1 / 16

A Stronger Bound on Braess’s Paradox

A Stronger Bound on Braess’s Paradox. Henry Lin * Tim Roughgarden * Éva Tardos † *UC Berkeley † Cornell University. Overview. Selfish Routing – users attempt to minimize personal latency traveling in a traffic network Braess’s Paradox – adding an edge can increase latency for all users

theo
Download Presentation

A Stronger Bound on Braess’s Paradox

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. A Stronger Bound on Braess’s Paradox Henry Lin* Tim Roughgarden* Éva Tardos† *UC Berkeley †Cornell University

  2. Overview • Selfish Routing – users attempt to minimize personal latency traveling in a traffic network • Braess’s Paradox – adding an edge can increase latency for all users • How bad can Braess’s Paradox be if k edges are added?

  3. Routing in congested networks • a directed graph G = (V,E) • a rate r of traffic to route from source s to destination t • for each edge e, a latency function ℓe(•) • assumed continuous, nondecreasing Example: ℓ(x)=x Flow = ½ r=1 s t ℓ(x)=1 Flow = ½

  4. Nash flows Some assumptions: • agents represent a small unit of flow • want to minimize personal latency Def: A flow is at Nash equilibrium (or is a Nash flow) if all flow is routed on min-latency paths [given current edge congestion] • At Nash Eq., all flow will have same s to t latency • have existence, uniqueness [Wardrop, Beckmann et al 50s] Flow = 1 Example: Flow = .5 x x r=1 s t s t 1 1 Flow = .5 Flow = 0 This flow is envious!

  5. Braess’s Paradox • Common latency is 1.5 • Adding edge increased latency to 2! • Replacing x with xd yields more severe example where latency increases from 1 to 2 v ½ 1 ½ 1 x 0 s t ½ 1 ½ x 1 u

  6. ⅓ flow along each path ½ flow along each path A bigger Braess’s Paradox • Common latency is 1 • Adding 2 edges increased latency to 3! 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 s t 0 1 2 0

  7. The severity of Braess’s Paradox increases as more edges are added • Thm: [Roughgarden 01]Adding k edges to a graph can increase common latency by a k+1 factor • But, can adding a single edge cause a large increase in delay? • When adding a single edge, are there more severe examples than Braess’s original example?

  8. Bounding Braess’s Paradox • New result: Adding k edges to a network increases common latency by at most a k+1 factor • Note: This bound is tight

  9. Key idea in proof • Look at how the flow changed after adding edges • Remember: Flow travels along shortest s to t path [given current congestion] v light heavy 1 x added 0 s t heavy light x 1 u

  10. Outline of proof • We can show that there must be a path consisting of only light forward edges and heavy backward edges, called an alternating path, from s to t [use a cut argument] • Show that the latency to nodes in an alternating path can be bounded

  11. A simple example with light edges light • Latency along light edges has decreased • Latency traveling from s to v1, v2, and t has improved • Common latency must improve since shortest s to t path got shorter light v1 v2 light s t added

  12. v light heavy s t light u What about heavy edges? • Flow chose s-u-v route, despite better s-v path • s-u latency must have improved, since u-v has increased latency • u-t has decreased latency, so s-t latency has improved “light”

  13. More formally • d’(v) represents s-v latency before edge added • d(v) represents s-v latency after edge added Along a path of light forward edges and heavy backward edges with no added edges, we can prove by induction that d(v) ≤ d’(v) If alternating path reaches t without crossing an added edge, then overall latency decreases

  14. Crossing an added edge v light Can no longer conclude d(u) ≤ d’(u) Can only conclude d(u) ≤ d’(u) + d’(t) In the worst case, s-u latency increases from 0 to d’(t) Latency to node after added edge may increase by d’(t) But can still bound d(t) ≤ d’(t) + d’(t) so d(t) ≤ 2*d’(t) added s t light u

  15. Bound when k edges are added s v1 d(s) ≤ d’(s) d(v1) ≤ d’(v1) d(v2) ≤ d’(v2) d(v3) ≤ d’(v3) v2 v3 d(v4) ≤ d’(v4) + d’(t) d(v5) ≤ d’(v5) + d’(t) v4 v5 etc… v6 v7 d(v6) ≤ d’(v6) + 2d’(t) v8 t blue = light red = heavy green = added d(t) ≤ d’(t) + kd’(t) d(t) ≤ (k+1)d’(t)

  16. Corollaries • Decreasing the flow rate will decrease common latency [Hall 78] • Adding edges incident to s or t will not increase latency • The increase in latency is bounded by the size of the maximal node disjoint set of edges added that avoids s and t • This gives alternate proof of the n/2 bound in [Roughgarden 01]

More Related