1 / 28

Smooth Games and Intrinsic Robustness

Smooth Games and Intrinsic Robustness. Christodoulou and Koutsoupias , Roughgarden Slides stolen/modified from Tim Roughgarden. TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A A A A A A A. Congestion Games.

denzel
Download Presentation

Smooth Games and Intrinsic Robustness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smooth Games and Intrinsic Robustness Christodoulou and Koutsoupias, Roughgarden Slides stolen/modified from Tim Roughgarden TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAAAAAAAA

  2. Congestion Games • Agent i has a set of strategies, Si, each strategy s in Si is a set of resources • The cost to an agent is the sum of the costs of the resources r in s used by the agent when choosing s • The cost of a resource is a function of the number of agents using the resource fr(# agents)

  3. Price of Anarchy Price of anarchy: [Koutsoupias/Papadimitriou 99]quantify inefficiency w.r.t some objective function. • e.g., Nash equilibrium: an outcome such that no player better off by switching strategies Definition:price of anarchy (POA) of a game (w.r.t. some objective function): the closer to 1 the better equilibrium objective fn value optimal obj fn value

  4. Atomic identical flow is a Congestion game Network w/2 players: 2x 12 0 s t 5x 5

  5. s t Costs: atomic and non-atomic flow Def: the cost C(f) of flow f = sum of all costs incurred by traffic (avg cost × traffic rate) Formally: ifcP(f) = sum of costs of edges of P (w.r.t. the flow f), then: C(f) = P fP•cP(f) x ½ s t ½ 1 Cost = ½•½ +½•1 = ¾

  6. Linear costs Def:linear cost fn is of form ce(x)=aex+be

  7. Atomic identical flow Linear costs Nash Equilibrium: To Minimize Cost: Price of anarchy = 28/24 = 7/6. • if multiple equilibria exist, look at the worst one 2x 12 2x 12 0 0 s t s t 5x 5x 5 5 cost = 14+10 = 24 cost = 14+14 = 28

  8. POA non-atomic flow Theorem:[Roughgarden/Tardos 00] for every non-atomic flow network with linear cost fns: ≤ 4/3 × i.e., price of anarchy non atomic flow ≤ 4/3 in the linear latency case. cost of opt flow cost of non-atomic Nashflow

  9. Abstract Setup • n players, each picks a strategy si • player i incurs a cost Ci(s) Important Assumption: objective function is cost(s) := iCi(s) Key Definition: A game is (λ,μ)-smooth if, for every pair s,s* outcomes (λ > 0; μ < 1): iCi(s*i,s-i) ≤ λ●cost(s*) + μ●cost(s)

  10. Smooth => POA Bound Next: “canonical” way to upper bound POA (via a smoothness argument). • notation: s = a Nash eq; s* = optimal Assuming (λ,μ)-smooth: cost(s) = i Ci(s) [defn of cost] ≤ i Ci(s*i,s-i) [s a Nash eq] ≤ λ●cost(s*) + μ●cost(s) [(*)] Then: POA (of pure Nash eq) ≤ λ/(1-μ).

  11. “Robust” POA Best (λ,μ)-smoothness parameters: cost(s) = iCi(s) ≤ iCi(s*i,s-i) ≤ λ●cost(s*) + μ●cost(s) Minimizing:λ/(1-μ).

  12. Congestion games with affine cost functions are (5/3,1/3)-smooth • Claim: For all non-negative integers y, z :

  13. a,b≥0 Thus, Any congestion game (includes atomic unit flow)

  14. Why Is Smoothness Stronger? Key point: to derive POA bound, only needed iCi(s*i,s-i) ≤ λ●cost(s*) + μ●cost(s) to hold in special case where s = a Nash eq and s* = optimal. Smoothness:requires (*) for every pair s,s* outcomes. • even if s isnot a pure Nash equilibrium

  15. The Need for Robustness Meaning of a POA bound: if the game is at an equilibrium, then outcome is near-optimal.

  16. The Need for Robustness Meaning of a POA bound: if the game is at an equilibrium, then outcome is near-optimal. Problem: what if can’t reach equilibrium? • (pure) equilibrium might not exist • might be hard to compute, even centrally • [Fabrikant/Papadimitriou/Talwar], [Daskalakis/ Goldberg/Papadimitriou], [Chen/Deng/Teng], etc. • might be hard to learn in a distributed way Worry: are POA bounds “meaningless”?

