Advertisement

Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 620–638 | Cite as

Pure Nash equilibria in restricted budget games

  • Maximilian DreesEmail author
  • Matthias Feldotto
  • Sören Riechers
  • Alexander Skopalik
Article
  • 96 Downloads

Abstract

In budget games, players compete over resources with finite budgets. For every resource, a player has a specific demand and as a strategy, he chooses a subset of resources. If the total demand on a resource does not exceed its budget, the utility of each player who chose that resource equals his demand. Otherwise, the budget is shared proportionally. In the general case, pure Nash equilibria (NE) do not exist for such games. In this paper, we consider the natural classes of singleton and matroid budget games with additional constraints and show that for each, pure NE can be guaranteed. In addition, we introduce a lexicographical potential function to prove that every matroid budget game has an approximate pure NE which depends on the largest ratio between the different demands of each individual player.

Keywords

Congestion games Pure Nash equilibrium Existence Convergence Complexity Approximation 

References

  1. Ackermann H, Röglin H, Vöcking B (2009) Pure Nash equilibria in player-specific and weighted congestion games. Theor Comput Sci 410(17):1552–1563MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 J Comput 38(4):1602–1623MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Byde A, Polukarov M, Jennings NR (2009) Games with congestion-averse utilities. In: Algorithmic game theory: second international symposium. Springer, Berlin, pp 220–232Google Scholar
  4. Caragiannis I, Fanelli A, Gravin N, Skopalik A (2015) Approximate pure Nash equilibria in weighted congestion games: existence, efficient computation, and structure. ACM Trans Econ Comput 3(1):2:1–2:32MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Chien S, Sinclair A (2011) Convergence to approximate Nash equilibria in congestion games. Games Econ Behav 71(2):315–327MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Drees M, Riechers S, Skopalik A (2014) Budget-restricted utility games with ordered strategic decisions. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on algorithmic game theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 110–121Google Scholar
  7. Drees M, Feldotto M, Riechers S, Skopalik A (2015) On existence and properties of approximate pure Nash equilibria in bandwidth allocation games. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on algorithmic game theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 178–189Google Scholar
  8. Gairing M, Klimm M (2013) Congestion games with player-specific costs revisited. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on algorithmic game theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 98–109Google Scholar
  9. Hansknecht C, Klimm M, Skopalik A (2014) Approximate pure Nash equilibria in weighted congestion games. In: Proceedings of the 17th international workshop on approximation algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, pp 242–257Google Scholar
  10. Harks T, Klimm M (2010) On the existence of pure Nash equilibria in weighted congestion games. In: Proceedings of the 38th international colloquium on automata, languages and programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 79–89Google Scholar
  11. Harks T, Klimm M (2015) Congestion games with variable demands. Math Oper Res 41(1):255–277MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Jain K, Mahdian M (2007) Cost sharing. Algorithmic Game Theory 15:385–410MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kollias K, Roughgarden T (2015) Restoring pure equilibria to weighted congestion games. ACM Trans Econ Comput 3(4):21:1–21:24MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Mavronicolas M, Milchtaich I, Monien B, Tiemann K (2007) Congestion games with player-specific constants. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on mathematical foundations of computer science, pp 633–644Google Scholar
  15. Milchtaich I (1996) Congestion games with player-specific payoff functions. Games Econ Behav 13(1):111–124MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Monderer D, Shapley LS (1996) Potential games. Games Econ Behav 14(1):124–143MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenthal RW (1973) A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Int J Game Theory 2(1):65–67MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Shapley LS (1952) A value for n-person games. Technical report, DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  19. Voice T, Polukarov M, Byde A, Jennings NR (2009) On the impact of strategy and utility structures on congestion-averse games. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on web and internet economics. Springer, Berlin, pp 600–607Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Drees
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias Feldotto
    • 2
  • Sören Riechers
    • 2
  • Alexander Skopalik
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Paderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations