Abstract
In computer and transportation networks, we consider the situation where each user has its own routing or load balancing decision and seeks to minimize noncooperatively the expected passage time of its packet or job, given the routing or load balancing decisions of other users. Intuitively, it is anticipated that adding connections to such a noncooperative system may bring cost improvement at least to some users. The Braess paradox is, however, the first example of paradoxical cases where it is not always the case. A few studies have been published on the degrees of coincident cost degradation for all users by adding connections. In contrast, it has not been certain whether or to what degree adding connections to a network can bring coincident cost improvement for all users. We believe that this paper is the first one that studies the possible degrees of coincident cost improvement for all users by adding connections to noncooperative systems. There has been found no system in Wardrop equilibrium for which the degree of degradation can increase without bound by adding connections with the number of nodes fixed. We show that there exist systems in Wardrop equilibria and ones in Nash equilibria for both of which the degree of coincident cost improvement can increase without bound for all users by adding connections, even if the number of nodes is fixed. We then study, for models reflecting realistic distributed systems, the effects of adding connections to them on the coincident cost improvement or degradation for all users.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We only consider the cases where C i (S) > 0 for all i. In the case where there are such i’s that C i (S) ≤ 0 for some i, we replace C i (S) by C i (S) + C for all i where C is a constant such that C i (S) + C > 0 for all i. By this replacement, we would not have any essential change in our arguments.
References
Altman E, Wynter L (2004) Equilibrium, games, and pricing in transportation and telecommunication networks. Network Spatial Econ 4(1):7–21
Braess D (1968) Über ein Paradoxen aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung 12:258–268
Chen J, Druschel P, Subramanian D (1999) A new approach to routing with dynamic metrics. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM ’99, New York
Cohen JE, Jeffries C (1997) Congestion resulting from increased capacity in single-server queueing networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 5(2):305–310
Cohen JE, Kelly FP (1990) A paradox of congestion in a queuing network. J Appl Prob 27:730–734
Foster I, Kesselman C (eds) (1998) The grid: blueprint for a new computing infrastructure. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco
Haurie A, Marcotte P (1985) On the relationship between Nash-Cournot and Wardrop equilibria. Networks 15:295–308
Inoie A, Kameda H, Touati C (2006) A paradox in flow control of M/M/n queues. Comput Oper Res 33:356–368
Kameda H (2002) How harmful the paradox can be in the Braess/Cohen–Kelly–Jeffries networks. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2002. New York, pp 437–445
Kameda H, Pourtallier O (2002) Paradoxes in distributed decisions on optimal load balancing for networks of homogeneous computers. J ACM 49(3):407–433
Kameda H, Altman E, Kozawa T, Hosokawa Y (2000) Braess-like paradoxes in distributed computer systems. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 45(9):1687–1691
Kameda H, Li J, Kim C, Zhang Y (1997a) Optimal load balancing in distributed computer systems. Springer, London
Kameda H, Kozawa T, Li J (1997b). Anomalous relations among various performance objectives in distributed computer systems. In: Proc. 1st world congress on systems simulation. IEEE, pp 459–465
Keshav S (1997) An engineering approach to computer networking: ATM networks, the internet, and the telephone network. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Kim C, Kameda H (1990) An algorithm for optimal static load balancing in distributed computer systems. IEEE Trans Comput 41:381–384
Koutsoupias E, Papadimitriou C (1999) Worst-case equilibria. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science, pp 404–413
Legrand A, Touati C (2007) How to measure efficiency? In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on game theory for communication networks (Game-Comm’07)
Orda A, Rom R, Shimkin N (1993) Competitive routing in multiuser communication networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 1:614–627
Papadimitriou CH (2001) Algorithms, games and the internet. In: STOC. ACM Press, pp 749–753
Patriksson M (1994) The traffic assignment problem—models and methods. VSP, Utrecht
Patriksson M (2004) Algorithms for computing traffic equilibria. Network Spatial Econ 4(1):23–38
Roughgarden T (2005) Selfish routing and the price of anarchy. MIT, Cambridge
Roughgarden T (2006a) On the severity of Braess’s paradox: designing networks for selfish users is hard. J Comput Syst Sci 72(5):922–953
Roughgarden T (2006b) Selfish routing and the price of anarchy. In: OPTIMA
Roughgarden T, Tardos É (2004) A stronger bound on Braess’s paradox. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithm, pp 333–334
Shao H, Lam WHK, Tam ML (2006) A reliability-based stochastic traffic assignment model for network with multiple user classes under uncertainty in demand. Network Spatial Econ 6(3-4):173–204
Stevens WR (1994) TCP/IP illustrated. In: The Protocols, vol 1. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Tantawi AN, Towsley D (1985) Optimal static load balancing in distributed computer systems. J ACM 32(2):445–465
Zhang Y, Kameda H, Shimizu K (1992) Parametric analysis of optimal load balancing in distributed computer systems. J Inf Process (Info Proc Soc Japan) 14(4):433–441
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Laura Wynter for the discussions on this paper. This study was supported in part by the University of Tsukuba Research Projects and in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kameda, H. Coincident Cost Improvement vs. Degradation by Adding Connections to Noncooperative Networks and Distributed Systems. Netw Spat Econ 9, 269–287 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9102-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9102-2