When Ignorance Helps: Graphical Multicast Cost Sharing Games

  • Vittorio Bilò
  • Angelo Fanelli
  • Michele Flammini
  • Luca Moscardelli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5162)


In non-cooperative games played on highly decentralized networks the assumption that each player knows the strategy adopted by any other player may be too optimistic or even unfeasible. In such situations, the set of players of which each player knows the chosen strategy can be modeled by means of a social knowledge graph in which nodes represent players and there is an edge from i to j if i knows j. Following the framework introduced in [3], we study the impact of social knowledge graphs on the fundamental multicast cost sharing game in which all the players wants to receive the same communication from a given source. Such a game in the classical complete information case is known to be highly inefficient, since its price of anarchy can be as high as the total number of players ρ. We first show that, under our incomplete information setting, pure Nash equilibria always exist only if the social knowledge graph is directed acyclic (DAG). We then prove that the price of stability of any DAG is at least \(\frac 1 2\log\rho\) and provide a DAG lowering the classical price of anarchy to a value between \(\frac 1 2\log\rho\) and log2 ρ. If specific instances of the game are concerned, that is if the social knowledge graph can be selected as a function of the instance, we show that the price of stability is at least \(\frac{4\rho}{\rho+3}\), and that the same bound holds also for the price of anarchy of any social knowledge graph (not only DAGs). Moreover, we provide a nearly matching upper bound by proving that, for any fixed instance, there always exists a DAG yielding a price of anarchy less than 4. Our results open a new window on how the performances of non-cooperative systems may benefit from the lack of total knowledge among players and can be considered, in some sense, as another evidence of the famous Braess’ paradox.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, E., Wexler, T., Roughgarden, T.: The Price of Stability for Network Design with Fair Cost Allocation. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 295–304. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Tardos, E., Wexler, T.: Near-Optimal Network Design with Selfish Agents. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 511–520. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilo, V., Fanelli, A., Flammini, M., Moscardelli, L.: Graphical Congestion Games with Linear Latencies. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA). ACM, New York (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braess, D.: Uber ein Paradoxon der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung 12, 258–268 (1968)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chekuri, C., Chuzhoy, J., Lewin-Eytan, L., Naor, J., Orda, A.: Non-Cooperative Multicast and Facility Location Games. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC), pp. 72–81. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charikar, M., Mattieu, C., Karloff, H., Naor, J., Saks, M.: Best Response Dynamics in Multicast Cost Sharing. Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czumaj, A.: Selfish Routing on the Internet. Handbook of Scheduling. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fanelli, A., Flammini, M., Melideo, G., Moscardelli, L.: Multicast Transmissions in Non-cooperative Networks with a Limited Number of Selfish Moves. In: Královič, R., Urzyczyn, P. (eds.) MFCS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4162, pp. 363–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karakostas, G., Kim, T., Viglas, A., Xia, H.: Selfish Routing with Oblivious Users. In: Prencipe, G., Zaks, S. (eds.) SIROCCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4474, pp. 318–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kearns, M.J., Littman, M.L., Singh, S.P.: Graphical Models for Game Theory. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pp. 253–260. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-Case Equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1653, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenthal, R.W.: A Class of Games Possessing Pure-Strategy Nash Equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory 2, 65–67 (1973)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roughgarden, T.: Selfish Routing and the Price of Anarchy (Survey). OPTIMA 74 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., Vazirani, V.V.: Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shapley, L.S.: The value of n-person games. In: Contributions to the theory of games, pp. 31–40. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1953)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vittorio Bilò
    • 1
  • Angelo Fanelli
    • 2
  • Michele Flammini
    • 2
  • Luca Moscardelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of SalentoLecceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations