Skip to main content

Incentive Ratios of a Proportional Sharing Mechanism in Resource Sharing

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10392))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In a resource sharing system, resources are shared among multiple interconnected peers. Peers act as both suppliers and customers of resources by making a certain amount of their resource directly available to others. In this paper we focus on a proportional sharing mechanism, which is fair, efficient and guarantees a market equilibrium in the resource sharing system. We study the incentives an agent may manipulate such a mechanism, by the vertex splitting strategy, for personal gains and adopt a concept called incentive ratio to quantify the amount of gains. For the resource sharing system where the underlying network ia a cycle, we prove that the incentive ratio on this kind of network is bounded by \(2\le \zeta \le 4\). Furthermore, the incentive ratio on an even cycle, a cycle with even number of vertices, is proved to be exactly 2.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Adsul, B., Babu, C.S., Garg, J., Mehta, R., Sohoni, M.: Nash equilibria in fisher market. In: Kontogiannis, S., Koutsoupias, E., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.) SAGT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6386, pp. 30–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16170-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkalay-Houlihan, C., Vetta, A.: False-name bidding and economic efficiency in combinatorial auctions. In: AAAI, pp. 538–544 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brânzei, S., Chen, Y., Deng, X., Aris, F., Frederiksen, S., Zhang, J.: The fisher market game: equilibrium and welfare. In: AAAI (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, N., Deng, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, J.: Incentive ratios of fisher markets. In: Czumaj, A., Mehlhorn, K., Pitts, A., Wattenhofer, R. (eds.) ICALP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7392, pp. 464–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31585-5_42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen, N., Deng, X., Zhang, J.: How profitable are strategic behaviors in a market? In: Demetrescu, C., Halldórsson, M.M. (eds.) ESA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6942, pp. 106–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23719-5_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng, Y., Deng, X., Pi, Y., Yan, X.: Can bandwidth sharing be truthful? In: Hoefer, M. (ed.) SAGT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9347, pp. 190–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48433-3_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng, Y., Deng, X., Qi, Q., Yan, X.: Truthfulness of a proportional sharing mechanism in resource exchange. In: IJCAI, pp. 187–193 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Feldman, M., Lai, K., Stoica, I., Chuang, J.: Robust incentive techniques for peer-to-peer networks. In: EC (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Iwasaki, A., Conitzer, V., Omori, Y., Sakurai, Y., Todo, T., Guo, M., Yokoo, M.: Worst-case efficiency ratio in false-name-proof combinatorial auction mechanisms. In: AAMAS, pp. 633–640 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: STACS, pp. 404–413 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Polak, I.: The incentive ratio in exchange economies. In: Chan, T.-H.H., Li, M., Wang, L. (eds.) COCOA 2016. LNCS, vol. 10043, pp. 685–692. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48749-6_49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Schollmeier, R.: A definition of peer-to-peer networking for the classification of peer-to-peer architectures and applications. In: P2P, pp. 101–102 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Roughgarden, T., Tardos, É.: How bad is selfish routing? J. ACM 49(2), 236–259 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu, F., Zhang, L.: Proportional response dynamics leads to market equilibrium. In: STOC, pp. 354–363 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yokoo, M.: The characterization of strategy/false-name proof combinatorial auction protocols: Price-oriented, rationing-free protocol. In: IJCAI, pp. 733–739 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., Matsubara, S.: Robust combinatorial auction protocol against false-name bids. Artif. Intell. 130, 167–181 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 11301475, 11426026, 61632017, 61173011), by a Project 985 grant of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and by the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong (ECS Project No. 26200314, GRF Project No. 16213115 and GRF Project No.16243516).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhou Chen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chen, Z., Cheng, Y., Qi, Q., Yan, X. (2017). Incentive Ratios of a Proportional Sharing Mechanism in Resource Sharing. In: Cao, Y., Chen, J. (eds) Computing and Combinatorics. COCOON 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10392. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62389-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62389-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62388-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62389-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics