Incentivizing Collaboration in Heterogeneous Teams via Common-Pool Resource Games

Piyush Gupta; Shaunak D. Bopardikar; Vaibhav Srivastava

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Incentivizing Collaboration in Heterogeneous Teams via Common-Pool Resource Games

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a common-pool resource game for a team that services and then reviews tasks has a unique pure Nash equilibrium, that best-response play converges to it, and that its inefficiency is bounded by explicit formulas.

desk verdict A solid, honest CPR-game paper whose main theorems all condition on Assumption A3, a large-team participation condition that the numerics claim to relax but do not document. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03938 v3 pith:U64MGQOW submitted 2019-08-11 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Piyush Gupta , Shaunak D. Bopardikar , Vaibhav Srivastava This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 91A1090B2291A80

keywords common-poolresourcegamepureNashequilibriumbestresponsedynamicspriceofanarchyteambackupincentivedesignqueuesheterogeneousagents

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a team of heterogeneous agents — each with different speeds at servicing tasks and at reviewing tasks serviced by others — can be incentivized, without a central scheduler, to both service and review the shared task stream. It answers by constructing a common-pool resource (CPR) game in which each agent chooses a review admission rate, and the reward for reviewing depends on the team slack $x = \mu^S_T - \sum_i a_i\lambda_i^R$. Under concavity assumptions on the reward and constraint functions plus a large-team condition, the game has a unique pure Nash equilibrium; sequential and simultaneous best-response dynamics converge to it. The paper gives analytic upper bounds for three inefficiency measures of that equilibrium — price of anarchy, ratio of total review admission rate, and ratio of latency — and its six-agent numerical study keeps all three near one. A sympathetic reader would care because the result is a concrete decentralized recipe: by designing two scalar functions, an organization can make self-interested review choices collectively approach the centralized optimum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the slackness aggregator $x = \mu^S_T - \sum_{i=1}^N a_i\lambda_i^R$, with $a_i = 1+h_i$; it measures how much total service capacity remains after all agents' chosen review loads are weighted by their service-to-review time ratios. Every utility depends on the other players' strategies only through $x$, which makes the game quasi-aggregative with a scalar interaction variable. The incentive function $f_i(x) = r^R(x)(1-p(x)) - h_i r^S$ combines a decreasing rate of return $r^R$, a non-increasing constraint probability $p$, and the opportunity cost $h_i r^S$ of reviewing instead of servicing. Strict concavity of $f_i$ in $\lambda_i^R$ gives each player a unique best response; monotonicity of that best response in the aggregator gives the best-response potential property; and a constructed homogeneous comparison game, whose price of anarchy is exactly one, supplies the inefficiency bounds.

