Dynamic Inefficiency: Anarchy without Stability

  • Noam Berger
  • Michal Feldman
  • Ofer Neiman
  • Mishael Rosenthal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6982)

Abstract

The price of anarchy [16] is by now a standard measure for quantifying the inefficiency introduced in games due to selfish behavior, and is defined as the ratio between the optimal outcome and the worst Nash equilibrium. However, this notion is well defined only for games that always possess a Nash equilibrium (NE). We propose the dynamic inefficiency measure, which is roughly defined as the average inefficiency in an infinite best-response dynamic. Both the price of anarchy [16] and the price of sinking [9] can be obtained as special cases of the dynamic inefficiency measure. We consider three natural best-response dynamic rules — Random Walk (RW), Round Robin (RR) and Best Improvement (BI) — which are distinguished according to the order in which players apply best-response moves.

In order to make the above concrete, we use the proposed measure to study the job scheduling setting introduced in [3], and in particular the scheduling policy introduced there. While the proposed policy achieves the best possible price of anarchy with respect to a pure NE, the game induced by the proposed policy may admit no pure NE, thus the dynamic inefficiency measure reflects the worst case inefficiency better. We show that the dynamic inefficiency may be arbitrarily higher than the price of anarchy, in any of the three dynamic rules. As the dynamic inefficiency of the RW dynamic coincides with the price of sinking, this result resolves an open question raised in [3].

We further use the proposed measure to study the inefficiency of the Hotelling game and the facility location game. We find that using different dynamic rules may yield diverse inefficiency outcomes; moreover, it seems that no single dynamic rule is superior to another.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albers, S., Elits, S., Even-Dar, E., Mansour, Y., Roditty, L.: On Nash equilibria for a network creation game. In: Seventeenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Tardos, É., Wexler, T.: Near-Optimal Network Design with Selfish Agents. In: STOC 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azar, Y., Jain, K., Mirrokni, V.: (almost) optimal coordination mechanisms for unrelated machine scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2008, pp. 323–332. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caragiannis, I.: Efficient coordination mechanisms for unrelated machine scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2009, pp. 815–824. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czumaj, A., Vöcking, B.: Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria. In: SODA, pp. 413–420 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Even-Dar, E., Kesselman, A., Mansour, Y.: Convergence time to nash equilibria. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Lenstra, J.K., Parrow, J., Woeginger, G.J. (eds.) ICALP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2719, pp. 502–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fabrikant, A., Luthra, A., Maneva, E., Papadimitriou, C., Shenker, S.: On a network creation game. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldman, M., Tamir, T.: Conflicting congestion effects in resource allocation games. In: Papadimitriou, C., Zhang, S. (eds.) WINE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5385, pp. 109–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goemans, M., Mirrokni, V., Vetta, A.: Sink equilibria and convergence. In: FOCS 2005: Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 142–154. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hotelling, H.: Stability in competition. Economic Journal 39(53), 41–57 (1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibarra, O.H., Kim, C.E.: Heuristic algorithms for scheduling independent tasks on nonidentical processors. Journal of the ACM 24, 280–289 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Immorlica, N., Li, L., Mirrokni, V.S., Schulz, A.S.: Coordination mechanisms for selfish scheduling. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410, 1589–1598 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monderer, D., Shapley, L.S.: Potential Games. Games and Economic Behavior 14, 124–143 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moulin, H.: On strategy-proofness and single-peakedness. Public Choice 35, 437–455 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papadimitriou, C.: Algorithms, games, and the Internet. In: Proceedings of 33rd STOC, pp. 749–753 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenthal, R.W.: A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory 2, 65–67 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roughgarden, T.: The price of anarchy is independent of the network topology. In: STOC 2002, pp. 428–437 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E.: How bad is selfish routing? Journal of the ACM 49(2), 236–259 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vetta, A.R.: Nash equilibria in competitive societies with applications to facility location, traffic routing and auctions. In: Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 416–425 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noam Berger
    • 1
  • Michal Feldman
    • 2
  • Ofer Neiman
    • 3
  • Mishael Rosenthal
    • 4
  1. 1.Einstein Institute of MathematicsHebrew University of JerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.School of Business Administration and Center for RationalityHebrew University of JerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Princeton university and Center for Computational IntractabilityUSA
  4. 4.School of Engineering and Computer ScienceHebrew University of JerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations