1 / 30

Worst-case Equilibria: Bounds and Analysis

This paper examines worst-case equilibria in game theory and analyzes the bounds and analysis of the coordination ratio in a simple routing model. It explores the trade-off between Nash Equilibrium and global optimum in a network setting.

rclemens
Download Presentation

Worst-case Equilibria: Bounds and Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Worst-case EquilibriaElias Koutsoupias and Christos Papadimitriou Tight Bounds for Worst-case EquilibriaArtur Czumaj and Berthold Vocking Presenter: Yishay Mansour

  2. Outline • Motivation • Model • Unit speed links • Weighted speed links

  3. Motivation • Internet users: • very selfish and spontaneous behavior, • No one is thinking to achieve the “social optimum”. • Game theory as an analysis tool: • rational behavior and Nash Equilibrium. • Nash equilibrium: • no optimization of overall system performance. • design mechanisms that encourage behaviors close to the social optimum.

  4. Motivation • Nash Equilibrium versus global optimum • Many cases: best Nash Equilibrium is global (social) optimal • Worse case analysis • Compare worse Nash to optimum • How bad can things get

  5. Current Work • Coordination ratio - the ratio between • the worst possible Nash equilibrium and • social (global) optimum • This works: • Very simple network model. • Derive upper and lower bounds. • Evaluate the price due to lack of coordination.

  6. Model • Simple routing model: • Two nodes • m parallel links with speeds si • n jobs/connection weights wj • Load model: • The delay of a connection is proportional to load on link

  7. Cost Measure • Each job selects a link • Jobs(j) jobs assigned to link j • Cost of jobs assigned to link j • Lj = j in Jobs(i) wj /sj • Total cost of a configuration • Maxj {Lj} • Social optimum • Min Maxj {Lj }

  8. Nash Equilibria • Each job i assigns a probability p(i,j) to link j • Support(i) = { j : p(i,j) > 0} • Deterministic: one p(i,j) =1 other p(i,j’)=0 • Expected link j load • E[Lj] = i p(i,j) wi / sj • Job i view of link j: • Cost(i,j) = wi /sj+ ki p(k,j) wk / sj = E[Lj] + (1-p(i,j))wi • Cost after job i moves to link j

  9. Nash Equilibria • For every job i • Min_cost(i) = MINj cost(i,j) • For every link j: • IF cost(i,j) > min_cost(i) THEN p(i,j)=0

  10. Example • Two links, unit speed: • s1 = s2 =1 • Social optimum is hard: • Problem is NP-complete • Partition • Two trivial lower bounds: • Max weight job: wmax = MAXi {wi} • Average over machines: i wi /m

  11. Example I • Deterministic Example • 2 jobs of weight 2 • 2 jobs of weight one • Optimum = 3 • Nash = 4 • Coordination ratio  4/3

  12. Example • Stochastic Example • 2 jobs of weight 2 • Optimum = 2 • Nash: • P(i,j)= ½ • Expected Cost = 3 • Coordination ratio  3/2

  13. Upper bound: Deterministic • Load L1 and L2; L1 > L2 • Difference at most wmax; L1 – L2 = v  wmax • Nash_Cost = L1 • IF L2 > v/2 THEN • OPT_cost  L2 + v/2 • Nash cost = L2 + v • Coordination ratio  3/2 • Otherwise • opt_cost  wmax & L1 (3/2 )wmax • Coordination ratio  3/2

  14. Upper Bound: Stochastic • Contribution probability qi of job i: • Probability that it is in the unique max load link (assume tie breaker) • Cost = iqi wi • Collision probability t(i,k) of jobs i and k • Probability they select the same link • Both contribute to social cost only if they collide: • qi + qk  1+t(i,k)

  15. Upper bound proof • Lemma: ikt(i,k) wk = min_cost(i) – wi • Claim: • Theorem: The coordination ratio for two unit speed links is 3/2

  16. Unit speed: many links – DET. • Lmax = MAX Lj ; Lmin = MIN Lj • Lmax – Lmin wmax • IF Lmin wmax THEN • OPT cost  wmax & Lmax2 wmax • OTHERWISE: • OPT cost  Lmin & Lmax 2 Lmin • Coordination ratio  2

  17. Unit speed: many links – STOCH. • Lower bound: • m links m jobs • p(i,j) =1/m • m balls in to m buckets. • Probability of k balls approx. 1/ kk • Needprobabilityof 1/m • Max load ( log m / log log m)

  18. Unit speed: many links – STOCH. • Upper bound: • Nash load  2 OPT • Large deviation bound. • bound α by log m / log log m

  19. Multiple speeds: • Each link i has speed si • Assume s1 ≥ ... ≥sm

  20. Multiple speeds: Lower bound • Let K = log m /log log m • K+1 groups of links • Nj links in group j • Nk = m • Nj = (j+1) Nj+1 • N0 = K! m • Group k has speed 2k • Assignment: • Each Link in groupk has k jobs of weight 2k

  21. Multiple speeds: Lower bound • Configuration load = K • OPT load < 2 • System in Nash • Lower bound for deterministic NASH

  22. Multiple speeds: Upper bound • c = MAX E[Lj] • LEMMA:

  23. Multiple speeds: Upper bound • C = E[ MAX{Lj}] • LEMMA:

  24. Expected Load I • Let Jk =r if the least index link with load less than k*OPT is r+1 • Every link j  Jk has load at least k*OPT • Link Jk+1 has load less than k*OPT • Let c* = (c-OPT)/OPT • Target: show that J1 > c*! • Since J1 m then a [log m /log log m] bound.

  25. Expected Load I • Claim: E[L1]  c –OPT • Proof: By contradiction • consider the most loaded link • Any job J from it can move to link 1 • Its running time of link 1 is at most OPT • Job J improves its load. • Corollary: Jc*  1

  26. Expected Load I • Lemma: Jk (k+1) Jk+1 • Proof: T are jobs in links 1 to Jk+1 • Claim: OPT can not allocate job from T to link r>Jk • Jobs in T observe load at least (k+1)*OPT • Link Jk+1 has load less than k*OPT. • No job from T wants to move to link Jk+1=u • Minimum weight in T at least su*OPT • On any link r>u any job from T will run more than OPT

  27. Expected Load I • Claim: IF OPT allocates jobs from T to links 1 to Jk THENJk (k+1) Jk+1 • W sum of weights of jobs in T • W  j sj E[Lj]  (k+1) OPT j J(k+1) sj • Since OPT allocate jobs in T in links 1 to Jk • W  OPT j J(k) sj • j J(k) sj  (k+1)j J(k+1) sj • Since link speeds are decreasing claim follows.

  28. Expected Load II • c=O( log (s1 / sm) ) • CLAIM: for 1  k c-3 • Corollary: sm  2-(c-5)/2 s1 • Or: c  2 log (s1 /sm) + O(1)

  29. Proof • OPT schedule some job i: • Nash in j in {1 .. Jk+2 } • cost(i,j)  (k+2)*OPT • OPT in j’ in {Jk+2+1 , ... m} • wi SJ(k+2)+1OPT • cost(i,Jk+1)  k*OPT + wi/ sJ(k)+1 • Nash implies: • cost(i,j)  cost(i,Jk+1)

  30. Expected Maximum Load • Large deviation result • Each link near its expectation. • Separates small and large jobs • Large jobs: contribution proportional to weight. • Small jobs: use Hoeffding relative bound.

More Related