper makes a concrete modeling attempt with a realistic simulation domain. If the existence theorems were correct, the paper would contribute a useful formal framework. However, the central theoretical result is not established: the proposed potential function is not ordinal, and the proof contains a concrete monotonicity failure. The uniqueness results are essentially tautological assumptions rather than derived conditions. The headline experimental numbers are also artifacts of the chosen discount function and of comparing treatments with and without group buying. The paper therefore does not currently provide the claimed theoretical guarantees or empirical evidence. I see no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations that would offset these gaps.
major comments (5)
- [Appendix B.1, Theorem 1] The proposed ordinal potential function is invalid. Since for each task k the sum of Pr(m,k) over all teams able to serve k is 1, the quantity Phi(spf)=sum_m E_m[spf] depends only on the set of tasks that at least one team can cover; it does not record how the expected profit is allocated among teams. Consequently, a unilateral deviation that changes the partition but preserves the covered-task set leaves Phi unchanged even when the deviating company's revenue changes. Concretely, take three companies y1,y2,y3 with Sy={a,b} for each, one task k with Rk={a,b} and payment 100, identical offer distributions, lambda=1, and zero costs. Under A_y1=A_y2={y1,y2}, A_y3={y3}, teams {y1,y2} and {y3} each win with probability 1/2, so y1's revenue is 25 and Phi=100. If y1 deviates to A_y1={y1}, all three companies are singletons, each wins with probability 1/3; y1's revenue becomes 100/3>25, while Phi remains 100. This violates the claimed equivalence Delta r_y>0 iff Delta Phi>0 in 'Direction 1' and 'Direction 2' of the proof. Thus the proof does not establish the existence of a pure Nash equilibrium, and the theorem is unsupported.
- [Appendix B.2, Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 relies on the assumption that for every leader strategy spl there is a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium BR(spl) of the follower game. Since Theorem 1 is not established, this premise is unavailable. In addition, the argument that any mixed strategy of a customer assigning positive probability to a task-failing action is strictly dominated by a pure strategy that guarantees success is false: whether a task is covered depends on the companies' team formation, which a customer cannot control, and it is possible that every pure customer action leads to failure for some follower best response. Therefore the finite-normal-form argument does not establish a pure-strategy leader equilibrium. Corollary 2 inherits these problems.
- [Appendix B.1, Corollary 1; Appendix B.2, Corollary 2] The 'strict monotonicity' assumptions restate the desired uniqueness conclusion rather than provide a sufficient condition that can be checked from the market primitives. In an ordinal potential game, pure Nash equilibria correspond to local maxima of the potential, and a unique global maximum does not rule out additional local maxima that are also equilibria. The proofs assert that a stable point must be the global maximizer, but that is exactly what needs to be proven. No example of a natural condition on delta, the customers' payments, or the social network that implies the assumed unique global maximum or minimum is given, so the uniqueness claims are vacuous.
- [Appendix C and Section 5.2] The reported 23% payment reduction is built into the model by construction. Appendix C defines the discount factor as delta(d_k^s)=0.5 e^{-(|Y|/|X|)(d_k^s-1)}+0.4, with a maximum discount of 60%, so any task with d_k^s>1 receives a strictly lower payment than the independent baseline. Comparing 'Customer-led' (which applies this delta) with 'Company-led' (which does not) therefore guarantees a payment reduction; the experiment does not test whether the proposed equilibrium mechanism itself reduces payments. The claimed revenue increase is similarly confounded because the customer-led treatment additionally allows company team formation while the baseline does not.
- [Section 5.2 and Appendix E] The paper labels rows in Tables 2-7 as 'at Nash equilibrium', but the experiments use a greedy team-formation algorithm and a similarity threshold rather than computing equilibria of the game defined by Definition 2. No verification of the no-unilateral-deviation condition is reported, so the tables do not provide empirical evidence for the theoretical equilibrium claims. In addition, the headline revenue multiplier is internally inconsistent: the abstract states a 6.7-fold increase, the introduction states 'increase company 14 times revenue', and Table 2 reports +900% (a 9-fold increase) for the baseline scenario. These numbers should be reconciled.
minor comments (6)
- [Section 4.2, Eq. (1)] The symbol TAM is used in Eq. (1) and in Definition 4 but is never defined in the main text; please define it (presumably the set of teams able to perform a task).
- [Section 4.2, Eq. (1)] The variable u_x is called 'utility' but customers are described as minimizing it; the text also uses 'payment' and 'cost' interchangeably. The sign convention should be made consistent, especially since Theorem 2 refers to customers 'lowering their cost'.
- [Appendix B.3, Proposition 3] The proof of Proposition 3 cites Lemma 2.9 of [Roughgarden and Tardos, 2002] as if it were a general statement about social welfare in potential games; that lemma concerns the price of anarchy in selfish routing and does not justify the claimed equality of total revenues across arbitrary strategy profiles.
- [Appendix D.1, Algorithm 2] The algorithm calls the similarity measure 'Jacobian distance'; the formula is the Jaccard distance. Please correct the terminology.
- [Appendix C] The displayed formula for the discount factor uses the ambiguous notation 'e(-(...))' and describes |Y|/|X| as 'total service demands and the number of services offered', while |Y| and |X| are previously defined as the numbers of companies and customers. Please clarify the formula and the description.
- [Appendix B] The main-text Theorem 1 is labelled Theorem 3 in Appendix B.1, Theorem 2 is labelled Theorem 4 in Appendix B.2, and Propositions 1-3 are labelled Propositions 4-6. Renumber or provide a mapping so readers can cross-reference the statements.
Circularity Check
Theorem 1's proof asserts the load-bearing equivalence Δr_y>0 ⇔ ΔΦ>0 as its own 'Direction' steps (Φ is invariant to profit splits among teams, so the equivalence fails); Corollaries 1–2 restate strict monotonicity as unique NE/SE; and the 23% payment reduction is the chosen discount factor applied to baseline prices by construction.
-
other
[Theorem 1 (Sec. 4.3); proof in Appendix B.1]
"We need to prove that for any company y ∈ Y and any unilateral strategy change from spf to spf ′, the following equivalence holds: ry(spf ′) − ry(spf ) > 0 ⇔ Φ(spf ′) − Φ(spf ) > 0"
Φ(spf) = Σ_m E_m[spf]; since Σ_m Pr(m,k) = 1 for every covered task, Φ equals the total payment of covered tasks and is invariant to how that payment is split among teams. Direction 1 and Direction 2 each assert the needed equivalence rather than deriving it. The proof is circular because the key lemma it must establish—that a profitable unilateral deviation increases the potential—is exactly what the two directions claim. The claim also fails concretely: with three identical companies and one 100-payment task, Φ = 100 in every formation, yet a company deviating from pair formation (payoff 25) to singleton (payoff 33) has Δr_y > 0 with ΔΦ = 0. Thus pure-strategy NE existence rests on an unproven and in general false equivalence.
-
other
[Assumption 1 and Corollary 1 (Sec. 4.3 / Appendix B.1)]
"Assumption 1 (Strict Monotonicity). On the finite strategy space, the potential function Φ(spf ) has a unique global maximum. ... Corollary 1 (Uniqueness of PSNE). Under the same conditions of Theorem 1, if the potential function Φ further satisfies the Assumption 1, then there is a unique pure strategy Nash equilibrium in the follower game."
The proof rules out two PSNEs only for the case Φ(spf1) = Φ(spf2), then invokes Assumption 1's unique global maximum to conclude 'the PSNE must be unique.' This equates the conclusion (unique PSNE) with the assumption (unique global maximizer of Φ): it never excludes a second PSNE at a lower-valued local maximum. In an ordinal potential game, a unique global maximum does not imply a unique local maximum, so the uniqueness result is the strict-monotonicity hypothesis restated as a corollary; no step derives uniqueness from the market primitives such as service sets, costs, offers, the discount function, or the team-formation rule.
2 more flagged steps
-
other
[Corollary 2 (Appendix B.2)]
"Assume that Φ(·) satisfies the strict monotonicity property on the finite set SP L, meaning there is a unique global minimiser spl† such that Φ(spl†) < Φ(spl) ∀ spl ̸= spl†, with no ties or other points achieving Φ(spl†). Then there is exactly one pure-strategy Stackelberg Equilibrium in this model."