  17. Robust POA Bounds High-Level Goal: worst-case bounds that apply even to non-equilibrium outcomes! • best-response dynamics, pre-convergence • [Mirrokni/Vetta 04], [Goemans/Mirrokni/Vetta 05], [Awerbuch/Azar/Epstein/Mirrokni/Skopalik 08] • correlated equilibria • [Christodoulou/Koutsoupias 05] • coarse correlated equilibria aka “price of total anarchy” aka “no-regret players” • [Blum/Even-Dar/Ligett 06], [Blum/Hajiaghayi/Ligett/Roth 08]

  18. Lots of previous work uses smoothness Bounds • atomic (unweighted) selfish routing [Awerbuch/Azar/Epstein 05], [Christodoulou/Koutsoupias 05], [Aland/Dumrauf/Gairing/Monien/Schoppmann 06], [Roughgarden 09] • nonatomic selfish routing[Roughgarden/Tardos 00],[Perakis 04] [Correa/Schulz/Stier Moses 05] • weighted congestion games [Aland/Dumrauf/Gairing/Monien/Schoppmann 06], [Bhawalkar/Gairing/Roughgarden 10] • submodular maximization games [Vetta 02], [Marden/Roughgarden 10] • coordination mechanisms [Cole/Gkatzelis/Mirrokni 10]

  19. Beyond Pure Nash Equilibria (Static) Mixed: CCE Correlated: correlated eq Coarse Correlated: mixed Nash pure Nash

  20. Beyond Nash Equilibria(non-Static) Definition: a sequence s1,s2,...,sTof outcomes is no-regret if: • for each player i, each fixed action qi: • average cost player i incurs over sequence no worse than playing action qievery time • if every player uses e.g. “multiplicative weights” then get o(1) regret in poly-time • empirical distribution = "coarse correlated eq" no-regret correlated eq mixed Nash pure Nash

  21. An Out-of-Equilibrium Bound Theorem: [Roughgarden STOC 09] in a (λ,μ)-smooth game, average cost of every no-regret sequence at most [λ/(1-μ)] x cost of optimal outcome. (the same bound we proved for pure Nash equilibria)

  22. Smooth => No-Regret Bound • notation: s1,s2,...,sT = no regret; s* = optimal Assuming (λ,μ)-smooth: t cost(st) = t i Ci(st) [defn of cost]

  23. Smooth => No-Regret Bound • notation: s1,s2,...,sT = no regret; s* = optimal Assuming (λ,μ)-smooth: t cost(st) = t i Ci(st) [defn of cost] = t i [Ci(s*i,st-i) + ∆i,t] [∆i,t:= Ci(st)- Ci(s*i,st-i)]

  24. Smooth => No-Regret Bound • notation: s1,s2,...,sT = no regret; s* = optimal Assuming (λ,μ)-smooth: t cost(st) = t i Ci(st) [defn of cost] = t i [Ci(s*i,st-i) + ∆i,t] [∆i,t:= Ci(st)- Ci(s*i,st-i)] ≤ t [λ●cost(s*) + μ●cost(st)] + i t ∆i,t[(*)]

  25. Smooth => No-Regret Bound • notation: s1,s2,...,sT = no regret; s* = optimal Assuming (λ,μ)-smooth: t cost(st) = t iCi(st) [defn of cost] = t i[Ci(s*i,st-i) + ∆i,t] [∆i,t:= Ci(st)- Ci(s*i,st-i)] ≤ t [λ●cost(s*) + μ●cost(st)] + it ∆i,t[(*)] No regret:t ∆i,t ≤ 0 for each i. To finish proof: divide through by T.

  26. Intrinsic Robustness • Theorem: [Roughgarden STOC 09] for every set C, unweighted congestion games with cost functions restricted to C are tight: maximum [pure POA] = minimum [λ/(1-μ)] congestion games w/cost functions in C (λ ,μ): all such games are (λ ,μ)-smooth

  27. Intrinsic Robustness • Theorem: [Roughgarden STOC 09] for every set C, unweighted congestion games with cost functions restricted to C are tight: maximum [pure POA] = minimum [λ/(1-μ)] • weighted congestion games [Bhawalkar/ Gairing/Roughgarden ESA 10]and submodular maximization games [Marden/Roughgarden CDC 10] are also tight in this sense congestion games w/cost functions in C (λ ,μ): all such games are (λ ,μ)-smooth

More Related