What would settle it

Run the two-player case with comparable capacities, say $\mu^S_1=\mu^S_2=1$ and $\mu^R_1=\mu^R_2=1$, and $p(0)$ close to 1 so $f_i(1,0)\le 0$: compute all pure Nash equilibria and simulate best-response dynamics from many initial conditions. A parameter set with two equilibria or a cycle would refute the uniqueness-and-convergence claim as stated; if none appears, the large-team condition (A3) is stronger than the phenomenon requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the unique pure Nash equilibrium of the CPR game, player $i$ reviews tasks at a positive rate exactly when her incentive $f_i(x) = r^R(x)(1-p(x)) - h_i r^S$ is positive, and then her rate is pinned down by the first-order condition $\lambda_i^{R*} = \min\{ f_i(x^*)/(a_i f_i'(x^*)), \mu_i^R\}$, where $x^*$ is the equilibrium slack. Since $h_i = \mu^S_i/\mu^R_i$ orders players by how costly reviewing is relative to servicing, the equilibrium has a monotone structure: players relatively fast at reviewing take high review rates, and players relatively slow review little or drop out entirely. The social welfare solution has the same structure, which is what lets the paper bound the gap. The quantitative headline is that with $\bar x$ the unique maximizer of $f_i$, the price of anarchy is below $\mu^S_T a_N/(\mu^S_T - \bar x)$, the total-review-ratio below $\mu^S_T a_N/((\mu^S_T-\bar x)a_1)$, and the latency ratio below $\mu^S_T/(\mu^S_T - \bar x)$; for the paper's exponential example this specializes to $\mathrm{PoA}<2a_N$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is (A3): when no teammate reviews anything, each player still finds it worthwhile to review at her full rate, which effectively requires the team to be large enough that no single member's review capacity is comparable to everyone else's service capacity; if it fails, the paper's proofs of existence, uniqueness, and the bounds no longer go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An organization can implement the scheme by choosing $r^R$ and $p$ satisfying (A1)-(A2) and a team large enough for (A3); then any sequence of myopic best responses, sequential or simultaneous, settles at the unique equilibrium without a central scheduler.
At the equilibrium, review work concentrates on members with the smallest $h_i$; members with large $h_i$ review little or not at all, so the load is matched to relative review skill.
For the exponential reward family used in the paper, the bounds become $\mathrm{PoA}<2a_N$ and $\eta_{TRI}<2a_N/a_1$, which approach 2 as $h_N\to 0$, and $\eta_{LI}<2$.
For a homogeneous team the price of anarchy is exactly one, so the decentralized equilibrium coincides with the centralized welfare optimum.
In the paper's six-agent simulations, all three inefficiency metrics stay close to one as heterogeneity grows, indicating that the unique equilibrium tracks the social welfare solution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the bounds depend only on $\bar x$, the designer can treat $\bar x$ as a tuning knob: choosing $r^R$ and $p$ that shift the maximizer of $f_i$ leftward tightens all three inefficiency bounds; the paper does not optimize this choice.
The large-team condition (A3) marks where the theory stops; the paper's numerics suggest uniqueness may survive beyond it, but no theorem covers that regime.
The same scalar-aggregator trick would need substantial reworking for heterogeneous task streams, where slack becomes a vector of task-type gaps; the quasi-aggregative argument would not carry over directly.
A direct human-subject experiment could test the equilibrium prediction: fastest reviewers carry the review load, slow reviewers drop out, and serviced-and-reviewed throughput falls within the predicted factor of the centralized optimum.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here is my read of Gupta, Bopardikar, and Srivastava, arXiv:1908.03938. The paper does something real: it casts team backup in service-and-review queues as a common-pool resource game, designs utility functions that make collaboration rational, and proves existence, uniqueness, and convergence of best-response dynamics to a pure Nash equilibrium. The analytic bounds on the price of anarchy and the two related inefficiency ratios are a genuine contribution. The proofs in the appendices are detailed and the main logical lines check out: the best response is single-valued and continuous, Brouwer gets you existence, the support-comparison uniqueness argument is coherent, and the homogeneous-game comparison in Lemma 8 is a nice trick. I would not call the central results into question.

The soft spot is Assumption A3, and it is exactly as load-bearing as the stress-test note says. A3 is used in Corollary 2, Lemma 5, Theorem 1, Theorem 2, and Theorem 3. It is not a technical convenience; it is the condition that keeps every player willing to review at maximum rate when everyone else reviews nothing. The paper itself flags in Remark 1 that this is a large-team or balanced-capacity condition, and it can fail for two-player teams or whenever one agent's review capacity exceeds the remaining service capacity of the team. That limits the practical reach of the framework more than the abstract suggests. The numerical section says A3 was relaxed and a unique PNE still emerged, but no code, data, distributions, or error bars are provided, so that claim is not reproducible. This is a real but proportionate weakness: the theory is honestly conditional, and the empirical evidence for the broader claim is missing, not necessarily false.

For whom? This is for game theorists and control engineers working on incentive design in queues and human-supervised autonomy. The model is stylized but tractable, and the uniqueness/convergence results would be useful to people building decentralized coordination schemes. I would bring it to a reading group focused on queueing games. It deserves a serious referee: the proofs are formal, the claims are scoped, and the limitations section is candid. The main revision should be to either prove relaxations of A3 for special cases or to present reproducible numerics that support the claim that A3 is unnecessary.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. It is not a desk reject, but it needs a referee who will push on the boundary of A3 and on the missing empirical details.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates a common-pool resource (CPR) game in which heterogeneous agents choose review admission rates for a shared review pool, with service rates determined by residual capacity. The paper proves existence and uniqueness of a pure Nash equilibrium under assumptions (A1)-(A3), shows that the game is a best-response potential game so that sequential and simultaneous best-response dynamics converge, characterizes the social welfare solution, and derives analytic upper bounds on the price of anarchy and two additional inefficiency metrics. A small numerical study illustrates the equilibrium structure and inefficiency behavior.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper offers a rare set of rigorous, incentive-design guarantees for decentralized team backup behavior: a unique equilibrium, convergence of natural learning dynamics, and inefficiency bounds that are constant-order in the team's heterogeneity ratio. The homogeneous-comparison technique used to bound the price of anarchy (Theorem 3) is elegant and may be useful in other CPR or aggregative games. The proofs are largely self-contained and the assumptions are stated transparently. The main weakness is that the key participation assumption (A3) restricts the results to teams in which no single reviewer dominates service capacity; the paper's own numerical section claims this restriction can be relaxed but provides no reproducible evidence.

major comments (2)

[Section III, Assumption (A3); Section VI, numerical section] Assumption (A3) is load-bearing for Theorem 1 (existence), Theorem 2 (uniqueness), the convergence results in Section IV, and Theorem 3 (inefficiency bounds). Remark 1 explicitly ties it to the condition that the sum of other players' service capacities is much larger than μR_i, which fails in small teams or when one agent's review capacity is comparable to the rest of the team's service capacity. The numerical section states that 'we relax Assumption (A3) and still obtain a unique PNE,' but no code, data, or parameter values are given, so this claim cannot be verified. The abstract and conclusions do not mention A3, which overstates the scope of the results. Please either qualify the abstract and conclusions with the A3 condition, remove the unsupported relaxed-A3 claim, or provide reproducible details.
[Section V-B, proof of Theorem 3] The paragraph bounding ηTRI and ηLI states: 'Recall that dfi/dx > 0 (Corollary 1), for x ∈ {xPNE,xSW}.' Corollary 1 is a statement about pure Nash equilibria, and the social welfare solution xSW is not known to be a PNE. Without a separate argument that dfi/dx > 0 at the social welfare optimum, the inequalities xPNE, xSW ∈ (0, x) do not follow, and the upper bounds on ηTRI and ηLI in (16) are not proven by the preceding steps. Please supply a proof that the social welfare solution lies on the increasing portion of fi, or rework the bounds.

minor comments (5)

[Section V-A, Lemma 2] The lemma states 'since ∑ aiλR_i ∈ [0, μS_T + μR_T], a bisection algorithm can be employed to compute optimal c.' This range is inconsistent with the system constraint (3), which requires ∑ aiλR_i ≤ μS_T; for c > μS_T the slackness variable x is negative and the functions rR and p are not defined on that domain. The bisection should search over [0, μS_T].
[Section V-A, proof of Lemma 2] The proof claims Ψ is strictly concave in x with ∂²Ψ/∂x² = λR_T d²fi/dx² < 0, treating λR_T as constant with respect to x. At this point λR_T depends on the allocation for a given x, so the concavity argument needs clarification.
[Section VI, Numerical illustrations] Please provide the actual parameter values used for Figs. 3 and 4, including the means MμS and MμR, the heterogeneity spread ρ, the number of players N, and the number of random seeds, and consider making the code available to support reproducibility.
[Abstract and Section I] The abstract and contributions list do not mention Assumption (A3), even though all main theorems rely on it. Please state explicitly in the abstract that the results hold under assumptions (A1)-(A3), including the participation condition A3.
[Throughout] The symbol x is used both as the slackness variable in (4) and as the unique maximizer of fi in Theorem 3. Using a distinct notation such as x* for the maximizer would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all equilibrium and inefficiency results are derived from stated assumptions via self-contained proofs, with only a non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' prior CDC version.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—existence and uniqueness of the PNE, convergence of best-response dynamics, and the inefficiency bounds—are proven in Appendices A-F directly from Assumptions (A1)-(A3), using standard external tools (Brouwer's fixed-point theorem, Berge maximum theorem, and quasi-aggregative/potential game results of Jensen, Voorneveld, and Dubey et al.). Assumption (A3) is a design/participation condition, not an input containing the target results; Remark 1 explicitly translates it into a 'large team' condition, and the paper honestly states that the proofs require it. The numerical section uses specific rR and p functions only as illustrations and does not fit parameters to produce the theorems. The only self-citation, [1] (the authors' CDC preprint), is identified as a preliminary version that this paper expands with detailed proofs and analytic bounds; no load-bearing theorem is imported from it without proof. The inefficiency bounds in Theorem 3 are derived through a constructed homogeneous comparison game in Lemmas 6-8, and the 'x' entering the bounds is defined as the maximizer of the incentive function, not as a fitted empirical quantity. Thus no step reduces by definition, by fitting, or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorems rely on standard game-theoretic machinery (Brouwer fixed point, Berge maximum theorem, quasi-aggregative games) and on the design assumptions A1 through A3. No constants are fitted to data for the main results; the only free parameters appear in the illustrative numerical study in Section VI, whose values are partially unspecified. The paper introduces no new physical or ontological entities; the common review pool, rate-of-return function, and constraint probability are modeling constructs drawn from the CPR literature. The main cost is Assumption A3, which is an ad hoc participation condition, and the fragile-pool modeling of p(x).

free parameters (4)

rR amplitude A = 5 (numerical example)
Scale of the rate-of-return function rR(x) in Section VI; chosen for illustration, not fit to data.
exponent B = 0.5 (numerical example)
Exponent in rR(x) = 5[1 − exp{0.5(x − μS_T)}] and p(x) = exp(−0.5x); chosen for illustration.
distribution means MμS and MμR = not specified
Means of normal distributions for sampling μS_i and μR_i in Section VI; values are not reported, harming reproducibility.
heterogeneity spread ρ = varied in plots
Standard deviation of the sampling distributions, used as the x-axis heterogeneity measure in Fig. 4.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Assumption A1: rR is continuously differentiable, strictly decreasing and strictly concave in x on [0, μS_T], with rR(μS_T) = 0.
Design choice for the rate of return on reviewing; needed for strict concavity of the incentive function.
domain assumption Assumption A2: p is continuously differentiable, non-increasing and convex in x on (0, μS_T], p(x) → 1 as x → 0, and p = 1 for x < 0.
Design of the constraint probability modeling fragility of the common review pool; needed for strict concavity and for the structure of best responses.
ad hoc to paper Assumption A3: f_i(μR_i, 0) = rR(μR_i, 0)(1 − p(μR_i, 0)) − h_i rS > 0 for each player i.
Positive incentive to review when no other player reviews; load-bearing for the existence, uniqueness, and inefficiency proofs, and for Lemma 6. It is not guaranteed by the physical setup and is instead enforced by the sufficient conditions in Remark 1 (large team, μS_i ≤ μR_i, rR > rS).
domain assumption Agents operate at maximum capacity: λS_i = μS_i − h_i λR_i, so equality holds in (1).
Assumed in Section II.A; rational under positive service reward rS > 0, since service utility increases with λS_i.
domain assumption Only serviced tasks can be reviewed, giving the system constraint Σ a_i λR_i ≤ μS_T.
Physical constraint (2)-(3) of the common review pool model: total review rate cannot exceed total service rate.
domain assumption Players are expected-utility maximizers over the constraint probability p.
The utility in (7) is the expectation over p; this is a standard risk-neutral assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incentivizing Collaboration in Heterogeneous Teams via Common-Pool Resource Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U64MGQOW

@misc{pith2026190803938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incentivizing Collaboration in Heterogeneous Teams via Common-Pool Resource Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U64MGQOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03938}
}

read the original abstract

We consider a team of heterogeneous agents that is collectively responsible for servicing, and subsequently reviewing, a stream of homogeneous tasks. Each agent has an associated mean service time and a mean review time for servicing and reviewing the tasks, respectively. Agents receive a reward based on their service and review admission rates. The team objective is to collaboratively maximize the number of "serviced and reviewed" tasks. We formulate a Common-Pool Resource (CPR) game and design utility functions to incentivize collaboration among heterogeneous agents in a decentralized manner. We show the existence of a unique Pure Nash Equilibrium (PNE), and establish convergence of best response dynamics to this unique PNE. Finally, we establish an analytic upper bound on three measures of inefficiency of the PNE, namely the price of anarchy, the ratio of the total review admission rate, and the ratio of latency, along with an empirical study.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Achieving efﬁcient collaboration in decentralized heterogeneous teams using common-pool resource games,

P. Gupta, S. D. Bopardikar, and V . Srivastava, “Achieving efﬁcient collaboration in decentralized heterogeneous teams using common-pool resource games,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 6924–6929

work page 2019
[2]

The secrets of great teamwork

M. Haas and M. Mortensen, “The secrets of great teamwork.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 70–6, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Mechanistic and organic systems,

T. Burns and G. Stalker, “Mechanistic and organic systems,” Organ Behav, vol. 2, pp. 214–225, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

Mechanistic-organic organizations – an axiomatic theory: Authority based on bureaucracy or professional norms,

F. C. Lunenburg, “Mechanistic-organic organizations – an axiomatic theory: Authority based on bureaucracy or professional norms,” Inter- national Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2012

work page 2012
[5]

