ABSTRACTIn many ‘smart city’ applications, congestion arises in part due to the nature of signals received by individuals from a central authority. In the model of , each agent uses one out of multiple resources at each time instant. The per-use cost of a resource depends on the number of concurrent users. A central authority has up-to-date knowledge of the congestion across all resources and uses randomisation to provide a scalar or an interval for each resource at each time. In this paper, the interval to broadcast per resource is obtained by taking the minima and maxima of costs observed within a time window of length r, rather than by randomisation. We show that the resulting distribution of agents across resources also converges in distribution, under plausible assumptions about the evolution of the population over time.
Within game theory, the social cost is the metric of a number of studies @cite_12 @cite_24 @cite_2 @cite_25 , which show that, even when agents have full information, a natural equilibrium outcome can incur much higher total congestion than a socially optimal outcome. This is known as the price of anarchy. Particularly interesting are studies of the Nash equilibria in connection with ignorance @cite_26 @cite_56 @cite_17 , often concerning the number of players @cite_35 @cite_41 @cite_46 , failures of agents @cite_27 , failures of resources @cite_13 @cite_38 , or stratified and risk-averse populations @cite_4 @cite_18 . Indeed, our work can be seen as showing the benefits of ignorance to a stratified and risk-averse population, albeit over the long run. We can hence describe the attractor, whose existence is often moot in the studies of Nash equilibria. See @cite_20 for further well-developed arguments why considering the fixed-points of a dynamical system is preferable to the study of the Nash equilibrium.
@cite_35 @cite_38 @cite_26 @cite_4 @cite_18 @cite_41 @cite_56 @cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_2 @cite_46 @cite_20 @cite_13 @cite_25 @cite_12 @cite_17
2007583146 2133243407 1548210998 2294025081 1517645949 2032349632 2022890659 1839131291 2021677593 1530305922 2072113937 1967821428 1974040162 2594715668 2070394877 2158770193 2136124238 2131832787 2140489133 2146457340
We study network design games where @math self-interested agents have to form a network by purchasing links from a given set of edges. We consider Shapley cost sharing mechanisms that split the cost of an edge in a fair manner among the agents using the edge. It is well known that the price of anarchy of these games is as high as @math . Another line of research has focused on evaluating the price of stability, i.e., the cost of the best Nash equilibrium relative to the social optimum. In this paper we investigate to which extent coordination among agents can improve the quality of solutions. We resort to the concept of strong Nash equilibria, which were introduced by Aumann and are resilient to deviations by coalitions of agents. We analyze the price of anarchy of strong Nash equilibria and develop lower and upper bounds for unweighted and weighted games in both directed and undirected graphs. These bounds are tight or nearly tight for many scenarios. It shows that, by using coordination, the price of anarchy drops from linear to logarithmic bounds. We complement these results by also proving the first superconstant lower bound on the price of stability of standard equilibria (without coordination) in undirected graphs. More specifically, we show a lower bound of @math for weighted games, where @math is the total weight of all the agents. This almost matches the known upper bound of @math . Our results imply that, for most settings, the worst-case performance ratios of strong coordinated equilibria are essentially always as good as the performance ratios of the best equilibria achievable without coordination. These settings include unweighted games in directed graphs as well as weighted games in both directed and undirected graphs. The price of anarchy (POA) is a worst-case measure of the inefficiency of selfish behavior, defined as the ratio of the objective function value of a worst Nash equilibrium of a game and that of an optimal outcome. This measure implicitly assumes that players successfully reach some Nash equilibrium. This drawback motivates the search for inefficiency bounds that apply more generally to weaker notions of equilibria, such as mixed Nash and correlated equilibria; or to sequences of outcomes generated by natural experimentation strategies, such as successive best responses or simultaneous regret-minimization. We prove a general and fundamental connection between the price of anarchy and its seemingly stronger relatives in classes of games with a sum objective. First, we identify a "canonical sufficient condition" for an upper bound of the POA for pure Nash equilibria, which we call a smoothness argument. Second, we show that every bound derived via a smoothness argument extends automatically, with no quantitative degradation in the bound, to mixed Nash equilibria, correlated equilibria, and the average objective function value of regret-minimizing players (or "price of total anarchy"). Smoothness arguments also have automatic implications for the inefficiency of approximate and Bayesian-Nash equilibria and, under mild additional assumptions, for bicriteria bounds and for polynomial-length best-response sequences. We also identify classes of games --- most notably, congestion games with cost functions restricted to an arbitrary fixed set --- that are tight, in the sense that smoothness arguments are guaranteed to produce an optimal worst-case upper bound on the POA, even for the smallest set of interest (pure Nash equilibria). Byproducts of our proof of this result include the first tight bounds on the POA in congestion games with non-polynomial cost functions, and the first structural characterization of atomic congestion games that are universal worst-case examples for the POA. We study bottleneck congestion games where the social cost is determined by the worst congestion on any resource. In the literature, bottleneck games assume player utility costs determined by the worst congested resource in their strategy. However, the Nash equilibria of such games are inefficient since the price of anarchy can be very high and proportional to the number of resources. In order to obtain smaller price of anarchy we introduce exponential bottleneck games, where the utility costs of the players are exponential functions of their congestions. In particular, the delay function for any resource r is MCr, where Cr denotes the number of players that use r, and M is an integer constant. We find that exponential bottleneck games are very efficient and give the following bound on the price of anarchy: O(log |R|), where R is the set of resources. This price of anarchy is tight, since we demonstrate a game with price of anarchy Ω(log |R|). We obtain our tight bounds by using two novel proof techniques: transformation, which we use to convert arbitrary games to simpler games, and expansion, which we use to bound the price of anarchy in a simpler game. The price of anarchy, defined as the ratio of the worst-case objective function value of a Nash equilibrium of a game and that of an optimal outcome, quantifies the inefficiency of selfish behavior. Remarkably good bounds on this measure are known for a wide range of application domains. However, such bounds are meaningful only if a game's participants successfully reach a Nash equilibrium. This drawback motivates inefficiency bounds that apply more generally to weaker notions of equilibria, such as mixed Nash equilibria and correlated equilibria, and to sequences of outcomes generated by natural experimentation strategies, such as successive best responses and simultaneous regret-minimization. We establish a general and fundamental connection between the price of anarchy and its seemingly more general relatives. First, we identify a “canonical sufficient condition” for an upper bound on the price of anarchy of pure Nash equilibria, which we call a smoothness argument. Second, we prove an “extension theorem”: every bound on the price of anarchy that is derived via a smoothness argument extends automatically, with no quantitative degradation in the bound, to mixed Nash equilibria, correlated equilibria, and the average objective function value of every outcome sequence generated by no-regret learners. Smoothness arguments also have automatic implications for the inefficiency of approximate equilibria, for bicriteria bounds, and, under additional assumptions, for polynomial-length best-response sequences. Third, we prove that in congestion games, smoothness arguments are “complete” in a proof-theoretic sense: despite their automatic generality, they are guaranteed to produce optimal worst-case upper bounds on the price of anarchy. We study the outcome of natural learning algorithms in atomic congestion games. Atomic congestion games have a wide variety of equilibria often with vastly differing social costs. We show that in almost all such games, the well- known multiplicative-weights learning algorithm results in convergence to pure equilibria. Our results show that nat- ural learning behavior can avoid bad outcomes predicted by the price of anarchy in atomic congestion games such as the load-balancing game introduced by Koutsoupias and Pa- padimitriou, which has super-constant price of anarchy and has correlated equilibria that are exponentially worse than any mixed Nash equilibrium. Our results identify a set of mixed Nash equilibria that we call weakly stable equilibria. Our notion of weakly stable is defined game-theoretically, but we show that this property holds whenever a stability criterion from the theory of dy- namical systems is satisfied. This allows us to show that in every congestion game, the distribution of play converges to the set of weakly stable equilibria. Pure Nash equilibria are weakly stable, and we show using techniques from algebraic geometry that the converse is true with probability 1 when congestion costs are selected at random independently on each edge (from any monotonically parametrized distribu- tion). We further extend our results to show that players can use algorithms with different (sufficiently small) learn- ing rates, i.e. they can trade off convergence speed and long term average regret differently. We study a network creation game recently proposed by Fabrikant, Luthra, Maneva, Papadimitriou and Shenker. In this game, each player (vertex) can create links (edges) to other players at a cost of α per edge. The goal of every player is to minimize the sum consisting of (a) the cost of the links he has created and (b) the sum of the distances to all other players. conjectured that there exists a constant A such that, for any α > A, all non-transient Nash equilibria graphs are trees. They showed that if a Nash equilibrium is a tree, the price of anarchy is constant. In this paper we disprove the tree conjecture. More precisely, we show that for any positive integer n 0 , there exists a graph built by n ≥ n 0 players which contains cycles and forms a non-transient Nash equilibrium, for any α with 1 < α ≤ √n 2. Our construction makes use of some interesting results on finite affine planes. On the other hand we show that, for α ≥ 12n[log n], every Nash equilibrium forms a tree.Without relying on the tree conjecture, proved an upper bound on the price of anarchy of O(√α), where α ∈ [2, n2]. We improve this bound. Specifically, we derive a constant upper bound for α ∈ O(√n) and for α ≥ 12n[log n]. For the intermediate values we derive an improved bound of O(1 + (min α2 n, n2 α )1 3).Additionally, we develop characterizations of Nash equilibria and extend our results to a weighted network creation game as well as to scenarios with cost sharing. The Generalized Second Price Auction has been the main mechanism used by search companies to auction positions for advertisements on search pages. In this paper we study the social welfare of the Nash equilibria of this game in various models. In the full information setting, socially optimal Nash equilibria are known to exist (i.e., the Price of Stability is 1). This paper is the first to prove bounds on the price of anarchy, and to give any bounds in the Bayesian setting. Our main result is to show that the price of anarchy is small assuming that all bidders play un-dominated strategies. In the full information setting we prove a bound of 1.618 for the price of anarchy for pure Nash equilibria, and a bound of 4 for mixed Nash equilibria. We also prove a bound of 8 for the price of anarchy in the Bayesian setting, when valuations are drawn independently, and the valuation is known only to the bidder and only the distributions used are common knowledge. Our proof exhibits a combinatorial structure of Nash equilibria and uses this structure to bound the price of anarchy. While establishing the structure is simple in the case of pure and mixed Nash equilibria, the extension to the Bayesian setting requires the use of novel combinatorial techniques that can be of independent interest. We propose a natural model for agent failures in congestion games. In our model, each of the agents may fail to participate in the game, introducing uncertainty regarding the set of active agents. We examine how such uncertainty may change the Nash equilibria (NE) of the game. We prove that although the perturbed game induced by the failure model is not always a congestion game, it still admits at least one pure Nash equilibrium. Then, we turn to examine the effect of failures on the maximal social cost in any NE of the perturbed game. We show that in the limit case where failure probability is negligible new equilibria never emerge, and that the social cost may decrease but it never increases. For the case of nonnegligible failure probabilities, we provide a full characterization of the maximal impact of failures on the social cost under worst-case equilibrium outcomes. We consider the price of anarchy of pure Nash equilibria in congestion games with linear latency functions. For asymmetric games, the price of anarchy of maximum social cost is Θ(√N), where N is the number of players. For all other cases of symmetric or asymmetric games and for both maximum and average social cost, the price of anarchy is 5 2. We extend the results to latency functions that are polynomials of bounded degree. We also extend some of the results to mixed Nash equilibria. Many natural games have both high and low cost Nash equilibria: their Price of Anarchy is high and yet their Price of Stability is low. In such cases, one could hope to move behavior from a high cost equilibrium to a low cost one by a "public service advertising campaign" encouraging players to follow the low-cost equilibrium, and if every player follows the advice then we are done. However, the assumption that everyone follows instructions is unrealistic. A more natural assumption is that some players will follow them, while other players will not. In this paper we consider the question of to what extent can such an advertising campaign cause behavior to switch from a bad equilibrium to a good one even if only a fraction of people actually follow the given advice, and do so only temporarily. Unlike the "value of altruism" model, we assume everyone will ultimately act in their own interest. We analyze this question for several important and widely studied classes of games including network design with fair cost sharing, scheduling with unrelated machines, and party affiliation games (which include consensus and cut games). We show that for some of these games (such as fair cost sharing), a random α fraction of the population following the given advice is sufficient to get a guarantee within an O(1 α) factor of the price of stability for any α > 0. For other games (such as party affiliation games), there is a strict threshold (in this case, α 1 2 is enough to reach near-optimal behavior). Finally, for some games, such as scheduling, no value α < 1 is sufficient. We also consider a "viral marketing" model in which certain players are specifically targeted, and analyze the ability of such targeting to influence behavior using a much smaller number of targeted players. In the traffic assignment problem, first proposed by Wardrop in 1952, commuters select the shortest available path to travel from their origins to their destinations. We study a generalization of this problem in which competitors, who may control a nonnegligible fraction of the total flow, ship goods across a network. This type of games, usually referred to as atomic games, readily applies to situations in which the competing freight companies have market power. Other applications include intelligent transportation systems, competition among telecommunication network service providers, and scheduling with flexible machines. Our goal is to determine to what extent these systems can benefit from some form of coordination or regulation. We measure the quality of the outcome of the game without centralized control by computing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. The main conclusion is that although self-interested competitors will not achieve a fully efficient solution from the system's point of view, the loss is not too severe. We show how to compute several bounds for the worst-case inefficiency that depend on the characteristics of cost functions and on the market structure in the game. In addition, building upon the work of Catoni and Pallotino, we show examples in which market aggregation (or collusion) adversely impacts the aggregated competitors, even though their market power increases. For example, Nash equilibria of atomic network games may be less efficient than the corresponding Wardrop equilibria. When competitors are completely symmetric, we provide a characterization of the Nash equilibrium using a potential function, and prove that this counterintuitive phenomenon does not arise. Finally, we study a pricing mechanism that elicits more coordination from the players by reducing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. In sponsored search auctions, advertisers compete for a number of available advertisement slots of different quality. The auctioneer decides the allocation of advertisers to slots using bids provided by them. Since the advertisers may act strategically and submit their bids in order to maximize their individual objectives, such an auction naturally defines a strategic game among the advertisers. In order to quantify the efficiency of outcomes in generalized second price auctions, we study the corresponding games and present new bounds on their price of anarchy, improving the recent results of Paes Leme and Tardos [16] and Lucier and Paes Leme [13]. For the full information setting, we prove a surprisingly low upper bound of 1.282 on the price of anarchy over pure Nash equilibria. Given the existing lower bounds, this bound denotes that the number of advertisers has almost no impact on the price of anarchy. The proof exploits the equilibrium conditions developed in [16] and follows by a detailed reasoning about the structure of equilibria and a novel relation of the price of anarchy to the objective value of a compact mathematical program. For more general equilibrium classes (i.e., mixed Nash, correlated, and coarse correlated equilibria), we present an upper bound of 2.310 on the price of anarchy. We also consider the setting where advertisers have incomplete information about their competitors and prove a price of anarchy upper bound of 3.037 over Bayes-Nash equilibria. In order to obtain the last two bounds, we adapt techniques of Lucier and Paes Leme [13] and significantly extend them with new arguments. In this paper, we study a basic network design game in which n self-interested agents, each having individual connectivity requirements, wish to build a network by purchasing links from a given set of edges. A fundamental cost-sharing mechanism is Shapley cost-sharing, which splits the cost of an edge in a fair manner among the agents using the edge. It is well known that in such games, the price of anarchy is n, while the price of stability is H(n), where H(n) denotes the nth harmonic number. We investigate whether an optimal minimum-cost network represents an attractive, relatively stable state that agents might want to purchase: what extra cost does an agent incur compared to a possible strategy deviation? We employ the concept of α-approximate Nash equilibria, in which no agent can reduce its cost by a factor of more than α. We prove that for single-source games in undirected graphs, every optimal network represents an H(n)-approximate Nash equilibrium. We show that this bound is tight by presenting a... We study the price of anarchy and the structure of equilibria in network creation games. A network creation game (first defined and studied by [4]) is played by n players 1, 2, . . . , n , each identified with a vertex of a graph (network), where the strategy of player i, i = 1, . . . , n, is to build some edges adjacent to i. The cost of building an edge is α > 0, a fixed parameter of the game. The goal of every player is to minimize its creation cost plus its usage cost. The creation cost of player i is α times the number of built edges. In the SumGame (the original variant of [4]) the usage cost of player i is the sum of distances from i to every node of the resulting graph. In the MaxGame (variant defined and studied by [3]) the usage cost is the eccentricity of i in the resulting graph of the game. In this paper we improve previously known bounds on the price of anarchy of the game (of both variants) for various ranges of α, and give new insights into the structure of equilibria for various values of α. The two main results of the paper show that for α > 273 · n all equilibria in SumGame are trees and thus the price of anarchy is constant, and that for α > 129 all equilibria in MaxGame are trees and the price of anarchy is constant. For SumGame this (almost) answers one of the basic open problems in the field – is price of anarchy of the network creation game constant for all values of α? – in an affirmative way, up to a tiny range of α. We resolve the worst-case price of anarchy (POA) of atomic splittable congestion games. Prior to this work, no tight bounds on the POA in such games were known, even for the simplest non-trivial special case of affine cost functions. We make two distinct contributions. On the upper-bound side, we define the framework of "local smoothness", which refines the standard smoothness framework for games with convex strategy sets. While standard smoothness arguments cannot establish tight bounds on the POA in atomic splittable congestion games, we prove that local smoothness arguments can. Further, we prove that every POA bound derived via local smoothness applies automatically to every correlated equilibrium of the game. Unlike standard smoothness arguments, bounds proved using local smoothness do not always apply to the coarse correlated equilibria of the game. Our second contribution is a very general lower bound: for every set L that satisfies mild technical conditions, the worst-case POA of pure Nash equilibria in atomic splittable congestion games with cost functions in L is exactly the smallest upper bound provable using local smoothness arguments. In particular, the worst-case POA of pure Nash equilibria, mixed Nash equilibria, and correlated equilibria coincide in such games. We study the impact of collusion in network games with splittable flow and focus on the well established price of anarchy as a measure of this impact. We first investigate symmetric load balancing games and show that the price of anarchy is at most m, where m denotes the number of coalitions. For general networks, we present an instance showing that the price of anarchy is unbounded, even in the case of two coalitions. If latencies are restricted to polynomials with nonnegative coefficients and bounded degree, we prove upper bounds on the price of anarchy for general networks, which improve upon the current best ones except for affine latencies. In light of the negative results even for two coalitions, we analyze the effectiveness of Stackelberg strategies as a means to improve the quality of Nash equilibria. In this setting, an α fraction of the entire demand is first routed centrally by a Stackelberg leader according to a predefined Stackelberg strategy and the remaining demand is then routed selfishly by the coalitions (followers). For a single coalitional follower and parallel arcs, we develop an efficiently computable Stackelberg strategy that reduces the price of anarchy to one. For general networks and a single coalitional follower, we show that a simple strategy, called SCALE, reduces the price of anarchy to 1+α. Finally, we investigate SCALE for multiple coalitional followers, general networks, and affine latencies. We present the first known upper bound on the price of anarchy in this case. Our bound smoothly varies between 1.5 for α=0 and full efficiency for α=1. We define smooth games of incomplete information. We