We study a class of games in which a finite number of agents each controls a quantity of flow to be routed through a network, and are able to split their own flow between multiple paths through the network. Recent work on this model has contrasted the social cost of Nash equilibria with the best possible social cost. Here we show that additional costs are incurred in situations where a selfish leader'' agent allocates his flow, and then commits to that choice so that other agents are compelled to minimise their own cost based on the first agent's choice. We find that even in simple networks, the leader can often improve his own cost at the expense of increased social cost. Focusing on the 2-player case, we give upper and lower bounds on the worst-case additional cost incurred.
Stackelberg leadership refers to a game-theoretic situation where one player (the leader'') selects his action first, and commits to it. The other player(s) then choose their own action based on the choice made by the leader. Recent work on Stackelberg scheduling in the context of network flow (e.g. @cite_7 @cite_0 @cite_17 ), has studied it as a tool to mitigate the performance degradation due to selfish users. The flow that is controlled by the leader is routed so as to minimise social cost in the presence of followers who minimise their own costs. In contrast, here we consider what happens when the leading flow is controlled by another selfish agent. We show here that the price of decentralised behaviour goes up even further in the presence of a Stackelberg leader.
@cite_0 @cite_7 @cite_17
1764576420 2158770193 2012552037 2029456721
We study a multi-player one-round game termed Stackelberg Network Pricing Game, in which a leader can set prices for a subset of m priceable edges in a graph. The other edges have a fixed cost. Based on the leader’s decision one or more followers optimize a polynomial-time solvable combinatorial minimization problem and choose a minimum cost solution satisfying their requirements based on the fixed costs and the leader’s prices. The leader receives as revenue the total amount of prices paid by the followers for priceable edges in their solutions. Our model extends several known pricing problems, including single-minded and unit-demand pricing, as well as Stackelberg pricing for certain follower problems like shortest path or minimum spanning tree. Our first main result is a tight analysis of a single-price algorithm for the single follower game, which provides a (1+e)log m-approximation. This can be extended to provide a (1+e)(log k+log m)-approximation for the general problem and k followers. The problem is also shown to be hard to approximate within @math for some e>0. If followers have demands, the single-price algorithm provides an @math -approximation, and the problem is hard to approximate within @math for some e>0. Our second main result is a polynomial time algorithm for revenue maximization in the special case of Stackelberg bipartite vertex-cover, which is based on non-trivial max-flow and LP-duality techniques. This approach can be extended to provide constant-factor approximations for any constant number of followers. 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 study the problem of optimizing the performance of a system shared by selfish, noncooperative users. We consider the concrete setting of scheduling jobs on a set of shared machines with load-dependent latency functions specifying the length of time necessary to complete a job; we measure system performance by the total latency of the system. Assigning jobs according to the selfish interests of individual users (who wish to minimize only the latency that their own jobs experience) typically results in suboptimal system performance. However, in many systems of this type there is a mixture of “selfishly controlled” and “centrally controlled” jobs; as the assignment of centrally controlled jobs will influence the subsequent actions by selfish users, we aspire to contain the degradation in system performance due to selfish behavior by scheduling the centrally controlled jobs in the best possible way. We formulate this goal as an optimization problem via Stackelberg games , games in which one player acts a leader (here, the centralized authority interested in optimizing system performance) and the rest as followers (the selfish users). The problem is then to compute a strategy for the leader (a em Stackelberg strategy ) that induces the followers to react in a way that (at least approximately) minimizes the total latency in the system. In this paper, we prove that it is NP-hard to compute the optimal Stackelberg strategy and present simple strategies with provable performance guarantees. More precisely, we give a simple algorithm that computes a strategy inducing a job assignment with total latency no more than a constant times that of the optimal assignment of all of the jobs; in the absence of centrally controlled jobs and a Stackelberg strategy, no result of this type is possible. We also prove stronger performance guarantees in the We study the problem of optimizing the performance of a system shared by selfish, noncooperative users. We consider the concrete setting of scheduling small jobs on a set of shared machines possessing latency functions that specify the amount of time needed to complete a job, given the machine load. We measure system performance by the total latency of the system. Assigning jobs according to the selfish interests of individual users, who wish to minimize only the latency that their own jobs experience, typically results in suboptimal system performance. However, in many systems of this type there is a mixture of "selfishly controlled" and "centrally controlled" jobs. The congestion due to centrally controlled jobs will influence the actions of selfish users, and we thus aspire to contain the degradation in system performance due to selfish behavior by scheduling the centrally controlled jobs in the best possible way. We formulate this goal as an optimization problem via Stackelberg games, games in which one player acts a leader (here, the centralized authority interested in optimizing system performance) and the rest as followers (the selfish users). The problem is then to compute a strategy for the leader (a Stackelberg strategy) that induces the followers to react in a way that (approximately) minimizes the total latency in the system. In this paper, we prove that it is NP-hard to compute an optimal Stackelberg strategy and present simple strategies with provably good performance guarantees. More precisely, we give a simple algorithm that computes a strategy inducing a job assignment with total latency no more than a constant times that of the optimal assignment of all of the jobs; in the absence of centrally controlled jobs and a Stackelberg strategy, no result of this type is possible. We also prove stronger performance guarantees in the special case where every machine latency function is linear in the machine load.