1 / 75

Potential Functions and the Inefficiency of Equilibria

Potential Functions and the Inefficiency of Equilibria. Tim Roughgarden Stanford University. Pigou's Example. Example: one unit of traffic wants to go from s to t Question: what will selfish network users do? assume everyone wants smallest-possible cost [Pigou 1920].

yetta-benjamin
Download Presentation

Potential Functions and the Inefficiency of Equilibria

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. Potential Functions and the Inefficiency of Equilibria Tim Roughgarden Stanford University

  2. Pigou's Example Example:one unit of traffic wants to go from s to t Question:what will selfish network users do? • assume everyone wants smallest-possible cost • [Pigou 1920] cost depends on congestion c(x)=x s t c(x)=1 no congestion effects

  3. Motivating Example Claim:all traffic will take the top link. Reason: • Є > 0  traffic on bottom is envious • Є = 0  equilibrium • all traffic incurs one unit of cost Flow = 1-Є c(x)=x s t c(x)=1 this flow is envious! Flow = Є

  4. Can We Do Better? Consider instead:traffic split equally Improvement: • half of traffic has cost 1 (same as before) • half of traffic has cost ½ (much improved!) Flow = ½ c(x)=x s t c(x)=1 Flow = ½

  5. ½ ½ x 1 s t ½ ½ x 1 Braess’s Paradox Initial Network: Cost = 1.5

  6. ½ ½ x 1 s t ½ ½ x 1 Braess’s Paradox Initial Network: Augmented Network: ½ ½ x 1 0 s t ½ ½ x 1 Cost = 1.5 Now what?

  7. ½ ½ x 1 s t ½ ½ x 1 Braess’s Paradox Initial Network: Augmented Network: x 1 0 s t x 1 Cost = 1.5 Cost = 2

  8. ½ ½ x 1 s t ½ ½ x 1 Braess’s Paradox Initial Network: Augmented Network: All traffic incurs more cost![Braess 68] • also has physical analogs [Cohen/Horowitz 91] x 1 0 s t x 1 Cost = 1.5 Cost = 2

  9. High-Level Overview Motivation: equilibria of noncooperative network games typically inefficient • e.g., Pigou's example + Braess's Paradox • don't optimize natural objective functions Price of anarchy: quantify inefficiency w.r.t some objective function Our goal: when is the price of anarchy small? • when does competition approximate cooperation? • benefit of centralized control is small

  10. Selfish Routing Games • directed graph G = (V,E) • source-destination pairs (s1,t1), …, (sk,tk) • ri = amount of traffic going from si to ti • for each edge e, a cost function ce(•) • assumed continuous and nondecreasing Examples: (r,k=1) c(x)=x ½ c(x)=1 c(x)=x ½ c(x)=0 s1 t1 s1 t1 c(x)=1 ½ ½ c(x)=x c(x)=1

  11. s t Outcomes = Network Flows Possible outcomes of a selfish routing game: • fP = amount of traffic choosing si-ti path P • outcomes of game flow vectors f • flow vector: nonnegative and total flow fP on si-ti paths equals traffic rate ri (for all i)

  12. s t Outcomes = Network Flows Possible outcomes of a selfish routing game: • fP = amount of traffic choosing si-ti path P • outcomes of game flow vectors f • flow vector: nonnegative and total flow fP on si-ti paths equals traffic rate ri (for all i) Question: What are the equilibria (natural selfish outcomes) of this game?

  13. Nash Flows Def: [Wardrop 52]A flow is at Nash equilibrium (or is a Nash flow) if no one can switch to a path of smaller cost. I.e., all flow is routed on min-cost paths. [given current edge congestion] Examples: 1 ½ x x s t s t 1 1 ½ ½ x 1 x 1 0 0 1 s t s t x x 1 1 ½

  14. s t Our Objective Function Definition of social cost: total cost C(f) incurred by the traffic in a flow f. Formally: ifcP(f) = sum of costs of edges of P (w.r.t. flow f), then: C(f) = P fP •cP(f)

  15. s t Our Objective Function Definition of social cost: total cost C(f) incurred by the traffic in a flow f. Formally: ifcP(f) = sum of costs of edges of P (w.r.t. flow f), then: C(f) = P fP •cP(f) Example: x ½ s t Cost = ½•½ +½•1 = ¾ ½ 1

  16. The Price of Anarchy price of anarchy of a game Defn: • definition from [Koutsoupias/Papadimitriou 99] obj fn value of selfish outcome = optimal obj fn value Example: POA = 4/3 in Pigou's example 1 ½ x x s t s t 1 1 ½ Cost = 3/4 Cost = 1

  17. xd 1 1-Є s t 1 0 Є A Nonlinear Pigou Network Bad Example: (d large) equilibrium has cost 1, min cost0

  18. xd 1 1-Є s t 1 0 Є A Nonlinear Pigou Network Bad Example: (d large) equilibrium has cost 1, min cost0 price of anarchy unbounded as d -> infinity Goal: weakest-possible conditions under which P.O.A. is small.

