ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The price of anarchy in network creation games
Full text PdfPdf (298 KB)
Source
Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing archive
Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing table of contents
Portland, Oregon, USA
SESSION: Economical aspects table of contents
Pages: 292 - 298  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISBN:978-1-59593-616-5
Authors
Erik D. Demaine  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Hamid Mahini  Sharif University of Technology
Morteza Zadimoghaddam  Sharif University of Technology
Sponsors
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 72,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1281100.1281142
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We study Nash equilibria in the setting of network creation games introduced recently by Fabrikant, Luthra, Maneva, Papadimitriou and Shenker. In this game we have a set of selfish node players, each creating some incident links, and the goal is to minimize α times the cost of the created links plus sum of the distances to all other players. Fabrikant et al. proved an upper bound O(√α) on the price of anarchy, i.e., the relative cost of the lack of coordination. Albers, Eilts, Even-Dar, Mansour, and Roditty show that the price of anarchy is constant for α = O(√n) and for α ≥ 12n[lg n], and that the price of anarchy is 15(1+min {α2<over>n, n2<over>α})1/3) for any α. The latter bound shows the first sublinear worst-case bound, O(n1/3), for all α. But no better bound is known for α between ω(√n) and o(n lg n). Yet α ≈ n is perhaps the most interesting range, for it corresponds to considering the average distance (instead ofthe sum of distances) to other nodes to be roughly on par with link creation (effectively dividing α by n).

In this paper, we prove the first o(nε) upper bound for general α, namely 2O(√lg n). We also prove aconstant upper bound for α = O(n1-ε) for any fixed ε > 0, substantially reducing the range of α for which constant bounds have not been obtained. Along the way, we also improve the constant upper bound by Albers et al. (with the leadconstant of 15 ) to 6 for α < (n/2)1/2 and to 4 for α < (n/2)1/3}.

Next we consider the bilateral network variant of Corbo and Parkesin which links can be created only with the consent of both end points and the link price is shared equally by the two. Corbo and Parkes show an upper bound of O(√α) and a lower bound of Ω(lg α) for α ≤ n. In this paper, we show that in fact the upper bound O(√α) is tight for α ≤, by proving a matching lower bound of Ω(√α). For α > n, we prove that the price of anarchy is Θ(n/√ α).

Finally we introduce a variant of both network creation games, in which each player desires to minimize α times the cost of its created links plus the maximum distance (instead of the sum of distances) to the other players. This variant of the problem is naturally motivated by considering the worst case instead of the average case. Interestingly, for the original (unilateral) game, we show that the price of anarchy is at most 2 for α ≥ n, O(min{4√lg n, (n/α)1/3}) for 2√lgn ≤ α ≤ n, and O(n2/α) for α < 2√lg n. For the bilateral game, we prove matching upper and lower bounds of Θ(n<over>α+1) for α ≤ n, and an upper bound of 2 for α > n.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
3
 
4
Byung-Gon Chun, Rodrigo Fonseca, Ion Stoica, and John Kubiatowicz. Characterizing selfishly constructed overlay routing networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Hong Kong, China, March 2004.
5
 
6
 
7
R. D. Dutton and R. C. Brigham. Edges in graphs with large girth. Graphs and Combinatorics, 7(4):315--321, December 1991.
8
 
9
Matthew O. Jackson. A survey of models of network formation: Stability and efficiency. In Gabrielle Demange and Myrna Wooders, editors, Group Formation in Economics; Networks, Clubs and Coalitions. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
 
10
Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H. Papadimitriou. Worst-case equilibria. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 1563 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 404--413, Trier, Germany, March 1999.
11
 
12
Henry Lin. On the price of anarchy of a network creation game. Class final project, December 2003.
13
14
 
15


Collaborative Colleagues:
Erik D. Demaine: colleagues
MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi: colleagues
Hamid Mahini: colleagues
Morteza Zadimoghaddam: colleagues