Advertisement

Mathematical Programming

, Volume 110, Issue 3, pp 591–613 | Cite as

Equilibria for networks with malicious users

  • George Karakostas
  • Anastasios Viglas
Full Length Paper

Abstract

We consider the problem of characterizing user equilibria and optimal solutions for selfish routing in a given network. We extend the known models by considering malicious behavior. While selfish users follow a strategy that minimizes their individual cost, a malicious user will use his flow through the network in an effort to cause the maximum possible damage to the overall cost. We define a generalized model, present characterizations of flows at equilibrium and prove bounds for the ratio of the social cost of a flow at equilibrium over the cost when centralized coordination among users is allowed.

Keywords

Selfish routing Malicious user Equilibrium Saddle point 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aashtiani H.Z., Magnanti T.L.(1981). Equilibria on a congested transportation network. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods 2(3): 213–226MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckmann, M., McGuire, C.B., Winsten, C.B.: Studies in the Economics of Transportation. Yale University Press (1956)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Czumaj, A., Vöcking, B.: Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM–SIAM Symposium On Discrete Mathematics, pp. 413–420 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dafermos S., Sparrow F.(1969). The traffic assignment problem for a general network. J. Res. Nat. Bureau Standards 73B: 91–118MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haurie A., Marcotte P.(1985). On the relationship between Nash–Cournot and Wardrop equilibria. Networks 15, 295–308MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karakostas, G., Viglas, A.: Equilibria for networks with malicious users. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC), pp. 696–704 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, LNCS 1563, pp. 404–413 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mavronicolas, M., Spirakis, P.: The price of selfish routing. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 510–519 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pigou A.(1920). The economics of Welfare. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rockafellar R.T.(1970). Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, New JerseyMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roughgarden, T.: Designing networks for selfish users is hard. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 472–481 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roughgarden, T.: Stackelberg scheduling strategies. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 104–113(2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roughgarden T.(2003). The price of anarchy is independent of the network topology. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 67(2): 341–364MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roughgarden T., Tardos É.(2002). How bad is selfish routing?. J. ACM 49(2): 236–259CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schulz, A.S., Stier Moses, N.E.: On the performance of user equilibria in traffic networks. In: 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 86–87 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing and SoftwareMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.School of Information TechnologiesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations