On the Price of Stability for Designing Undirected Networks with Fair Cost Allocations M.Sc. Thesis Defense Svetlana Olonetsky.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lecture 15. Graph Algorithms
Advertisements

Inefficiency of equilibria, and potential games Computational game theory Spring 2008 Michal Feldman TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
Price of Stability Li Jian Fudan University May, 8 th,2007 Introduction to.
Price Of Anarchy: Routing
Minimum Spanning Tree CSE 331 Section 2 James Daly.
Strategic Network Formation and Group Formation Elliot Anshelevich Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
Computational Game Theory
Data Structures, Spring 2004 © L. Joskowicz 1 Data Structures – LECTURE 13 Minumum spanning trees Motivation Properties of minimum spanning trees Kruskal’s.
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.
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.
Near Optimal Network Design With Selfish Agents Eliot Anshelevich Anirban Dasupta Eva Tardos Tom Wexler Presented by: Andrey Stolyarenko School of CS,
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.
The Price of Stability for Network Design Elliot Anshelevich Joint work with: Dasgupta, Kleinberg, Tardos, Wexler, Roughgarden.
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)
Steiner trees Algorithms and Networks. Steiner Trees2 Today Steiner trees: what and why? NP-completeness Approximation algorithms Preprocessing.
Near-Optimal Network Design With Selfish Agents Elliot Anshelevich, Anirban Dasgupta, Éva Tardos, Tom Wexler STOC’03, June 9–11, 2003, San Diego, California,
Priority Models Sashka Davis University of California, San Diego June 1, 2003.
Network Formation Games. Netwok Formation Games NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models:
Packing Element-Disjoint Steiner Trees Mohammad R. Salavatipour Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Joint with Joseph Cheriyan Department.
Price of Anarchy Bounds Price of Anarchy Convergence Based on Slides by Amir Epstein and by Svetlana Olonetsky Modified/Corrupted by Michal Feldman and.
Inefficiency of equilibria, and potential games Computational game theory Spring 2008 Michal Feldman.
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.
1 Binomial heaps, Fibonacci heaps, and applications.
Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithm September 10, Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithm Lecture 5-2 Pradondet Nilagupta Department of Computer.
Theory of Computing Lecture 10 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Beyond Routing Games: Network (Formation) Games. Network Games (NG) NG model the various ways in which selfish users (i.e., players) strategically interact.
Approximating the Minimum Degree Spanning Tree to within One from the Optimal Degree R 陳建霖 R 宋彥朋 B 楊鈞羽 R 郭慶徵 R
UNC Chapel Hill Lin/Foskey/Manocha Minimum Spanning Trees Problem: Connect a set of nodes by a network of minimal total length Some applications: –Communication.
Minimum Spanning Trees and Kruskal’s Algorithm CLRS 23.
On a Network Creation Game PoA Seminar Presenting: Oren Gilon Based on an article by Fabrikant et al 1.
1 Steiner Tree Algorithms and Networks 2014/2015 Hans L. Bodlaender Johan M. M. van Rooij.
Connections between Learning Theory, Game Theory, and Optimization Maria Florina (Nina) Balcan Lecture 14, October 7 th 2010.
 Rooted tree and binary tree  Theorem 5.19: A full binary tree with t leaves contains i=t-1 internal vertices.
5.5.2 M inimum spanning trees  Definition 24: A minimum spanning tree in a connected weighted graph is a spanning tree that has the smallest possible.
5.2 Trees  A tree is a connected graph without any cycles.
5.5.3 Rooted tree and binary tree  Definition 25: A directed graph is a directed tree if the graph is a tree in the underlying undirected graph.  Definition.
Beyond selfish routing: Network Games. Network Games NGs model the various ways in which selfish agents strategically interact in using a network They.
5.5.2 M inimum spanning trees  Definition 24: A minimum spanning tree in a connected weighted graph is a spanning tree that has the smallest possible.
Beyond selfish routing: Network Games. Network Games NGs model the various ways in which selfish users (i.e., players) strategically interact in using.
Improved Equilibria via Public Service Advertising Maria-Florina Balcan TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.:
 Quotient graph  Definition 13: Suppose G(V,E) is a graph and R is a equivalence relation on the set V. We construct the quotient graph G R in the follow.
Vasilis Syrgkanis Cornell University
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.
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.
Algorithm Design and Analysis June 11, Algorithm Design and Analysis Pradondet Nilagupta Department of Computer Engineering This lecture note.
5.6 Prefix codes and optimal tree Definition 31: Codes with this property which the bit string for a letter never occurs as the first part of the bit string.
Network Formation Games. NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models: Global Connection Game.
Main algorithm with recursion: We’ll have a function DFS that initializes, and then calls DFS-Visit, which is a recursive function and does the depth first.
Introduction to Algorithms
Local Connection Game.
Local Connection Game.
Autumn 2016 Lecture 11 Minimum Spanning Trees (Part II)
Autumn 2015 Lecture 11 Minimum Spanning Trees (Part II)
Data Structures – LECTURE 13 Minumum spanning trees
Chapter 23 Minimum Spanning Tree
Network Formation Games
Local Connection Game.
The Price of Routing Unsplittable Flow
Winter 2019 Lecture 11 Minimum Spanning Trees (Part II)
Network Formation Games
Autumn 2019 Lecture 11 Minimum Spanning Trees (Part II)
Presentation transcript:

On the Price of Stability for Designing Undirected Networks with Fair Cost Allocations M.Sc. Thesis Defense Svetlana Olonetsky

Definition of the problem Graph G=(V,E) n players Player i wants to connect vertices s i, t i S i – some path that connects s i to t i (S i is called the strategy of player i) State S=(S 1,S 2,…,S n )

Cost definition c(e) – cost of edge e x s (e) – number of users that use edge e in state S cost to the player: total cost: w C(v) = 8 $2 $6 $5 C(w)= 5 r u v C(v) = ? C(w)= ?

Nash Equilibrium State S is a Nash equilibrium if for every state S ’ =(S 1,…,S i-1, S ’ i, S i+1,…,S n )

Price of Stability Price of Stability = C(best NE) C(OPT) (Min cost Steiner forest)

Price of Stability For this game on directed graphs: Price of stability Θ(log n) “The Price of Stability for Network Design with Fair Cost Allocation “ [E. Anshelevich, A. Dasgupta, J. Kleinberg,E. Tardos, T. Roughgarden ]

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n-1 0 1

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n C(OPT) = 1+ε

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n C(OPT) = 1+ε …but not a NE: player n pays (1+ε)/n, could pay 1/n

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n so player n would deviate

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n now player n-1 pays (1+ε)/(n-1), could pay 1/(n-1)

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n so player n-1 deviates too

Example: High Price of Stability 1 1 n n t ... n Continuing this process, all players defect. This is a NE! (the only Nash) cost = … + Price of Stability is H n = Θ(log n) ! 1 2 n

Potential function This game is a special case of congestion games, therefore has a potential function: If user i changes its strategy from S i to S ’ i :

Upper bound on the Price of Stability

Summary Results of Anshelevich et. al: Price of stability on directed graphs  (log n) Open problem: Price of stability on undirected graphs

Our results We consider a restricted version of a game: –undirected graph –all players want to connect to the same vertex r –every vertex v has at least one player associated with it Theorem: The Price of Stability for this game is O(loglog n).

Overview of the proof Start with OPT tree (OPT is MST) Schedule sequence of improvement moves When no moves are possible => NE Bound cost of NE

Improvement moves r

r Edges in OPT Edges in graph

Improvement moves r Edges in OPT Edges in graph

EE move r v Edges in OPT Edges in graph v - change of strategy

EE move r v Edges in OPT Edges in graph no new edges were added by v v - change of strategy

OPT move r v Edges in OPT Edges in graph v - change of strategy

OPT move r v Edges in OPT Edges in graph v - change of strategy new OPT edge was added

w r w Edges in OPT Edges in graph - change of strategy - move

r w Edges in OPT Edges in graph - change of strategy - move w new edge, not in OPT, was added

Given a state S, and user u, improvement moves for u can be classified as follows: EE – All edges in the path u->r are in S. OPT – All edges in the path u->r are in S  OPT. – The first edge e=(u,v) of S’u is neither in S nor in OPT, all other edges are in S. Other – All other improvement moves Improvement moves We never schedule Other improvement moves

EE moves do not increase the total cost OPT moves increase the Price of Stability by at most a factor of 2 moves can increase the total cost Every move adds one new edge to S EE, OPT, and moves

Lemma : If no EE moves possible  S is a tree Lemma : If no EE, OPT, or moves possible  state S is in Nash equilibrium

Scheduling algorithm The scheduler works in phases In the beginning of a phase no OPT or EE moves are possible.

Scheduling phase r OPT edges graph edges dashed edges unused in S

Scheduling phase r u OPT edges graph edges

Scheduling phase r u OPT edges graph edges u performs move x

Scheduling phase 1 r u OPT edges graph edges x loop on dist OPT (u,w)

Scheduling phase 1 2 r u OPT edges graph edges x loop on dist OPT (u,w)

Scheduling phase 1 2 r u OPT edges graph edges x unused edge unused edge loop on dist OPT (u,w)

Scheduling phase r OPT edges graph edges x x/8 1 2 u

Scheduling phase 1 2 r u OPT edges graph edges x x/8

Scheduling phase 1.Player u performs move 2.Loop over players w in increasing order dist OPT (u,w): –If strategy S ’ w that consist of Path OPT (w,u) followed by current strategy of u is an improvement move perform it 3.While possible, schedule OPT and EE moves

Scheduling algorithm properties (1) Let e=(u,v), e  OPT, that was added to S. It must have been added by an move that started a phase. Lemma: During the remainder of the phase –All users w within dist OPT (u,w) ≤ c(e)/8 use the strategy u  …  r as the tail of their strategy. –When each of these users modify their strategy to include u  …  r, the potential drops by a constant fraction of c(e)

Proof: r u v w SwSw SvSv SuSu u performs move Used OPT edges Unused OPT edges

Proof: r u v w SwSw SvSv SuSu dist OPT (u,w) <x/8 x S’uS’u u performs move S’’ w Used OPT edges Unused OPT edges

Proof: r u v w SwSw SvSv SuSu x S’uS’u player w with dist OPT (u,w)≤x/8 will decrease potential by at least x/4 u performs move S’’ w C S (u) < C S (w) + dist OPT (u,w) C S (w) > C S (u) – x/8 C S’’ (w) < x/8 + C S’ (u) – x/2 C S’’ (w) < C S’ (w) - x/4 dist OPT (u,w) <x/8

Scheduling algorithm properties (2) Let e 1 =(u 1,v 1 ), e 2 =(u 2,v 2 ) be two edges that belong to Nash, e 1  OPT and e 1  OPT. Lemma:

Proof : w r v OPT edges graph edges dashed edges unused in S e1e1 e2e2 c(e 1 )≤c(e 2 ) Suppose dist OPT (v,w)≤c(e 1 )/8. c(e 1 )/8 dist OPT (v,w) c(e 2 )/8

Definition Let u  v  …  r be the strategy for u in the final state (Nash equilibrium). Classify edge e = (u,v)  OPT with c(e) = x, as either –a light edge – if there are ≤ log n vertices within dist OPT ≤x/8 of u, or –a crowded edge - otherwise

Lemma: The total cost of all crowded edges is  (OPT) Proof: –In the phase such an edge was added to S, the potential drops by at least  (c(e)log n). –Thus, the total drop in potential during phases with crowded first edges

Lemma: The total cost for all light edges is  (OPT loglog n) Proof: Let u  v  …  r be the strategy for u in the final state and let e=(u,v) be a light edge, define the cost of u to be the cost of e=(u,v)/16. Call u light vertex.

Light edge amortization r OPT tree

Light edge amortization r OPT tree light vertices remove all vertices that are not light and don’t have light descendants

Light edge amortization r OPT tree light vertices remove all vertices that are not light and don’t have light descendants

Light edge amortization r OPT tree light vertices remove all vertices that are not light and don’t have light descendants

Light edge amortization r v OPT tree light vertices take furthest vertex from r

Light edge amortization r v OPT tree light vertices mark v's cost in r-direction

Light edge amortization r v OPT tree light vertices mark subtree mark v's cost in r-direction

Light edge amortization r v OPT tree light vertices amortize the cost of subtree and remove it from tree

Light edge amortization r OPT tree light vertices continue with the rest of the tree mark its cost in r-direction take furthest vertex from r amortize the cost of subtree remove from tree

Light edge amortization r OPT tree light vertices continue with the rest of the tree

Subtree amortization Lemma: The total cost of light edges starting from vertices in a subtree is at most loglog n times the cost of the subtree

Subtree amortization v Direct a path from u towards v, of length equal to the cost of vertex u Paths starting at vertices of the same cost don’t intersect The total cost of vertices of equal cost with a subtree is no more than the cost of the subtree.

Subtree amortization Proof: –suppose all costs are powers of 2 –at most C(subtree)/ 2 i vertices with cost 2 i –at most logn vertices So the cost: loglog n C(subtree) v Theorem finished!!!

Open problems We believe that the price of stability for this version is constant. Can our result be applied to a single source setting where there may not be an agent in every node? Generalization to the case where agents want to connect to different sources?