Strategic behavior of experienced subjects in a common pool resource game,

C. Keser and R. Gardner, “Strategic behavior of experienced subjects in a common pool resource game,” International Journal of Game Theory , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 241–252, 1999

work page 1999
[6]

Fragility of the commons under prospect-theoretic risk attitudes,

A. R. Hota, S. Garg, and S. Sundaram, “Fragility of the commons under prospect-theoretic risk attitudes,” Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 98, pp. 135–164, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

Using a mini-UA V to support wilderness search and rescue: Practices for human-robot teaming,

M. A. Goodrich, J. L. Cooper, J. A. Adams, C. Humphrey, R. Zeeman, and B. G. Buss, “Using a mini-UA V to support wilderness search and rescue: Practices for human-robot teaming,” in Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, 2007. SSRR 2007. IEEE International Workshop on . IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–6

work page 2007
[8]

Human supervisory control of robotic teams: Integrating cognitive modeling with engineering design,

J. Peters, V . Srivastava, G. Taylor, A. Surana, M. P. Eckstein, and F. Bullo, “Human supervisory control of robotic teams: Integrating cognitive modeling with engineering design,” IEEE Control System Magazine, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 57–80, 2015

work page 2015

Show all 36 references

[9]

Attention allocation for decision making queues,

V . Srivastava, R. Carli, C. Langbort, and F. Bullo, “Attention allocation for decision making queues,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 378–388, 2014

2014
[10]

Optimal ﬁdelity selection for human-in- the-loop queues using semi-Markov decision processes,

P. Gupta and V . Srivastava, “Optimal ﬁdelity selection for human-in- the-loop queues using semi-Markov decision processes,” in American Control Conference, Philadelphia, PA, Jul. 2019, pp. 5266–5271

2019
[11]

Game theory and control,

J. R. Marden and J. S. Shamma, “Game theory and control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 1, pp. 105– 134, 2018

2018
[12]

Autonomous vehicle-target as- signment: A game-theoretical formulation,

G. Arslan, J. Marden, and J. Shamma, “Autonomous vehicle-target as- signment: A game-theoretical formulation,” Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control-Transactions of the Asme , vol. 129, 09 2007

2007
[13]

Bas ¸ar and G

T. Bas ¸ar and G. J. Olsder, Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory . SIAM, 1999, vol. 23

1999
[14]

Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy,

T. Roughgarden, “Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy,” in Proceedings of the forty-ﬁrst annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 2009, pp. 513–522

2009
[15]

Generalized efﬁciency bounds in distributed resource allocation,

J. R. Marden and T. Roughgarden, “Generalized efﬁciency bounds in distributed resource allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 571–584, 2014

2014
[16]

Price of anarchy in electric vehicle charging control games: When nash equilibria achieve social welfare,

L. Deori, K. Margellos, and M. Prandini, “Price of anarchy in electric vehicle charging control games: When nash equilibria achieve social welfare,” Automatica, vol. 96, pp. 150–158, 2018

2018
[17]

Utility design for distributed resource allocation - part I: Characterizing and optimizing the exact price of anarchy,

D. Paccagnan, R. Chandan, and J. R. Marden, “Utility design for distributed resource allocation - part I: Characterizing and optimizing the exact price of anarchy,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , pp. 1–1, 2019

2019
[18]

Modeling teamwork in supervisory control of multiple robots,

F. Gao, M. L. Cummings, and E. T. Solovey, “Modeling teamwork in supervisory control of multiple robots,” IEEE Transactions on Human- Machine Systems, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 441–453, 2014

2014
[19]

Human-robot interactions for single robots and multi-robot teams,

A. Hong, “Human-robot interactions for single robots and multi-robot teams,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2016

2016
[20]

Knapsack problems with sigmoid utilities: Approximation algorithms via hybrid optimization,

V . Srivastava and F. Bullo, “Knapsack problems with sigmoid utilities: Approximation algorithms via hybrid optimization,” European Journal of Operational Research , vol. 236, no. 2, pp. 488–498, 2014

2014
[21]

Modeling multiple human operators in the supervisory control of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles,

B. Mekdeci and M. Cummings, “Modeling multiple human operators in the supervisory control of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles,” in Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems. ACM, 2009, pp. 1–8

2009
[22]

The theory of networks of single server queues and the tandem queue model,

P. Le Gall, “The theory of networks of single server queues and the tandem queue model,” International Journal of Stochastic Analysis , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 363–381, 1997

1997
[23]