prove an "extension theorem" for such games: price of anarchy bounds for pure Nash equilibria for all induced full-information games extend automatically, without quantitative degradation, to all mixed-strategy Bayes-Nash equilibria with respect to a product prior distribution over players' preferences. We also note that, for Bayes-Nash equilibria in games with correlated player preferences, there is no general extension theorem for smooth games. We give several applications of our definition and extension theorem. First, we show that many games of incomplete information for which the price of anarchy has been studied are smooth in our sense. Thus our extension theorem unifies much of the known work on the price of anarchy in games of incomplete information. Second, we use our extension theorem to prove new bounds on the price of anarchy of Bayes-Nash equilibria in congestion games with incomplete information. We study a network security game where strategic players choose their investments in security. Since a player's investment can reduce the propagation of computer viruses, a key feature of the game is the positive externality exerted by the investment. With selfish players, unfortunately, the overall network security can be far from optimum. The contributions of this paper are as follows. 1) We first characterize the price of anarchy (POA) in the strategic-form game under an “Effective-investment” model and a “Bad-traffic” model, and give insight on how the POA depends on individual players' cost functions and their mutual influence. We also introduce the concept of “weighted POA” to bound the region of payoff vectors. 2) In a repeated game, players have more incentive to cooperate for their long term interests. We consider the socially best outcome that can be supported by the repeated game, as compared to the social optimum. 3) Next, we compare the benefits of improving security technology and improving incentives, and show that improving technology alone may not offset the price of anarchy. 4) Finally, we characterize the performance of correlated equilibrium (CE). Although the paper focuses on network security, many results are generally applicable to games with positive externalities . In this paper we initiate the study of how collusion alters the quality of solutions obtained in competitive games. The price of anarchy aims to measure the cost of the lack of coordination by comparing the quality of a Nash equilibrium to that of a centrally designed optimal solution. This notion assumes that players act not only selfishly, but also independently. We propose a framework for modeling groups of colluding players, in which members of a coalition cooperate so as to selfishly maximize their collective welfare. Clearly, such coalitions can improve the social welfare of the participants, but they can also harm the welfare of those outside the coalition. One might hope that the improvement for the coalition participants outweighs the negative effects on the others. This would imply that increased cooperation can only improved the overall solution quality of stable outcomes. However, increases in coordination can actually lead to significant decreases in total social welfare. In light of this, we propose the price of collusion as a measure of the possible negative effect of collusion, specifying the factor by which solution quality can deteriorate in the presence of coalitions. We give examples to show that the price of collusion can be arbitrarily high even in convex games. Our main results show that in the context of load-balancing games, the price of collusion depends upon the disparity in market power among the game participants. We show that in some symmetric nonatomic games (where all users have access to the same set of strategies) increased cooperation always improves the solution quality, and in the discrete analogs of such games, the price of collusion is bounded by two. Strong Nash equilibria and Pareto-optimal Nash equilibria are natural and important strengthenings of the Nash equilibrium concept. We study these stronger notions of equilibrium in congestion games, focusing on the relationships between the price of anarchy for these equilibria and that for standard Nash equilibria (which is well understood). For symmetric congestion games with polynomial or exponential latency functions, we show that the price of anarchy for strong and Pareto-optimal equilibria is much smaller than the standard price of anarchy. On the other hand, for asymmetric congestion games with polynomial latencies the strong and Pareto prices of anarchy are essentially as large as the standard price of anarchy; while for asymmetric games with exponential latencies the Pareto and standard prices of anarchy are the same but the strong price of anarchy is substantially smaller. Finally, in the special case of linear latencies, we show that in asymmetric games the strong and Pareto prices of anarchy coincide exactly with the known value @math for standard Nash, but are strictly smaller for symmetric games.