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).
Our work is in some sense similar to the work on Stackelberg strategies started by Roughgarden @cite_4 and later works by Karakostas and Kolliopoulos @cite_5 , Swamy @cite_6 and Sharma and Williamson @cite_3 . In Stackelberg games there exists a leader who controls some amount of flow which he plays first to which the remaining selfish players respond. It is instructive to compare this leader with our SOC player. In fact, our proof of bounding the cost of malice goes via the strategy SCALE in the paper of Roughgarden @cite_4 .
@cite_5 @cite_3 @cite_4 @cite_6
2158770193 169126583 2119249434 1764576420
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 consider network games with atomic players, which indicates that some players control a positive amount of flow. Instead of studying Nash equilibria as previous work has done, we consider that players with considerable market power will make decisions before the others because they can predict the decisions of players without market power. This description fits the framework of Stackelberg games, where those with market power are leaders and the rest are price-taking followers. As Stackelberg equilibria are difficult to characterize, we prove bounds on the inefficiency of the solutions that arise when the leader uses a heuristic that approximate its optimal strategy. How do we build multiagent algorithms for agent interactions with human adversaries? Stackelberg games are natural models for many important applications that involve human interaction, such as oligopolistic markets and security domains. In Stackelberg games, one player, the leader, commits to a strategy and the follower makes their decision with knowledge of the leader's commitment. Existing algorithms for Stackelberg games efficiently find optimal solutions (leader strategy), but they critically assume that the follower plays optimally. Unfortunately, in real-world applications, agents face human followers (adversaries) who --- because of their bounded rationality and limited observation of the leader strategy --- may deviate from their expected optimal response. Not taking into account these likely deviations when dealing with human adversaries can cause an unacceptable degradation in the leader's reward, particularly in security applications where these algorithms have seen real-world deployment. To address this crucial problem, this paper introduces three new mixed-integer linear programs (MILPs) for Stackelberg games to consider human adversaries, incorporating: (i) novel anchoring theories on human perception of probability distributions and (ii) robustness approaches for MILPs to address human imprecision. Since these new approaches consider human adversaries, traditional proofs of correctness or optimality are insufficient; instead, it is necessary to rely on empirical validation. To that end, this paper considers two settings based on real deployed security systems, and compares 6 different approaches (three new with three previous approaches), in 4 different observability conditions, involving 98 human subjects playing 1360 games in total. The final conclusion was that a model which incorporates both the ideas of robustness and anchoring achieves statistically significant better rewards and also maintains equivalent or faster solution speeds compared to existing approaches. 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.