N. T. Thomopoulos, Fundamentals of queuing systems: statistical meth- ods for analyzing queuing models. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[24]

Applications of dynamic games in queues,

E. Altman, “Applications of dynamic games in queues,” in Advances in dynamic games. Springer, 2005, pp. 309–342

2005
[25]

Service rate control of closed jackson networks from game theoretic perspective,

L. Xia, “Service rate control of closed jackson networks from game theoretic perspective,” European Journal of Operational Research , vol. 237, no. 2, pp. 546–554, 2014

2014
[26]

Controlling human utilization of failure- prone systems via taxes,

A. R. Hota and S. Sundaram, “Controlling human utilization of failure- prone systems via taxes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09490 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[27]

Ostrom, R

E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, J. Walker, and J. Walker, Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, 1994

1994
[28]

Best-response potential games,

M. V oorneveld, “Best-response potential games,” Economics letters , vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 289–295, 2000

2000
[29]

Strategic complements and substitutes, and potential games,

P. Dubey, O. Haimanko, and A. Zapechelnyuk, “Strategic complements and substitutes, and potential games,” Games and Economic Behavior , vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 77–94, 2006

2006
[30]

Stability of pure strategy nash equilibrium in best-reply potential games,

M. K. Jensen, “Stability of pure strategy nash equilibrium in best-reply potential games,” University of Birmingham, Tech. Rep , 2009

2009
[31]

C. G. Cassandras and S. Lafortune, Introduction to Discrete Event Systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

2009
[32]

Aggregative games and best-reply potentials,

M. K. Jensen, “Aggregative games and best-reply potentials,” Economic Theory, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 45–66, 2010

2010
[33]

Pseudo-potential games,

B. Schipper, “Pseudo-potential games,” University of Bonn, Germany, Tech. Rep., 2004, working paper. [Online]. Available: availableatciteseer. ist.psu.edu/schipper04pseudopotential.html

2004
[34]

The bisection method,

R. Burden and J. Faires, “The bisection method,” Numerical Analysis , pp. 48–56, 2011

2011
[35]

D. G. Luenberger and Y . Ye, Linear and Nonlinear Programming . Springer, 1984, vol. 2

1984
[36]

Berge, Topological Spaces: Including a Treatment of Multi-valued Functions, Vector Spaces, and Convexity

C. Berge, Topological Spaces: Including a Treatment of Multi-valued Functions, Vector Spaces, and Convexity . Courier Corporation, 1997

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Achieving efﬁcient collaboration in decentralized heterogeneous teams using common-pool resource games,

P. Gupta, S. D. Bopardikar, and V . Srivastava, “Achieving efﬁcient collaboration in decentralized heterogeneous teams using common-pool resource games,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 6924–6929

work page 2019

[2] [2]

The secrets of great teamwork

M. Haas and M. Mortensen, “The secrets of great teamwork.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 70–6, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Mechanistic and organic systems,

T. Burns and G. Stalker, “Mechanistic and organic systems,” Organ Behav, vol. 2, pp. 214–225, 2005

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Mechanistic-organic organizations – an axiomatic theory: Authority based on bureaucracy or professional norms,

F. C. Lunenburg, “Mechanistic-organic organizations – an axiomatic theory: Authority based on bureaucracy or professional norms,” Inter- national Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Strategic behavior of experienced subjects in a common pool resource game,

C. Keser and R. Gardner, “Strategic behavior of experienced subjects in a common pool resource game,” International Journal of Game Theory , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 241–252, 1999

work page 1999

[6] [6]

Fragility of the commons under prospect-theoretic risk attitudes,

A. R. Hota, S. Garg, and S. Sundaram, “Fragility of the commons under prospect-theoretic risk attitudes,” Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 98, pp. 135–164, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Using a mini-UA V to support wilderness search and rescue: Practices for human-robot teaming,

M. A. Goodrich, J. L. Cooper, J. A. Adams, C. Humphrey, R. Zeeman, and B. G. Buss, “Using a mini-UA V to support wilderness search and rescue: Practices for human-robot teaming,” in Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, 2007. SSRR 2007. IEEE International Workshop on . IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–6

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Human supervisory control of robotic teams: Integrating cognitive modeling with engineering design,

J. Peters, V . Srivastava, G. Taylor, A. Surana, M. P. Eckstein, and F. Bullo, “Human supervisory control of robotic teams: Integrating cognitive modeling with engineering design,” IEEE Control System Magazine, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 57–80, 2015

work page 2015