Local Connection Game. Introduction Introduced in [FLMPS,PODC’03] A LCG is a game that models the creation of networks two competing issues: players want.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Inefficiency of equilibria, and potential games Computational game theory Spring 2008 Michal Feldman TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
Advertisements

Price Of Anarchy: Routing
1 SOFSEM 2007 Weighted Nearest Neighbor Algorithms for the Graph Exploration Problem on Cycles Eiji Miyano Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan Joint.
Complexity ©D Moshkovitz 1 Approximation Algorithms Is Close Enough Good Enough?
Mechanism Design without Money Lecture 4 1. Price of Anarchy simplest example G is given Route 1 unit from A to B, through AB,AXB OPT– route ½ on AB and.
Strategic Network Formation and Group Formation Elliot Anshelevich Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
Network Formation Games Εργασία στο μάθημα «ΠΡΟΧΩΡΗΜΕΝΑ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ ΔΙΚΤΥΩΝ» Μεταπτυχιακοί φοιτητές : Σοφία Κατή Διονύσης Πλακιάς Διδάσκων : Ιορδάνης Κουτσόπουλος.
Computational Game Theory
On the Topologies Formed by Selfish Peers Thomas Moscibroda Stefan Schmid Roger Wattenhofer IPTPS 2006 Santa Barbara, California, USA.
P-Center & The Power of Graphs A part of the facility location problem set By Kiril Yershov and Alla Segal For Geometric Optimizations course Fall 2010.
Beyond selfish routing: Network Formation Games. Network Formation Games NFGs model the various ways in which selfish agents might create/use networks.
The Price Of Stability for Network Design with Fair Cost Allocation Elliot Anshelevich, Anirban Dasgupta, Jon Kleinberg, Eva Tardos, Tom Wexler, Tim Roughgarden.
On the Price of Stability for Designing Undirected Networks with Fair Cost Allocations Svetlana Olonetsky Joint work with Amos Fiat, Haim Kaplan, Meital.
Local Connection Game. Introduction Introduced in [FLMPS,PODC’03] A LCG is a game that models the creation of networks two competing issues: players want.
Combinatorial Auction. Conbinatorial auction t 1 =20 t 2 =15 t 3 =6 f(t): the set X  F with the highest total value the mechanism decides the set of.
Near Optimal Network Design With Selfish Agents Eliot Anshelevich Anirban Dasupta Eva Tardos Tom Wexler Presented by: Andrey Stolyarenko School of CS,
A Truthful 2-approximation Mechanism for the Steiner Tree Problem.
On the Price of Stability for Designing Undirected Networks with Fair Cost Allocations M.Sc. Thesis Defense Svetlana Olonetsky.
1 Network Creation Game* Presented by Miriam Allalouf On a Network Creation Game by A.Fabrikant, A. Luthra, E. Maneva, C. H. Papadimitriou, and S. Shenker,
Near-Optimal Network Design with Selfish Agents By Elliot Anshelevich, Anirban Dasgupta, Eva Tardos, Tom Wexler STOC’03 Presented by Mustafa Suleyman CIFTCI.
Potential games, Congestion games Computational game theory Spring 2010 Adapting slides by Michal Feldman TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint.
Group Strategyproofness and No Subsidy via LP-Duality By Kamal Jain and Vijay V. Vazirani.
Network Formation Games. Netwok Formation Games NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models:
Second case study: Network Creation Games (a.k.a. Local Connection Games)
The Stackelberg Minimum Spanning Tree Game J. Cardinal, E. Demaine, S. Fiorini, G. Joret, S. Langerman, I. Newman, O. Weimann, The Stackelberg Minimum.
Near-Optimal Network Design With Selfish Agents Elliot Anshelevich, Anirban Dasgupta, Éva Tardos, Tom Wexler STOC’03, June 9–11, 2003, San Diego, California,
Network Formation Games. Netwok Formation Games NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models:
Inefficiency of equilibria, and potential games Computational game theory Spring 2008 Michal Feldman.
Assignment 4. (Due on Dec 2. 2:30 p.m.) This time, Prof. Yao and I can explain the questions, but we will NOT tell you how to solve the problems. Question.
TECH Computer Science Graph Optimization Problems and Greedy Algorithms Greedy Algorithms  // Make the best choice now! Optimization Problems  Minimizing.
1 Network Creation Game A. Fabrikant, A. Luthra, E. Maneva, C. H. Papadimitriou, and S. Shenker, PODC 2003 (Part of the Slides are taken from Alex Fabrikant’s.
On a Network Creation Game Joint work with Ankur Luthra, Elitza Maneva, Christos H. Papadimitriou, and Scott Shenker.
Beyond Routing Games: Network (Formation) Games. Network Games (NG) NG model the various ways in which selfish users (i.e., players) strategically interact.
On a Network Creation Game PoA Seminar Presenting: Oren Gilon Based on an article by Fabrikant et al 1.
Beyond Routing Games: Network (Formation) Games. Network Games (NG) NG model the various ways in which selfish users (i.e., players) strategically interact.
The Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) problem in graphs with selfish edges.
Beyond selfish routing: Network Games. Network Games NGs model the various ways in which selfish agents strategically interact in using a network They.
Beyond selfish routing: Network Games. Network Games NGs model the various ways in which selfish users (i.e., players) strategically interact in using.
The Shortest Path problem in graphs with selfish edges.
Hedonic Clustering Games Moran Feldman Joint work with: Seffi Naor and Liane Lewin-Eytan.
Vasilis Syrgkanis Cornell University
Combinatorial Auction. A single item auction t 1 =10 t 2 =12 t 3 =7 r 1 =11 r 2 =10 Social-choice function: the winner should be the guy having in mind.
Approximating Buy-at-Bulk and Shallow-Light k-Steiner Trees Mohammad T. Hajiaghayi (CMU) Guy Kortsarz (Rutgers) Mohammad R. Salavatipour (U. Alberta) Presented.
Computational Game Theory: Network Creation Game Arbitrary Payments Credit to Slides To Eva Tardos Modified/Corrupted/Added to by Michal Feldman and Amos.
Theory of Computing Lecture 12 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. Fast.
TU/e Algorithms (2IL15) – Lecture 12 1 Linear Programming.
The Price of Routing Unsplittable Flow Yossi Azar Joint work with B. Awerbuch and A. Epstein.
Local Connection Game. Introduction Introduced in [FLMPS,PODC’03] A LCG is a game that models the creation of networks two competing issues: players want.
Second case study: Network Creation Games (a.k.a. Local Connection Games)
Network Formation Games. NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models: Global Connection Game.
The Stackelberg Minimum Spanning Tree Game J. Cardinal, E. Demaine, S. Fiorini, G. Joret, S. Langerman, I. Newman, O. Weimann, The Stackelberg Minimum.
TU/e Algorithms (2IL15) – Lecture 8 1 MAXIMUM FLOW (part II)
Trees.
Network Formation Games. NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models: Global Connection Game.
On a Network Creation Game
Basic Network Creation Games
Local Connection Game.
Local Connection Game.
Lectures on Network Flows
Network Creation Game A. Fabrikant, A. Luthra, E. Maneva,
On a Network Creation Game
Autumn 2016 Lecture 11 Minimum Spanning Trees (Part II)
Instructor: Shengyu Zhang
Network Formation Games
Algorithms (2IL15) – Lecture 7
Local Connection Game.
Network Formation Games
Graphs G = (V,E) V is the vertex set.
Presentation transcript:

