In a system in which noncooperative agents share a common resource, we propose the ratio between the worst possible Nash equilibrium and the social optimum as a measure of the effectiveness of the system. Deriving upper and lower bounds for this ratio in a model in which several agents share a very simple network leads to some interesting mathematics, results, and open problems.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.B. Braden, D. Clark, J. Crowcroft, B. Davie, S. Deering, D. Estrin, S. Floyd, V. Jacobson, G. Minshall, C. Partridge, L. Peterson, K. Ramakrishnan, S. Shenker, J. Wroclawski, and L. Zhang. Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet, April 1998. http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc2309.txt
- 3.S. Floyd and K. Fall. Router Mechanisms to Support End-to-End Congestion Control. Technical report, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, February 1997.Google Scholar
- 4.G. R. Grimmet and D. R. Stirzaker. Probability and Random Processes, 2nd ed.. Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 6.Y. Korilis, A. Lazar, A. Orda. Architecting noncooperative networks. IEEE J. Selected Areas of Comm., 13, 7, 1995.Google Scholar
- 7.R. La, V. Anantharam. Optimal routing control: Game theoretic approach. Proc. 1997 CDC Conf. Google Scholar
- 8.G. Owen. Game Theory, 3rd ed.. Academic Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- 9.K. Park, M. Sitharam, S. Chen. Quality of service provision in noncooperative network environments. Manuscript, Purdue Univ., 1998.Google Scholar
- 10.C. H. Papadimitriou, M. Yannakakis. On complexity as bounded rationality. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. pages 726–733, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 23–25 May 1994.Google Scholar
- 11.S. J. Shenker. Making greed work in networks: a game-theoretic analysis of switch service disciplines. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 3(6):819–831, Dec.1995.Google Scholar
- 12.S. Shenker, D. Clark, D. Estrin, and S. Herzog. Pricing in Computer Network: Reshaping the Research Agenda. Communications Policy, 20(1), 1996.Google Scholar