Nash Social Welfare in Selfish and Online Load Balancing (Short Paper)

In load balancing problems there is a set of clients, each wishing to select a resource from a set of permissible ones, in order to execute a certain task. Each resource has a latency function, which depends on its workload, and a client's cost is the completion time of her chosen resource. Two fundamental variants of load balancing problems are selfish load balancing (aka. load balancing games), where clients are non-cooperative selfish players aimed at minimizing their own cost solely, and online load balancing, where clients appear online and have to be irrevocably assigned to a resource without any knowledge about future requests. We revisit both problems under the objective of minimizing the Nash Social Welfare, i.e., the geometric mean of the clients' costs. To the best of our knowledge, despite being a celebrated welfare estimator in many social contexts, the Nash Social Welfare has not been considered so far as a benchmarking quality measure in load balancing problems. We provide tight bounds on the price of anarchy of pure Nash equilibria and on the competitive ratio of the greedy algorithm under very general latency functions, including polynomial ones. For this particular class, we also prove that the greedy strategy is optimal, as it matches the performance of any possible online algorithm

Tight Inefficiency Bounds for Perception-Parameterized Affine Congestion Games

Congestion games constitute an important class of non-cooperative games which was introduced by Rosenthal in 1973. In recent years, several extensions of these games were proposed to incorporate aspects that are not captured by the standard model. Examples of such extensions include the incorporation of risk sensitive players, the modeling of altruistic player behavior and the imposition of taxes on the resources. These extensions were studied intensively with the goal to obtain a precise understanding of the inefficiency of equilibria of these games. In this paper, we introduce a new model of congestion games that captures these extensions (and additional ones) in a unifying way. The key idea here is to parameterize both the perceived cost of each player and the social cost function of the system designer. Intuitively, each player perceives the load induced by the other players by an extent of {\rho}, while the system designer estimates that each player perceives the load of all others by an extent of {\sigma}. The above mentioned extensions reduce to special cases of our model by choosing the parameters {\rho} and {\sigma} accordingly. As in most related works, we concentrate on congestion games with affine latency functions here. Despite the fact that we deal with a more general class of congestion games, we manage to derive tight bounds on the price of anarchy and the price of stability for a large range of pa- rameters. Our bounds provide a complete picture of the inefficiency of equilibria for these perception-parameterized congestion games. As a result, we obtain tight bounds on the price of anarchy and the price of stability for the above mentioned extensions. Our results also reveal how one should "design" the cost functions of the players in order to reduce the price of anar- chy

Market inefficiency, entry order and coordination

The causes of market inefficiency are many. We suggest an additional cause — buyers’ random entry order. In a market where identical sellers compete for buyers of heterogeneous valuations, first come first served is the norm. Since all buyers choose the cheapest available good, a low-valuation buyer who enters the market late may find the remaining goods unaffordable, which causes markets not to clear. We therefore propose a coordination solution to the market inefficiency problem. We find that in a market where all the high-valuation buyers enter first and all the low-valuation buyers enter afterwards, the market clears effectively. Moreover, we find the inefficiency arising from buyers’ entry order becomes less of a problem in larger economies and vanishes in the limit.Peer reviewe

Enforcing efficient equilibria in network design games via subsidies

The efficient design of networks has been an important engineering task that involves challenging combinatorial optimization problems. Typically, a network designer has to select among several alternatives which links to establish so that the resulting network satisfies a given set of connectivity requirements and the cost of establishing the network links is as low as possible. The Minimum Spanning Tree problem, which is well-understood, is a nice example. In this paper, we consider the natural scenario in which the connectivity requirements are posed by selfish users who have agreed to share the cost of the network to be established according to a well-defined rule. The design proposed by the network designer should now be consistent not only with the connectivity requirements but also with the selfishness of the users. Essentially, the users are players in a so-called network design game and the network designer has to propose a design that is an equilibrium for this game. As it is usually the case when selfishness comes into play, such equilibria may be suboptimal. In this paper, we consider the following question: can the network designer enforce particular designs as equilibria or guarantee that efficient designs are consistent with users' selfishness by appropriately subsidizing some of the network links? In an attempt to understand this question, we formulate corresponding optimization problems and present positive and negative results.Comment: 30 pages, 7 figure