Local Connection Game

Introduction Introduced in [FLMPS,PODC’03] A LCG is a game that models the creation of networks two competing issues: players want to minimize the cost they incur in building the network to ensure that the network provides them with a high quality of service Players are nodes that: pay for the links benefit from the short paths [FLMPS,PODC’03]: A. Fabrikant, A. Luthra, E. Maneva, C.H. Papadimitriou, S. Shenker, On a network creation game, PODC’03

The model n players: nodes in a graph to be built Strategy for player u: a set of undirected edges that u will build (all incident to u) Given a strategy vector S, the constructed network will be G(S) player u’s goal: to make the distance to other nodes small to pay as little as possible

The model Each edge costs  dist G(S) (u,v): length of a shortest path (in terms of number of edges) between u and v Player u aims to minimize its cost: n u : number of edges bought by node u cost u (S) =  n u +  v dist G(S) (u,v)

Remind We use Nash equilibrium (NE) as the solution concept To evaluate the overall quality of a network, we consider the social cost, i.e. the sum of all players’ costs a network is optimal or socially efficient if it minimizes the social cost A graph G=(V,E) is stable (for a value  ) if there exists a strategy vector S such that: S is a NE S forms G Notice: SC(G)=  |E| +  u,v dist G (u,v)

Example  (Convention: arrow from the node buying the link) ++ c u =  +13 c u =2  +9 u

Some simple observations In SC(G) each term dist G (u,v) contributes to the overall quality twice In a stable network each edge (u,v) is bough at most by one player Any stable network must be connected Since the distance dist(u,v) is infinite whenever u and v are not connected Social cost of a network G=(V,E): SC(G)=  |E| +  u,v dist G (u,v)

Our goal to bound the efficiency loss resulting from stability In particular: To bound the Price of Stability (PoS) To bound the Price of Anarchy (PoA)

Example Set  =5, and consider: That’s a stable network!

How does an optimal network look like?

Some notation K n : complete graph with n nodes A star is a tree with height at most 1 (when rooted at its center)

Il  ≤2 then the complete graph is an optimal solution, while if  ≥2 then any star is an optimal solution. Lemma proof Let G=(V,E) be an optimal solution; |E|=m and SC(G)=OPT LB(m) OPT≥  m + 2m + 2(n(n-1) -2m) Notice: LB(m) is equal to SC(K n ) when m=n(n-1)/2 and to SC of any star when m=n-1 =(  -2)m + 2n(n-1)

proof G=(V,E): optimal solution; |E|=m and SC(G)=OPT LB(n-1) = SC of any star OPT≥ min LB(m) ≥ LB(m)=(  -2)m + 2n(n-1) m LB(n(n-1)/2) = SC(K n )  ≥ 2 min m  ≤ 2 max m

Are the complete graph and stars stable?