Corollary 2 defines strict monotonicity as the existence of a unique global minimizer of the leaders' total cost Φ(spl), then concludes 'there is exactly one pure-strategy Stackelberg Equilibrium.' The proof's only step beyond the hypothesis is the assertion that any second SE 'would likewise have to achieve the same globally minimal cost Φ(cspl), contradicting the uniqueness of spl†'; but a second equilibrium need not attain the global minimum at all. The uniqueness conclusion is the hypothesis itself; the intervening argument merely restates it, so the corollary adds no independent derivation from the leader-follower game's structure.
-
self definitional
[Sections 3.2 and 4.2; Appendix C; Abstract]
"The total payment for service s ∈ Rk task k can be calculated as: P ayk s = P x∈Xk,s.t.s∈Sx δ(dk s ) · px(s) ... The discount factor is modelled by the exponential function δ(dk s ) = 0.5e(−((|Y|/|X|)·(dk s−1))) + 0.4 ... experimental results show a 23% reduction in customer payments"
Customer payments are defined as f^k_x = Σ_{s∈Sx} δ(d^k_s)·px(s), with δ 'pre-determined by the market' and strictly decreasing; Appendix C fixes δ(d) = 0.5e^{−(|Y|/|X|)(d−1)} + 0.4, so δ(1) = 0.9 and δ(d) → 0.4 (capped at 60% discount), with parameters adopted without external calibration. The 'Company-led' baseline in Tables 2–7 charges undiscounted px(s). Hence every customer-led payment is, by construction, a fixed percentage of the baseline payment, and the reported '23% reduction in customer payments' is the arithmetic effect of the chosen exponential schedule: any strictly decreasing δ < 1 would guarantee some reduction. The headline savings is the model's own input (the discount function) relabelled as an experimental finding.
full rationale
Walking the claimed derivation chain: (1) Theorem 1's ordinal-potential proof has one load-bearing step, the equivalence Δr_y > 0 ⇔ ΔΦ > 0. The two 'Direction' paragraphs each restate that equivalence as their justification, and the equivalence is false because Φ = Σ_m E_m equals the total payment of covered tasks and is invariant to how the payment is split among teams (three identical companies, one 100-payment task: Φ = 100 in every formation while a deviator raises its payoff from 25 to 33). Theorem 2 inherits Theorem 1 through the selected best response BR(spl), so both existence claims rest on an asserted, not derived, lemma; Theorem 2's additional argument that no customer mixes over failing actions also presumes, without proof, that a pure strategy guaranteeing success exists. (2) The uniqueness corollaries define strict monotonicity as 'Φ has a unique global maximum/minimum' and then conclude unique PSNE/SE; the proofs identify the conclusion with the hypothesis and never rule out other local maxima as equilibria, so uniqueness is assumed rather than obtained. (3) The experimental claim of a 23% payment reduction is definitional: customer-led payments are the baseline price times the chosen discount schedule δ(d) < 1 (Appendix C), while the Company-led baseline pays full price; the reduction is the discount factor's own arithmetic. I checked the reference list: this paper contains no self-citations (about 30 references, all external), so the self-citation patterns (kinds 3–5) do not apply, and the circularity is internal — asserted lemmas and definitional output. Proportionate verdict: the central existence proof assumes its key lemma (a validity defect that is also circular in structure), the uniqueness results are assumptions restated as corollaries, and the headline cost saving is forced by construction; hence score 8. The revenue-increase headline is less clearly circular (it reflects the model's team-formation mechanism), though the paper's own figures are inconsistent (6.7× in the abstract and conclusion, 14× in the introduction, +239% to +1430% in Table 2), which is a reporting concern rather than circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (5)
- discount factor δ(d) =
δ(d) = 0.5·e^{-(|Y|/|X|)·(d-1)} + 0.4
- formation cost parameter λ =
not specified; stated range [0, 0.3]
- offer price distribution =
i.i.d. in [min oy(s), max oy(s)]
- similarity threshold at NE =
varies per scenario and task count (e.g., 0.274-0.538)
- market cost parameters =
$10/km² standard, $3/km² imaging, $5000 per service operational
assumptions (8)
- standard math Nash existence theorem for finite games
- standard math Ordinal potential game characterization
- domain assumption px(s) ≥ oy(s) for all customers and companies
- domain assumption No single company covers all services; collectively they cover all
- domain assumption Feasible tasks and team formations are partitions
- domain assumption Offer prices P^m_s are i.i.d. random variables
- ad hoc to paper Strict monotonicity: unique global maximum of potential Φ
- ad hoc to paper Mixed strategies causing task failure are strictly dominated
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Task Allocation in Customer-led Two-sided Markets with Satellite Constellation Services." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQK65OG5
@misc{pith2026250113364,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Task Allocation in Customer-led Two-sided Markets with Satellite Constellation Services},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQK65OG5}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13364}
}
read the original abstract
Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly applied to complex task allocation in two-sided markets, where agents such as companies and customers interact dynamically. Traditional company-led Stackelberg game models, where companies set service prices, and customers respond, struggle to accommodate diverse and personalised customer demands in emerging markets like crowdsourcing. This paper proposes a customer-led Stackelberg game model for cost-efficient task allocation, where customers initiate tasks as leaders, and companies create their strategies as followers to meet these demands. We prove the existence of Nash Equilibrium for the follower game and Stackelberg Equilibrium for the leader game while discussing their uniqueness under specific conditions, ensuring cost-efficient task allocation and improved market performance. Using the satellite constellation services market as a real-world case, experimental results show a 23% reduction in customer payments and a 6.7-fold increase in company revenues, demonstrating the model's effectiveness in emerging markets.
Figures
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Segment- ing two-sided markets
[Banerjee et al., 2017] Siddhartha Banerjee, Sreenivas Gol- lapudi, Kostas Kollias, and Kamesh Munagala. Segment- ing two-sided markets. In Proceedings of the 26th Interna- tional Conference on World Wide Web, pages 63–72,
work page 2017
-
[3]
At least one pure strategy Nash equilibrium spf ∗ exists in the follower game for any given feasible tasks K. Proof. We prove the existence of a pure strategy Nash equi- librium (PSNE) by showing that this follower game is an or- dinal potential game[V oorneveld and Norde, 1997; Ewerhart, 2020]. Specifically, we construct an ordinal potential function and...
work page 1997
-
[6]
[Du et al., 2022] Jun Du, Chunxiao Jiang, Abderrahim Benslimane, Song Guo, and Yong Ren. Sdn-based re- source allocation in edge and cloud computing systems: An evolutionary stackelberg differential game approach. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , 30(4):1613– 1628,
work page 2022
-
[7]
Earth observation for the assess- ment of earthquake hazard, risk and disaster management
[Elliott, 2020] JR Elliott. Earth observation for the assess- ment of earthquake hazard, risk and disaster management. Surveys in geophysics, 41(6):1323–1354,
work page 2020
-
[8]
Ordinal potentials in smooth games
[Ewerhart, 2020] Christian Ewerhart. Ordinal potentials in smooth games. Economic Theory , 70(4):1069–1100,
work page 2020
-
[9]
Incentives for early arrival in cooperative games
[Ge et al., 2024] Yaoxin Ge, Yao Zhang, Dengji Zhao, Zhi- hao Gavin Tang, Hu Fu, and Pinyan Lu. Incentives for early arrival in cooperative games. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 651–659,
work page 2024
-
[12]
Incentive-boosted federated crowdsourcing
[Kang et al., 2023] Xiangping Kang, Guoxian Yu, Jun Wang, Wei Guo, Carlotta Domeniconi, and Jinglin Zhang. Incentive-boosted federated crowdsourcing. In Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol- ume 37, pages 6021–6029,
work page 2023
-
[14]
Distributed service with proximal capac- ity and pricing on a two-sided sharing economy platform
[Lee et al., 2023] Kyungmin Lee, Marcus A Bellamy, and Nitin R Joglekar. Distributed service with proximal capac- ity and pricing on a two-sided sharing economy platform. Journal of Operations Management, 69(5):742–763,
work page 2023
Show all 35 references
-
[15]
Integrat- ing demand response and renewable energy in wholesale market
[Li et al., 2018] Chaojie Li, Chen Liu, Xinghuo Yu, Ke Deng, Tingwen Huang, and Liangchen Liu. Integrat- ing demand response and renewable energy in wholesale market. In IJCAI, pages 382–388,
2018
-
[17]
Reputation and pricing dynam- ics in online markets
[Ma et al., 2021] Qian Ma, Jianwei Huang, Tamer Bas ¸ar, Ji Liu, and Xudong Chen. Reputation and pricing dynam- ics in online markets. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Net- working, 29(4):1745–1759,
2021
-
[18]
A stochastic evolutionary dynamic game model for analyzing the ride-sourcing market with limited platform reputation
[Mo et al., 2023] Dong Mo, Xiqun Chen, Zheng Zhu, Chao- jie Liu, and Na Xie. A stochastic evolutionary dynamic game model for analyzing the ride-sourcing market with limited platform reputation. Transportmetrica B: Trans- port Dynamics, 11(1):2248399,
2023
-
[19]
Earth observation satel- lites set to triple over the next decade,
[Nova-Space, 2024] Nova-Space. Earth observation satel- lites set to triple over the next decade,
2024
-
[20]
Incremental fair- ness in two-sided market platforms: On smoothly updating recommendations
[Patro et al., 2020] Gourab K Patro, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna Gummadi. Incremental fair- ness in two-sided market platforms: On smoothly updating recommendations. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 181–188,
2020
-
[21]
Euroconsult values the global eo market at $4.6b,
[Payload-Space, 2023] Payload-Space. Euroconsult values the global eo market at $4.6b,
2023
-
[22]
Autonomous agents and multiagent systems challenges in earth observation satellite constella- tions
[Picard et al., 2021] Gauthier Picard, Cl ´ement Caron, Jean- Loup Farges, Jonathan Guerra, C ´edric Pralet, and St´ephanie Roussel. Autonomous agents and multiagent systems challenges in earth observation satellite constella- tions. In International Conference on Autonomous A...
2021
-
[23]
Two-sided markets: a progress report
[Rochet and Tirole, 2006] Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Ti- role. Two-sided markets: a progress report. The RAND journal of economics, 37(3):645–667,
2006
-
[24]
Pricing in heteroge- neous wireless networks: Hierarchical games and dynam- ics
[Rose et al., 2014] Luca Rose, E Veronica Belmega, Walid Saad, and M ´erouane Debbah. Pricing in heteroge- neous wireless networks: Hierarchical games and dynam- ics. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 13(9):4985–5001,
2014
-
[30]
Flexible basilisk astrodynamics visualization software us- ing the unity rendering engine
[Wood et al., 2018] Jennifer Wood, Mar Cols Margenet, Patrick Kenneally, Hanspeter Schaub, and Scott Piggott. Flexible basilisk astrodynamics visualization software us- ing the unity rendering engine. InAAS Guidance and Con- trol Conference, Breckenridge, CO,
2018
-
[31]
Signaling in bayesian stackelberg games
[Xu et al., 2016] Haifeng Xu, Rupert Freeman, Vincent Conitzer, Shaddin Dughmi, and Milind Tambe. Signaling in bayesian stackelberg games. In AAMAS, pages 150– 158,
2016
-
[33]
Mechanism design powered by social interactions: A call to arms
[Zhao, 2022] Dengji Zhao. Mechanism design powered by social interactions: A call to arms. In IJCAI, pages 5831– 5835,
2022
-
[35]
In addition, if two task allocations(spl, spf) and (spl′, spf′) are both at SE, then ux(spl, spf) = ux(spl′, spf′)
Given a strategy profile of leader game spl with associated tasks K spl, if there exists (spl, spf) and (spl, spf′), then P y∈Y rKspl y (spf ) = P y∈Y rKspl y (spf ′). In addition, if two task allocations(spl, spf) and (spl′, spf′) are both at SE, then ux(spl, spf) = ux(spl′, ...
2002
-
[1952]
A characterization of ordinal potential games
[V oorneveld and Norde, 1997] Mark V oorneveld and Henk Norde. A characterization of ordinal potential games. Games and Economic Behavior, 19(2):235–242,
1997
-
[1997]
Coordinating fol- lowers to reach better equilibria: End-to-end gradient de- scent for stackelberg games
[Wang et al., 2022] Kai Wang, Lily Xu, Andrew Perrault, Michael K Reiter, and Milind Tambe. Coordinating fol- lowers to reach better equilibria: End-to-end gradient de- scent for stackelberg games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, p...
2022
-
[2002]
The economics of two-sided markets
[Rysman, 2009] Marc Rysman. The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of economic perspectives , 23(3):125– 143,
2009
-
[2006]
Batch crowdsourcing for complex tasks based on distributed team formation in e- markets
[Jiang et al., 2022] Jiuchuan Jiang, Kai Di, Bo An, Yichuan Jiang, Zhan Bu, and Jie Cao. Batch crowdsourcing for complex tasks based on distributed team formation in e- markets. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 33(12):3600–3615,
2022
-
[2009]
The theory of the market economy
[Stackelberg and Peacock, 1952] Heinrich von Stackelberg and Alan T Peacock. The theory of the market economy
1952
-
[2014]
How bad is selfish routing? Journal of the ACM (JACM), 49(2):236–259,
[Roughgarden and Tardos, 2002] Tim Roughgarden and ´Eva Tardos. How bad is selfish routing? Journal of the ACM (JACM), 49(2):236–259,
2002
-
[2016]
Research on dy- namic pricing and operation optimization strategy of integrated energy system based on stackelberg game
[Zhang et al., 2022] Yuanyuan Zhang, Huiru Zhao, Bingkang Li, and Xuejie Wang. Research on dy- namic pricing and operation optimization strategy of integrated energy system based on stackelberg game. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 143:108446,
2022
-
[2017]
Cloud computing as a platform for monetizing data services: A two-sided game business model
[Bataineh et al., 2021] Ahmed Saleh Bataineh, Jamal Benta- har, Rabeb Mizouni, Omar Abdel Wahab, Gaith Rjoub, and May El Barachi. Cloud computing as a platform for monetizing data services: A two-sided game business model. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Man- agement,...
2021
-
[2018]
Optimal trad- ing mechanism based on differential privacy protection and stackelberg game in big data market
[Li et al., 2023] Chuang Li, Aoli He, Yanhua Wen, Gang Liu, and Anthony Theodore Chronopoulos. Optimal trad- ing mechanism based on differential privacy protection and stackelberg game in big data market. IEEE Trans- actions on Services Computing,
2023
-
[2020]
Earth observation-based ecosystem services indicators for national and subnational reporting of the sustainable development goals
[Cochran et al., 2020] Ferdouz Cochran, Jessica Daniel, Laura Jackson, and Anne Neale. Earth observation-based ecosystem services indicators for national and subnational reporting of the sustainable development goals. Remote sensing of environment, 244:111796,
2020
-
[2021]
Computational aspects of cooperative game theory
[Chalkiadakis et al., 2022] Georgios Chalkiadakis, Edith Elkind, and Michael Wooldridge. Computational aspects of cooperative game theory. Springer Nature,
2022
-
[2022]
A stackelberg game approach to multiple resources allocation and pricing in mobile edge computing
[Chen et al., 2020] Yifan Chen, Zhiyong Li, Bo Yang, Ke Nai, and Keqin Li. A stackelberg game approach to multiple resources allocation and pricing in mobile edge computing. Future Generation Computer Systems , 108:273–287,
2020
-
[2023]
Basilisk: A flexible, scalable and modular astrodynamics simulation framework
[Kenneally et al., 2020] Patrick W Kenneally, Scott Piggott, and Hanspeter Schaub. Basilisk: A flexible, scalable and modular astrodynamics simulation framework. Journal of aerospace information systems, 17(9):496–507,
2020
-
[2024]
Extreme value theory: an introduction , volume
[Haan and Ferreira, 2006] Laurens Haan and Ana Ferreira. Extreme value theory: an introduction , volume
2006
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.