In this note we consider the following problem to study the effect of malicious players on the social optimum in load balancing games: Consider two players SOC and MAL controlling (1-f) and f fraction of the flow in a load balancing game. SOC tries to minimize the total cost faced by her players while MAL tries to maximize the same. If the latencies are linear, we show that this 2-player zero-sum game has a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. Moreover, we show that one of the optimal strategies for MAL is to play selfishly: let the f fraction of the flow be sent as when the flow was controlled by infinitesimal players playing selfishly and reaching a Nash equilibrium. This shows that a malicious player cannot cause more harm in this game than a set of selfish agents. We also introduce the notion of Cost of Malice - the ratio of the cost faced by SOC at equilibrium to (1-f)OPT, where OPT is the social optimum minimizing the cost of all the players. In linear load balancing games we bound the cost of malice by (1+f 2).
In the computer science community, there have been a number of studies investigating the effect of malicious agents in congestion games. The first work closest to our setting was by Karakostas and Viglas @cite_7 who study how the presence of malicious agents in a congestion game effects the price of anarchy. That is, how the ratio between the cost of agents in a Nash equilibrium and the social optimum, which the authors call the coordination ratio, change with the amount of malice in the system. More recently, Babaioff @cite_1 consider the malicious agent in the game along with the infinitesimal players and show that for general latency functions, the game need not have a pure Nash equilibrium, and they show the existence of a mixed Nash equilibrium. Moreover, they define the Price of Malice as the rate of deterioration in the total performance of the remaining selfish players per unit flow of malice and show that there exist networks where the price of malice may indeed be negative, while on the other hand there are networks where the price could be quite large.
@cite_1 @cite_7
2133243407 2124034793 1517645949 1548210998
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 the equilibria of non-atomic congestion games in which there are two types of players: rational players, who seek to minimize their own delay, and malicious players, who seek to maximize the average delay experienced by the rational players. We study the existence of pure and mixed Nash equilibria for these games, and we seek to quantify the impact of the malicious players on the equilibrium. One counter intuitive phenomenon which we demonstrate is the "windfall of malice": paradoxically, when a myopically malicious player gains control of a fraction of the flow, a fraction of the players change from rational to malicious, the new equilibrium may be more favorable for the remaining rational players than the previous equilibrium. 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 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.