Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 798–820 | Cite as

Multi-player flow games

  • Shibashis Guha
  • Orna Kupferman
  • Gal VardiEmail author


In the traditional maximum-flow problem, the goal is to transfer maximum flow in a network by directing, in each vertex in the network, incoming flow to outgoing edges. The problem corresponds to settings in which a central authority has control on all vertices of the network. Today’s computing environment, however, involves systems with no central authority. In particular, in many applications of flow networks, the vertices correspond to decision-points controlled by different and selfish entities. For example, in communication networks, routers may belong to different companies, with different destination objectives. This suggests that the maximum-flow problem should be revisited, and examined from a game-theoretic perspective. We introduce and study multi-player flow games (MFGs, for short). Essentially, the vertices of an MFG are partitioned among the players, and a player that owns a vertex directs the flow that reaches it. Each player has a different target vertex, and the objective of each player is to maximize the flow that reaches her target vertex. We study the stability of MFGs and show that, unfortunately, an MFG need not have a Nash Equilibrium. Moreover, the price of anarchy and even the price of stability of MFGs are unbounded. That is, the reduction in the flow due to selfish behavior is unbounded. We study the problem of deciding whether a given MFG has a Nash Equilibrium and show that it is \(\Sigma _2^P\)-complete, as well as the problem of finding optimal strategies for the players (that is, best-response moves), which we show to be NP-complete. We continue with some good news and consider a variant of MFGs in which flow may be swallowed. For example, when routers in a communication network may drop messages. We show that, surprisingly, while this model seems to incentivize selfish behavior, a Nash Equilibrium that achieves the maximum flow always exists, and can be found in polynomial time. Finally, we consider MFGs in which the strategies of the players may use non-integral flows, which we show to be stronger.


Game theory for practical applications Noncooperative games: computation Methodologies for agent-based systems Noncooperative games: theory and analysis 



  1. 1.
    Agarwal, S., Kodialam, M. S., & Lakshman, T. V. (2013). Traffic engineering in software defined networks. In Proceedings of 32nd IEEE international conference on computer communications, pp. 2211–2219.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahuja, R. K., Magnanti, T. L., & Orlin, J. B. (1993). Network flows: Theory, algorithms, and applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almagor, S., Avni, G., & Kupferman, O. (2015). Automatic generation of quality specifications. In Proceedings of 26th international conference on concurrency theory, vol. 42, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, E., Wexler, T., & Roughgarden, T. (2008). The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 38(4), 1602–1623.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armbruster, A., Gosnell, M., McMillin, B., & Crow, M. L. (2005). Power transmission control using distributed max-flow. In Computer software and applications conference, 2005. COMPSAC 2005. 29th annual international, vol. 1, pp. 256–263. IEEE.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheung, T. Y. (1983). Graph traversal techniques and the maximum flow problem in distributed computation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 4, 504–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to algorithms. Cambridge: MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dinic, E. A. (1970). Algorithm for solution of a problem of maximum flow in a network with power estimation. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 11(5), 1277–1280. (English translation by RF. Rinehart).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edmonds, J., & Karp, R. M. (1972). Theoretical improvements in algorithmic efficiency for network flow problems. Journal of the ACM, 19(2), 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Even, S., Itai, A., & Shamir, A. (1976). On the complexity of timetable and multicommodity flow problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 5(4), 691–703.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feigenbaum, J., Papadimitriou, C. H., Sami, R., & Shenker, S. (2005). A BGP-based mechanism for lowest-cost routing. Distributed Computing, 18(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ford, L. R., & Fulkerson, D. R. (1956). Maximal flow through a network. Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 8(3), 399–404.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ford, L. R., & Fulkerson, D. R. (1962). Flows in networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg, A. V., Tardos, É., & Tarjan, R. E. (1989). Network flow algorithms. Technical report, DTIC Document.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg, A. V., & Tarjan, R. E. (1988). A new approach to the maximum-flow problem. Journal of the ACM, 35(4), 921–940.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalai, E., & Zemel, E. (1982). Totally balanced games and games of flow. Mathematics of Operations Research, 7(3), 476–478.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koutsoupias, E., & Papadimitriou, C. (2009). Worst-case equilibria. Computer Science Review, 3(2), 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, G., & Vardi, M. Y. (2017). Flow games. In Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science, vol. 93 of Leibniz international proceedings in informatics (LIPIcs), pp. 38:38–38:16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lichtenstein, O., & Pnueli, A. (1985). Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In Proceedings of 12th ACM symposium on principles of programming languages, pp. 97–107.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., & Vazirani, V. V. (2007). Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papadimitriou, C. H. (2001). Algorithms, games, and the internet. In Proceedings of 33rd ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp. 749–753.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pnueli, A., & Rosner, R. (1989). On the synthesis of a reactive module. In Proceedings of 16th ACM symposium on principles of programming languages, pp. 179–190.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tardos, É. (1985). A strongly polynomial minimum cost circulation algorithm. Combinatorica, 5(3), 247–255.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vissicchio, S., Vanbever, L., & Bonaventure, O. (2014). Opportunities and research challenges of hybrid software defined networks. Computer Communication Review, 44(2), 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations