Strong equilibrium in cost sharing connection games

In this work we study cost sharing connection games, where each player has a source and sink he would like to connect, and the cost of the edges is either shared equally (fair connection games) or in an arbitrary way (general connection games).We study the graph topologies that guarantee the existence of a strong equilibrium (where no coalition can improve the cost of eachof its members) regardless of the specific costs on the edges. Our main existence results are the following: (1) For a single source and sink we show that there is always a strong equilibrium (both for fair and general connection games). (2) For a single source multiple sinks we show that for a series parallel graph a strong equilibrium always exists (both for fair and general connection games). (3) For multi source and sink we show that an extension parallel graph always admits a strong equilibrium in fair connection games. As for the quality of the strong equilibrium we show that in any fair connection games the cost of a strong equilibrium is Θ(log n) from the optimal solution, where n is the number of players. (This should be contrasted with the Ω(n) price of anarchy for the same setting.) For single source general connection games and single source single sink fair connection games, we show that a strong equilibrium is always an optimal solution.

[1]  Robert J. Aumann,et al.  16. Acceptable Points in General Cooperative n-Person Games , 1959 .

[2]  R. Rosenthal.  A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria , 1973 .

[3]  P. Gács,et al.  Algorithms , 1992 .

[4]  L. Shapley,et al.  Potential Games , 1994 .

[5]  R. Holzman,et al.  Strong Equilibrium in Congestion Games , 1997 .

[6]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Worst-case equilibria , 1999 .

[7]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[8]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Algorithms, games, and the internet , 2001, STOC '01.

[9]  H. Moulin,et al.  Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs:budget balance versus efficiency , 2001 .

[10]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2002, JACM.

[11]  Scott Shenker,et al.  On a network creation game , 2003, PODC '03.

[12]  Ron Holzman,et al.  Network structure and strong equilibrium in route selection games , 2003, Math. Soc. Sci..

[13]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Near-optimal network design with selfish agents , 2003, STOC '03.

[14]  Tim Roughgarden.  The price of anarchy is independent of the network topology , 2003, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[15]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[16]  Igal Milchtaich,et al.  Topological Conditions for Uniqueness of Equilibrium in Networks , 2005, Math. Oper. Res..

[17]  Igal Milchtaich,et al.  The Equilibrium Existence Problem in Finite Network Congestion Games , 2006, WINE.

[18]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Strong and Correlated Strong Equilibria in Monotone Congestion Games , 2006, WINE.

[19]  Igal Milchtaich,et al.  Network Topology and the Efficiency of Equilibrium , 2005, Games Econ. Behav..

[20]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Strong price of anarchy , 2007, SODA '07.

[21]  Berthold Vöcking,et al.  Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria , 2002, SODA '02.