arXiv++ Combinatorics

The price of anarchy and price of stability are three well-studied performance metrics that seek to characterize the inefficiency of equilibria in distributed systems. The distinction between these two performance metrics centers on the equilibria that they focus on: the price of anarchy characterizes the quality of the worst-performing equilibria, while the price of stability characterizes the quality of the best-performing equilibria. While much of the literature focuses on these metrics from an analysis perspective, in this work we consider these performance metrics from a design perspective. Specifically, we focus on the setting where a system operator is tasked with designing local utility functions to optimize these performance metrics in a class of games termed covering games. Our main result characterizes a fundamental trade-off between the price of anarchy and price of stability in the form of a fully explicit Pareto frontier. Within this setup, optimizing the price of anarchy comes directly at the expense of the price of stability (and vice versa). Our second results demonstrates how a system-operator could incorporate an additional piece of system-level information into the design of the agents' utility functions to breach these limitations and improve the system's performance. This valuable piece of system-level information pertains to the performance of worst performing agent in the system.

We consider the problem of designing distribution rules to share "welfare" (cost or revenue) among individually strategic agents. There are many known distribution rules that guarantee the existence of a (pure) Nash equilibrium in this setting, e.g., the Shapley value and its weighted variants; however, a characterization of the space of distribution rules that guarantee the existence of a Nash equilibrium is unknown. Our work provides an exact characterization of this space for a specific class of scalable and separable games, which includes a variety of applications such as facility location, routing, network formation, and coverage games. Given arbitrary local welfare functions W, we prove that a distribution rule guarantees equilibrium existence for all games (i.e., all possible sets of resources, agent action sets, etc.) if and only if it is equivalent to a generalized weighted Shapley value on some "ground" welfare functions W', which can be distinct from W. However, if budget-balance is required in addition to the existence of a Nash equilibrium, then W' must be the same as W. We also provide an alternate characterization of this space in terms of "generalized" marginal contributions, which is more appealing from the point of view of computational tractability. A possibly surprising consequence of our result is that, in order to guarantee equilibrium existence in all games with any fixed local welfare functions, it is necessary to work within the class of potential games.