Improving the Price of Anarchy for Selfish Routing via Coordination Mechanisms
Authors:
George Christodoulou,
Kurt Mehlhorn,
Evangelia Pyrga
Abstract:
We reconsider the well-studied Selfish Routing game with affine latency functions. The Price of Anarchy for this class of games takes maximum value 4/3; this maximum is attained already for a simple network of two parallel links, known as Pigou's network. We improve upon the value 4/3 by means of Coordination Mechanisms.
We increase the latency functions of the edges in the network, i.e., if…
▽ More
We reconsider the well-studied Selfish Routing game with affine latency functions. The Price of Anarchy for this class of games takes maximum value 4/3; this maximum is attained already for a simple network of two parallel links, known as Pigou's network. We improve upon the value 4/3 by means of Coordination Mechanisms.
We increase the latency functions of the edges in the network, i.e., if $\ell_e(x)$ is the latency function of an edge $e$, we replace it by $\hat{\ell}_e(x)$ with $\ell_e(x) \le \hat{\ell}_e(x)$ for all $x$. Then an adversary fixes a demand rate as input. The engineered Price of Anarchy of the mechanism is defined as the worst-case ratio of the Nash social cost in the modified network over the optimal social cost in the original network. Formally, if $\CM(r)$ denotes the cost of the worst Nash flow in the modified network for rate $r$ and $\Copt(r)$ denotes the cost of the optimal flow in the original network for the same rate then [\ePoA = \max_{r \ge 0} \frac{\CM(r)}{\Copt(r)}.]
We first exhibit a simple coordination mechanism that achieves for any network of parallel links an engineered Price of Anarchy strictly less than 4/3. For the case of two parallel links our basic mechanism gives 5/4 = 1.25. Then, for the case of two parallel links, we describe an optimal mechanism; its engineered Price of Anarchy lies between 1.191 and 1.192.
△ Less
Submitted 8 January, 2013; v1 submitted 13 February, 2012;
originally announced February 2012.
Individual-based stability in hedonic games depending on the best or worst players
Authors:
Haris Aziz,
Paul Harrenstein,
Evangelia Pyrga
Abstract:
We consider coalition formation games in which each player has preferences over the other players and his preferences over coalitions are based on the best player ($\mathcal{B}$-/B-hedonic games) or the worst player ($\mathcal{W}$/W-hedonic games) in the coalition. We show that for $\mathcal{B}$-hedonic games, an individually stable partition is guaranteed to exist and can be computed efficiently.…
▽ More
We consider coalition formation games in which each player has preferences over the other players and his preferences over coalitions are based on the best player ($\mathcal{B}$-/B-hedonic games) or the worst player ($\mathcal{W}$/W-hedonic games) in the coalition. We show that for $\mathcal{B}$-hedonic games, an individually stable partition is guaranteed to exist and can be computed efficiently. Similarly, there exists a polynomial-time algorithm which returns a Nash stable partition (if one exists) for $\mathcal{B}$-hedonic games with strict preferences. Both $\mathcal{W}$- and W-hedonic games are equivalent if individual rationality is assumed. It is also shown that for B- or $\mathcal{W}$-hedonic games, checking whether a Nash stable partition or an individually stable partition exists is NP-complete even in some cases for strict preferences. We identify a key source of intractability in compact coalition formation games in which preferences over players are extended to preferences over coalitions.
△ Less
Submitted 3 December, 2011; v1 submitted 9 May, 2011;
originally announced May 2011.
