Defining an optimal protection strategy against viruses, spam propagation, or any other kind of contamination process is an important feature for designing new networks and architectures. In this paper, we consider decentralized optimal protection strategies when a virus is propagating over a network through an SIS epidemic process. We assume that each node in the network can fully protect itself from infection at a constant cost, or the node can use recovery software, once it is infected. We model our system using a game-theoretic framework and find pure, mixed equilibria, and the Price of Anarchy in several network topologies. Further, we propose a decentralized algorithm and an iterative procedure to compute a pure equilibrium in the general case of a multiple communities network. Finally, we evaluate the algorithms and give numerical illustrations of all our results.
Game theoretical studies for network problems have been conducted, in routing @cite_34 @cite_50 , network flow @cite_6 , workload on the cloud @cite_2 or optimal network design @cite_16 @cite_4 , employing standard game-theoretic concepts @cite_33 @cite_10 such as pure Nash or mixed equilibrium. The Price of Anarchy (PoA) @cite_5 @cite_10 is often used as an equilibrium performance evaluation metric.
@cite_4 @cite_33 @cite_34 @cite_6 @cite_50 @cite_2 @cite_5 @cite_16 @cite_10
1554620983 2107983838 2759949687 2009106897
We present a short geometric proof for the price of anarchy results that have recently been established in a series of papers on selfish routing in multicommodity flow networks. This novel proof also facilitates two new types of results: On the one hand, we give pseudo-approximation results that depend on the class of allowable cost functions. On the other hand, we derive improved bounds on the inefficiency of Nash equilibria for situations in which the equilibrium travel times are within reasonable limits of the free-flow travel times. These tighter bounds help to explain empirical observations in vehicular traffic networks. Our analysis holds in the more general context of congestion games, which provides the framework in which we describe this work. We consider routing games where the performance of each user is dictated by the worst (bottleneck) element it employs. We are given a network, finitely many (selfish) users, each associated with a positive flow demand, and a load-dependent performance function for each network element; the social (i.e., system) objective is to optimize the performance of the worst element in the network (i.e., the network bottleneck). Although we show that such "bottleneck" routing games appear in a variety of practical scenarios, they have not been considered yet. Accordingly, we study their properties, considering two routing scenarios, namely when a user can split its traffic over more than one path (splittable bottleneck game) and when it cannot (unsplittable bottleneck game). First, we prove that, for both splittable and unsplittable bottleneck games, there is a (not necessarily unique) Nash equilibrium. Then, we consider the rate of convergence to a Nash equilibrium in each game. Finally, we investigate the efficiency of the Nash equilibria in both games with respect to the social optimum; specifically, while for both games we show that the price of anarchy is unbounded, we identify for each game conditions under which Nash equilibria are socially optimal. Bottleneck congestion games properly model the properties of many real-world network routing applications. They are known to possess strong equilibria—a strengthening of Nash equilibrium to resilience against coalitional deviations. In this paper, we study the computational complexity of pure Nash and strong equilibria in these games. We provide a generic centralized algorithm to compute strong equilibria, which has polynomial running time for many interesting classes of games such as, e.g., matroid or single-commodity bottleneck congestion games. In addition, we examine the more demanding goal to reach equilibria in polynomial time using natural improvement dynamics. Using unilateral improvement dynamics in matroid games pure Nash equilibria can be reached efficiently. In contrast, computing even a single coalitional improvement move in matroid and single-commodity games is strongly NP-hard. In addition, we establish a variety of hardness results and lower bounds regarding the duration of unilateral and coalitional improvement dynamics. They continue to hold even for convergence to approximate equilibria. We study the performance of noncooperative networks in light of three major topology design considerations, namely the price of establishing a link, path delay, and path proneness to congestion, the latter being modeled through the "relaying extent" of the nodes. We analyze these considerations and the tradeoffs between them from a game-theoretic perspective, where each network element attempts to optimize its individual performance. We show that for all considered cases but one, the existence of a Nash equilibrium point is guaranteed. For the latter case, we indicate, by simulations, that practical scenarios tend to admit a Nash equilibrium. In addition, we demonstrate that the price of anarchy, i.e., the performance penalty incurred by noncooperative behavior, may be prohibitively large; yet, we also show that such games usually admit at least one Nash equilibrium that is system-wide optimal, i.e., their price of stability is 1. This finding suggests that a major improvement can be achieved by providing a central ("social") agent with the ability to impose the initial configuration on the system.