  19. x s t 1 When Is the Price of Anarchy Bounded? Examples so far: Hope: imposing additional structure on the cost functions helps • worry: bad things happen in larger networks xd x 1 s t 0 s t 1 x 1

  20. x s t 1 Polynomial Cost Functions Def:linear cost fn is of form ce(x)=aex+be Theorem:[Roughgarden/Tardos 00] for every network with linear cost functions: ≤4/3 × cost of Nash flow cost of opt flow

  21. x s t 1 Polynomial Cost Functions Def:linear cost fn is of form ce(x)=aex+be Theorem:[Roughgarden/Tardos 00] for every network with linear cost functions: ≤4/3 × Bounded-deg polys: (w/nonneg coeffs) replace 4/3 by Θ(d/log d) cost of Nash flow cost of opt flow xd tight example s t 1

  22. xd tight example s t 1 A General Theorem Thm:[Roughgarden 02], [Correa/Schulz/Stier Moses 03]fix any set of cost fns. Then, a Pigou-like example 2 nodes, 2 links, 1 link w/constant cost fn) achieves worst POA

  23. xd tight example s t 1 Interpretation Bad news: inefficiency of selfish routing grows as cost functions become "more nonlinear". • think of "nonlinear" as "heavily congested" • recall nonlinear Pigou's example Good news: inefficiency does not grow with network size or # of source-destination pairs. • in lightly loaded networks, no matter how large, selfish routing is nearly optimal

  24. Benefit of Overprovisioning Suppose: network is overprovisioned by β > 0 (β fraction of each edge unused). Then: Price of anarchy is at most ½(1+1/√β). • arbitrary network size/topology, traffic matrix Moral: Even modest (10%) over-provisioning sufficient for near-optimal routing.

  25. Potential Functions • potential games: equilibria are actually optima of a related optimization problem • has immediate consequences for existence, uniqueness, and inefficiency of equilibria • see [Beckmann/McGuire/Winsten 56], [Rosenthal 73], [Monderer/Shapley 96], for original references • see [Roughgarden ICM 06] for survey

  26. The Potential Function Key fact:[BMV 56] Nash flows minimize “potential function”e ∫fce(x)dx (over all flows). ce(fe) 0 e 0 fe 0

  27. The Potential Function Key fact:[BMV 56] Nash flows minimize “potential function”e ∫fce(x)dx (over all flows). Lemma 1: locally optimal solutions are precisely the Nash flows (derivative test). Lemma 2: all locally optimal solutions are also globally optimal (convexity). Corollary: Nash flows exist, are unique. ce(fe) 0 e 0 fe 0

  28. Consequences for the Price of Anarchy Example: linear cost functions. Compare cost + potential function: C(f) = e fe •ce(fe) = e [ae fe + be fe] PF(f) = e ∫fce(x)dx = e [(ae fe)/2 + be fe] 2 2 e 0

  29. Consequences for the Price of Anarchy Example: linear cost functions. Compare cost + potential function: C(f) = e fe •ce(fe) = e [ae fe + be fe] PF(f) = e ∫fce(x)dx = e [(ae fe)/2 + be fe] • cost, potential fn differ by factor of ≤ 2 • gives upper bound of 2 on price on anarchy • C(f) ≤ 2×PF(f) ≤ 2×PF(f*) ≤ 2×C(f*) 2 2 e 0

  30. Better Bounds? Similarly: proves bound of d+1 for degree-d polynomials (w/nonnegative coefficients). • not tight, but qualitatively accurate • e.g., price of anarchy goes to infinity with degree bound, but only linearly • to get tight bounds, need "variational inequalities" • see my ICM survey for details

  31. Variational Inequality Claim: • if f is a Nash flow and f* is feasible, then e fe •ce(fe) ≤e f*•ce(fe) • proof: use that Nash flow routes flow on shortest paths (w.r.t. costs ce(fe)) e

  32. Pigou Bound Recall goal: want to show Pigou-like examples are always worst cases. Pigou bound: given set of cost functions (e.g., degree-d polys), largest POA in a network: • two nodes, two links • one function in given set • one constant function • constant = cost of fully congested top edge xd s t 1

  33. Pigou Bound (Formally) Let S = a set of cost functions. • e.g., polynomials with degree at most d, nonnegative coefficients Definition: the Pigou bound α(S) for S is: max • max is over all choices of cost fns c in S, traffic rate r  0, flow y  0 r • c(r) xd s t y • c(y) + (r-y) • c(r) 1

  34. Pigou Bound (Example) Let S = { c : c(x) = ax +b } [linear functions] Recall: the Pigou bound α(S) for S is: max • max is over all choices of cost fns c in S, traffic rate r  0, flow y  0 • choose c(x) = x; r = 1; y = 1/2  get 4/3 • calculus: α(S) = 4/3 [d/ln d for deg-d polynomials] r • c(r) x s t y • c(y) + (r-y) • c(r) 1

  35. Main Theorem (Formally) Theorem:[Roughgarden 02, Correa/Schulz/Stier Moses 03]: For every set S, for every selfish routing network G with cost functions in C, the POA in G is at most α(S). • POA always maximized by Pigou-like examples That is, if f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G, then C(f)/C(f*) ≤ α(S). • example: POA ≤ 4/3 if G has affine cost fns

  36. Proof of General Thm Let f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G.

  37. Proof of General Thm Let f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G. Step 1: for each e, invoke Pigou bound with c = ce, y = f*, r = fe: α(S)  fe •ce(fe)/[f*•ce(f*) + (fe -f*)•ce(fe)] e e e e

  38. Proof of General Thm Let f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G. Step 1: for each e, invoke Pigou bound with c = ce, y = f*, r = fe: α(S)  fe •ce(fe)/[f*•ce(f*) + (fe -f*)•ce(fe)] Step 2: rearrange and sum over e: C(f*) = e f*•ce(f*) e e e e e e

  39. Proof of General Thm Let f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G. Step 1: for each e, invoke Pigou bound with c = ce, y = f*, r = fe: α(S)  fe •ce(fe)/[f*•ce(f*) + (fe -f*)•ce(fe)] Step 2: rearrange and sum over e: C(f*) = e f*•ce(f*)  [e fe •ce(fe)]/α(S) + [e (f* - fe)•ce(fe)] e e e e e e e

  40. Proof of General Thm Let f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G. Step 1: for each e, invoke Pigou bound with c = ce, y = f*, r = fe: α(S)  fe •ce(fe)/[f*•ce(f*) + (fe -f*)•ce(fe)] Step 2: rearrange and sum over e: C(f*) = e f*•ce(f*)  [e fe •ce(fe)]/α(S) + [e (f* - fe)•ce(fe)] Step 3: apply VI e e e e e e e  0

  41. Proof of General Thm Let f and f* are Nash + optimal flows in G. Step 1: for each e, invoke Pigou bound with c = ce, y = f*, r = fe: α(S)  fe •ce(fe)/[f*•ce(f*) + (fe -f*)•ce(fe)] Step 2: rearrange and sum over e: C(f*) = e f*•ce(f*)  [e fe •ce(fe)]/α(S) Step 3: apply VI, done! e e e e e e =C(f)

  42. Recap • selfish routing: simple, basic routing game • inefficient equilibria: Pigou + Braess examples • price of anarchy: ratio of objective fn values of selfish + optimal outcomes • potential functions: equilibria actually solving a related optimization problem • immediate consequence for existence, uniqueness, and inefficiency of equilibria

  43. Recap • variational inequality: inequality based on "first-order condition" satisfied by equilibria • Pigou bound: given a set of cost functions, largest POA in a Pigou-like example • main result: for every set of cost fns, Pigou bound is tight (all multicommodity networks) • POA depends only on complexity of cost functions, not on complexity of network structure

  44. Outline Part I: The Price of Anarchy in Selfish Routing Games Part II: The Price of Stability in Network Connectivity Games

  45. Selfish Network Design Given: G= (V,E), fixed costs ce for all e є E, k vertex pairs (si,ti) Each player wants to build a network in which its nodes are connected. Player strategy: select a path connecting sito ti. • [Anshelevich et al 04]

  46. Shapley Cost Sharing How should multiple players on a single edge split costs? Natural choice is fair sharing, or Shapley cost sharing: Players using e pay for it evenly: ci(P) = Σ ce/ke Each player tries to minimize its cost. e є P

  47. Comparison to Selfish Routing Note:like selfish routing, except: • finite number of outcomes • in selfish routing, outcomes = fractional flows • positive (not negative) externalities • cost function (per player) = ce/ke Objective:C = Σi ci(Pi) = Σ ce • where S = union of Pi's e є S

  48. What's the POA? Example: t1, t2, … tk t 1+ k s s1, s2, … sk

  49. What's the POA? Example: t1, t2, … tk t t 1+ 1+ k k s s s1, s2, … sk OPT (also Nash eq)

  50. What's the POA? Example: t1, t2, … tk t t t 1+ 1+ 1+ k k k s s s s1, s2, … sk OPT (also Nash eq) another Nash eq

More Related