Approximate Strong Equilibrium in Job Scheduling Games

  • Michal Feldman
  • Tami Tamir
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4997)


A Nash Equilibriun (NE) is a strategy profile that is resilient to unilateral deviations, and is predominantly used in analysis of competitive games. A downside of NE is that it is not necessarily stable against deviations by coalitions. Yet, as we show in this paper, in some cases, NE does exhibit stability against coalitional deviations, in that the benefits from a joint deviation are bounded. In this sense, NE approximates strong equilibrium (SE) [6].

We provide a framework for quantifying the stability and the performance of various assignment policies and solution concept in the face of coalitional deviations. Within this framework we evaluate a given configuration according to three measurements: (i) IR min : the maximal number α, such that there exists a coalition in which the minimum improvement ratio among the coalition members is α (ii) IR max : the maximum improvement ratio among the coalition’s members. (iii) DR max : the maximum possible damage ratio of an agent outside the coalition.

This framework can be used to study the proximity between different solution concepts, as well as to study the existence of approximate SE in settings that do not possess any such equilibrium. We analyze these measurements in job scheduling games on identical machines. In particular, we provide upper and lower bounds for the above three measurements for both NE and the well-known assignment rule Longest Processing Time (LPT) (which is known to yield a NE). Most of our bounds are tight for any number of machines, while some are tight only for three machines. We show that both NE and LPT configurations yield small constant bounds for IR min and DR max . As for IR max , it can be arbitrarily large for NE configurations, while a small bound is guaranteed for LPT configurations. For all three measurements, LPT performs strictly better than NE.

With respect to computational complexity aspects, we show that given a NE on m ≥ 3 identical machines and a coalition, it is NP-hard to determine whether the coalition can deviate such that every member decreases its cost. For the unrelated machines settings, the above hardness result holds already for m ≥ 2 machines.


Nash Equilibrium Congestion Game Identical Machine Improvement Ratio Strong Equilibrium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albers, S.: On the value of coordination in network design. In: SODA (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albers, S., Elits, S., Even-Dar, E., Mansour, Y., Roditty, L.: On Nash Equilibria for a Network Creation Game. In: SODA (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andelman, N., Feldman, M., Mansour, Y.: Strong Price of Anarchy. In: SODA (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Kleinberg, J.M., Tardos, É., Wexler, T., Roughgarden, T.: The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation. In: FOCS, pp. 295–304 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Tardos, E., Wexler, T.: Near-Optimal Network Design with Selfish Agents. In: STOC (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aumann, R.: Acceptable Points in General Cooperative n-Person Games. In: Conti, R., Ruberti, A. (eds.) Optimization Techniques 1973. LNCS, vol. 4, p. 1959. Springer, Heidelberg (1973)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azar, Y., Tsur, D., Richter, Y., Awerbuch, B.: Tradeoffs in Worst-Case Equilibria. In: Solis-Oba, R., Jansen, K. (eds.) WAOA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2909, pp. 41–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernheim, D.B., Peleg, B., Whinston, M.D.: Coalition-proof nash equilibria: I concepts. Journal of Economic Theory 42, 1–12 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christodoulou, G., Koutsoupias, E.: On the Price of Anarchy and Stability of Correlated Equilibria of Linear Congestion Games. In: Brodal, G.S., Leonardi, S. (eds.) ESA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3669, pp. 59–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christodoulou, G., Koutsoupias, E., Nanavati, A.: Coordination Mechanisms. In: Díaz, J., Karhumäki, J., Lepistö, A., Sannella, D. (eds.) ICALP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3142, pp. 345–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czumaj, A., Vöcking, B.: Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria. In: SODA, pp. 413–420 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein, A., Feldman, M., Mansour, Y.: Strong Equilibrium in Cost Sharing Connection Games. In: ACMEC (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fabrikant, A., Luthra, A., Maneva, E., Papadimitriou, C., Shenker, S.: On a network creation game. In: PODC (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feldman, M., Tamir, T.: Approximate Strong Equilibrium in Job Scheduling Games.
  15. 15.
    Fiat, A., Kaplan, H., Levi, M., Olonetsky, S.: Strong Price of Anarchy for Machine Load Balancing. In: Arge, L., Cachin, C., Jurdziński, T., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) ICALP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4596, pp. 583–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finn, G., Horowitz, E.: A linear time approximation algorithm for multiprocessor scheduling. BIT Numerical Mathematics 19(3), 312–320 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fotakis, D., Kontogiannis, S., Mavronicolas, M., Spiraklis, P.: The Structure and Complexity of Nash Equilibria for a Selfish Routing Game. In: Widmayer, P., Triguero, F., Morales, R., Hennessy, M., Eidenbenz, S., Conejo, R. (eds.) ICALP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2380, pp. 510–519. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graham, R.: Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 17, 263–269 (1969)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holzman, R., Law-Yone, N.: Strong equilibrium in congestion games. Games and Economic Behavior 21, 85–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holzman, R., Law-Yone, N.: Network structure and strong equilibrium in route selection games. Mathematical Social Sciences 46, 193–205 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.H.: Worst-Case Equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leonardi, S., Sankowski, P.: Network Formation Games with Local Coalitions. In: PODC (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Milchtaich, I.: Crowding games are sequentially solvable. International Journal of Game Theory 27, 501–509 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Algorithms, games, and the internet. In: proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 749–753 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E.: How bad is selfish routing? Journal of the ACM 49(2), 236–259 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rozenfeld, O., Tennenholtz, M.: Strong and correlated strong equilibria in monotone congestion games. In: working paper, Technion, Israel (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schuurman, P., Vredeveld, T.: Performance guarantees of local search for multiprocessor scheduling. INFORMS Journal on Computing (to appear)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michal Feldman
    • 1
  • Tami Tamir
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Business Administration and Center for the Study of RationalityHebrew University of JerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceThe Interdisciplinary CenterHerzliyaIsrael

Personalised recommendations