Approximating Wardrop Equilibria with Finitely Many Agents

  • Simon Fischer
  • Lars Olbrich
  • Berthold Vöcking
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4731)

Abstract

We study adaptive routing algorithms in a round-based model. Suppose we are given a network equipped with load-dependent latency functions on the edges and a set of commodities each of which is defined by a collection of paths (represented by a DAG) and a flow rate. Each commodity is controlled by an agent which aims at balancing its traffic among its paths such that all used paths have the same latency. Such an allocation is called a Wardrop equilibrium.

In recent work, it was shown that an infinite population of users each of which carries an infinitesimal amount of traffic can attain approximate equilibria in a distributed and concurrent fashion quickly. Interestingly, the convergence time is independent of the underlying graph and depends only mildly on the latency functions. Unfortunately, a direct simulation of this process requires to maintain an exponential number of variables, one for each path.

The focus of this work lies on the distributed and efficient computation of the adaptation rules by a finite number of agents. In order to guarantee a polynomial running time, every agent computes a randomised path decomposition in every communication round. Based on this decomposition, agents remove flow from paths with high latency and reassign it proportionally to all paths. This way, our algorithm can handle exponentially large path collections in polynomial time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahuja, R.K., Magnanti, T.L., Orlin, J.B.: Network flows: Theory, algorithms and applications. Prentince-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awerbuch, B., Khandekar, R.: Greedy distributed optimization of multi-commodity flows. In: Proc. 26th Ann. Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC) (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awerbuch, B., Khandekar, R., Rao, S.: Distributed algorithms for multicommodity flow problems via approximate steepest descent framework. In: Proc. 18th Ann. Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awerbuch, B., Kleinberg, R.D.: Adaptive routing with end-to-end feedback: Distributed learning and geometric approaches. In: Proc. 36th Ann. Symp. on Theory of Comput. (STOC), pp. 45–53 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beckmann, M., McGuire, C.B., Winsten, C.B.: Studies in the Economics of Transportation. Yale University Press, New Haven and London (1956)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berenbrink, P., Friedetzky, T., Goldberg, L.A., Goldberg, P., Hu, Z., Martin, R.: Distributed selfish load balancing. In: Proc. 17th Ann. Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertsekas, D.P.: Network Optimization: Continuous and Discrete Models. Athena Scientific (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blum, A., Even-Dar, E., Ligett, K.: Routing without regret: On convergence to Nash equilibria of regret-minimizing algorithms in routing games. In: Proc. 25th Ann. Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 45–52. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cole, R., Dodis, Y., Roughgarden, T.: How much can taxes help selfish routing? In: Proc. 4th Conf. on Electronic Commerce, pp. 98–107 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cominetti, R., Correa, J.R., Moses, N.E.S.: Network games with atomic players. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 525–536. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Even-Dar, E., Mansour, Y.: Fast convergence of selfish rerouting. In: Proc. 16th Ann. Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 772–781 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer, S., Räcke, H., Vöcking, B.: Fast convergence to Wardrop equilibria by adaptive sampling methods. In: Proc. 38th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 653–662. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer, S., Vöcking, B.: Adaptive routing with stale information. In: Aguilera, M.K., Aspnes, J. (eds.) Proc. 24th Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 276–283. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleischer, L.: Linear tolls suffice: New bounds and algorithms for tolls in single source networks. In: Díaz, J., Karhumäki, J., Lepistö, A., Sannella, D. (eds.) ICALP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3142, pp. 544–554. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg, P.W.: Bounds for the convergence rate of randomized local search in a multiplayer, load-balancing game. In: Proc. 23rd Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 131–140. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hagerup, T., Rüb, C.: A guided tour of Chernoff bounds. Information Processing Letters 33, 305–308 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roughgarden, T.: How unfair is optimal routing? In: Proc. 13th Ann. Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 203–204 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roughgarden, T., Tardos, É.: How bad is selfish routing? J. ACM 49(2), 236–259 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wardrop, J.G.: Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. In: Proc. of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Pt. II, vol. 1, pp. 325–378 (1952)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Fischer
    • 1
  • Lars Olbrich
    • 1
  • Berthold Vöcking
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science, RWTH AachenGermany

Personalised recommendations