Il  ≤1 the complete graph is stable, while if  ≥1 then any star is stable. Lemma proof a node v cannot improve by saving k edges  ≤1  ≥1 c c has no interest to deviate v buys k edges… …pays  k more… …saves (w.r.t distances) k… v

For  ≤1 and  ≥2 the PoS is 1. For 1<  <2 the PoS is at most 4/3 Theorem proof …K n is an optimal solution, any star T is stable…  ≤1 and  ≥2 1<  <2 PoS ≤ SC(T) SC(K n ) = (  -2)(n-1) + 2n(n-1)  n(n-1)/2 + n(n-1) ≤ -1(n-1) + 2n(n-1) n(n-1)/2 + n(n-1) = 2n - 1 3/2n = 4n -2 3n < 4/3 …trivial! maximized when   1

What about price of Anarchy? …for  <1 the complete graph is the only stable network, (try to prove that formally) hence PoA=1… …for larger value of  ?

Some more notation The diameter of a graph G is the maximum distance between any two nodes diam=2 diam=1 diam=4

Some more notation An edge e is a cut edge of a graph G=(V,E) if G-e is disconnected G-e=(V,E\{e}) A simple property: Any graph has at most n-1 cut edges

The PoA is at most O(  ). Theorem proof It follows from the following lemmas: The diameter of any stable network is at most 2  +1. Lemma 1 The SC of any stable network with diameter d is at most O(d) times the optimum SC. Lemma 2

proof of Lemma 1 Consider a shortest path in G between two nodes u and v G: stable network u v 2k≤ dist G (u,v) ≤ 2k+1 for some k k vertices reduce their distance from u from ≥2k to 1  ≥ 2k-1 from ≥2k-1 to 2  ≥ 2k-3 from ≥ k+1 to k  ≥ 1 ● ● ●  (2i+1)=k 2 i=0 k-1 …since G is stable:  ≥k 2 k ≤  dist G (u,v) ≤ 2  + 1

Let G be a network with diameter d, and let e=(u,v) be a non-cut edge. Then in G-e, every node w increases its distance from u by at most 2d Proposition 1 Let G be a stable network, and let F be the set of Non-cut edges paid for by a node u. Then |F|≤(n-1)2d/  Proposition 2

Lemma 2 The SC of any stable network G=(V,E) with diameter d is at most O(d) times the optimum SC. proof OPT ≥  (n-1) + n(n-1) SC(G)=  u,v d G (u,v) +  |E| ≤dn(n-1) ≤d OPT  |E|=  |E cut | +  |E non-cut | ≤n(n-1)2d/  Prop. 2 ≤(n-1) ≤  (n-1)+n(n-1)2d≤OPT+2d OPT ≤d OPT+OPT+2d OPT=(3d + 1) OPT

It is NP-hard, given the strategies of the other agents, to compute the best response of a given player. Theorem proof Reduction from dominating set problem

Dominating Set (DS) problem Input: a graph G=(V,E) Solution: U  V, such that for every v  V-U, there is u  U with (u,v)  E Measure: Cardinality of U

the reduction Player i has a strategy yielding a cost   k+2n-k if and only if there is a DS of size  k G=(V,E) player i = G(S -i ) 1<  <2

the reduction (  ) easy: given a dominating set U of size k, player i buys edges incident to the nodes in U G=(V,E) player i = G(S -i ) 1<  <2 Cost for i is  k+2n-k

the reduction (  ) Let S i be a strategy giving a cost   k+2n-k Modify S i as follows: repeat: if there is a node v such with distance ≥3 from x in G(S), then add edge (x,v) to S i (this decreases the cost) G=(V,E) player i = G(S -i ) 1<  <2 x

the reduction (  ) Let S i be a strategy giving a cost   k+2n-k Modify S i as follows: repeat: if there is a node v such with distance ≥3 from x in G(S), then add edge (x,v) to S i (this decreases the cost) Finally, every node has distance either 1 or 2 from x G=(V,E) player i = G(S -i ) 1<  <2 x

the reduction (  ) Let S i be a strategy giving a cost   k+2n-k Modify S i as follows: repeat: if there is a node v such with distance ≥3 from x in G(S), then add edge (x,v) to S i (this decreases the cost) Finally, every node has distance either 1 or 2 from x Let U be the set of nodes at distance 1 from x… G=(V,E) player i = G(S -i ) 1<  <2 x

the reduction G=(V,E) player i = G(S -i ) 1<  <2 x (  ) …U is a dominating set of the original graph G We have cost i (S)=  |U|+2n-|U|   k+2n-k |U|  k