Tree Nash Equilibria in the Network Creation Game

In the network creation game with n vertices, every vertex (a player) buys a set of adjacent edges, each at a fixed amount {\alpha} > 0. It has been conjectured that for {\alpha} >= n, every Nash equilibrium is a tree, and has been confirmed for every {\alpha} >= 273n. We improve upon this bound and show that this is true for every {\alpha} >= 65n. To show this, we provide new and improved results on the local structure of Nash equilibria. Technically, we show that if there is a cycle in a Nash equilibrium, then {\alpha} < 65n. Proving this, we only consider relatively simple strategy changes of the players involved in the cycle. We further show that this simple approach cannot be used to show the desired upper bound {\alpha} < n (for which a cycle may exist), but conjecture that a slightly worse bound {\alpha} < 1.3n can be achieved with this approach. Towards this conjecture, we show that if a Nash equilibrium has a cycle of length at most 10, then indeed {\alpha} < 1.3n. We further provide experimental evidence suggesting that when the girth of a Nash equilibrium is increasing, the upper bound on {\alpha} obtained by the simple strategy changes is not increasing. To the end, we investigate the approach for a coalitional variant of Nash equilibrium, where coalitions of two players cannot collectively improve, and show that if {\alpha} >= 41n, then every such Nash equilibrium is a tree

Constant Price of Anarchy in Network Creation Games via Public Service Advertising

Network creation games have been studied in many different settings recently. These games are motivated by social networks in which selfish agents want to construct a connection graph among themselves. Each node wants to minimize its average or maximum distance to the others, without paying much to construct the network. Many generalizations have been considered, including non-uniform interests between nodes, general graphs of allowable edges, bounded budget agents, etc. In all of these settings, there is no known constant bound on the price of anarchy. In fact, in many cases, the price of anarchy can be very large, namely, a constant power of the number of agents. This means that we have no control on the behavior of network when agents act selfishly. On the other hand, the price of stability in all these models is constant, which means that there is chance that agents act selfishly and we end up with a reasonable social cost. In this paper, we show how to use an advertising campaign (as introduced in SODA 2009 [2]) to find such efficient equilibria. More formally, we present advertising strategies such that, if an α fraction of the agents agree to cooperate in the campaign, the social cost would be at most O(1 / α) times the optimum cost. This is the first constant bound on the price of anarchy that interestingly can be adapted to different settings. We also generalize our method to work in cases that α is not known in advance. Also, we do not need to assume that the cooperating agents spend all their budget in the campaign; even a small fraction (β fraction) would give us a constant price of anarchy