Selfish Bin Packing

Following recent interest in the study of computer science problems in a game theoretic setting, we consider the well known bin packing problem where the items are controlled by selfish agents. Each agent is charged with a cost according to the fraction of the used bin space its item requires. That is, the cost of the bin is split among the agents, proportionally to their sizes. Thus, the selfish agents prefer their items to be packed in a bin that is as full as possible. The social goal is to minimize the number of the bins used. The social cost in this case is therefore the number of bins used in the packing.A pure Nash equilibrium is a packing where no agent can obtain a smaller cost by unilaterally moving his item to a different bin, while other items remain in their original positions. A Strong Nash equilibrium is a packing where there exists no subset of agents, all agents in which can profit from jointly moving their items to different bins. We say that all agents in a subset profit from moving their items to different bins if all of them have a strictly smaller cost as a result of moving, while the other items remain in their positions.We measure the quality of the equilibria using the standard measures PoA and PoS that are defined as the worst case worst/best asymptotic ratio between the social cost of a (pure) Nash equilibrium and the cost of an optimal packing, respectively. We also consider the recently introduced measures SPoA and SPoS, that are defined similarly to the PoA and the PoS, but consider only Strong Nash equilibria.We give nearly tight lower and upper bounds of 1.6416 and 1.6428, respectively, on the PoA of the bin packing game, improving upon previous result by Bilò. We study the Strong Nash equilibria of the bin packing game, and show that a packing is a Strong Nash equilibrium iff it is produced by the Subset Sum algorithm for bin packing. This characterization implies that the SPoA of the bin packing game equals the approximation ratio of the Subset Sum algorithm, for which an almost tight bound is known. Moreover, the fact that any lower bound instance for the Subset Sum algorithm can be converted by a small modification of the item sizes to a lower bound instance on the SPoS, implies that in the bin packing game SPoA=SPoS. Finally, we address the issue of complexity of computing a Strong Nash packing and show that no polynomial time algorithm exists for finding Strong Nash equilibria, unless P=NP.

[1]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Worst-case equilibria , 1999 .

[2]  Daniele Vigo,et al.  Bin Packing Approximation Algorithms: Combinatorial Analysis , 1999, Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization.

[3]  Guochuan Zhang,et al.  Bin Packing of Selfish Items , 2008, WINE.

[4]  Berthold Vöcking,et al.  Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria , 2002, SODA '02.

[5]  Haim Kaplan,et al.  Strong Price of Anarchy for Machine Load Balancing , 2007, ICALP.

[6]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Algorithms, Games, and the Internet , 2001, ICALP.

[7]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  The Price of Selfish Routing , 2001, STOC '01.

[8]  M. Whinston,et al.  Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts , 1987 .

[9]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Strong price of anarchy , 2007, SODA '07.

[10]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Approximation Algorithms for Bin-Packing — An Updated Survey , 1984 .

[11]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Designing networks for selfish users is hard , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

[12]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Approximate Equilibria and Ball Fusion , 2003, Theory of Computing Systems.

[13]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Near-optimal network design with selfish agents , 2003, STOC '03.

[14]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Optimization problems in congestion control , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[15]  Catherine Rosenberg,et al.  A game theoretic framework for bandwidth allocation and pricing in broadband networks , 2000, TNET.

[16]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Atomic Congestion Games Among Coalitions , 2006, ICALP.

[17]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Strong and Correlated Strong Equilibria in Monotone Congestion Games , 2006, WINE.

[18]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The Price of Stability for Network Design with Fair Cost Allocation , 2004, FOCS.

[19]  D. T. Lee,et al.  A simple on-line bin-packing algorithm , 1985, JACM.

[20]  Leah Epstein,et al.  Selfish Bin Packing , 2008, ESA.

[21]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  The structure and complexity of Nash equilibria for a selfish routing game , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[22]  János Csirik,et al.  Performance Guarantees for One-Dimensional Bin Packing , 2007, Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics.

[23]  Philip Wolfe,et al.  Contributions to the theory of games , 1953 .

[24]  R. Holzman,et al.  Strong Equilibrium in Congestion Games , 1997 .

[25]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[26]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2002, JACM.

[27]  Alberto Caprara,et al.  Worst-case analysis of the subset sum algorithm for bin packing , 2004, Oper. Res. Lett..

[28]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Bounds on multiprocessing anomalies and related packing algorithms , 1972, AFIPS '72 (Spring).

[29]  J. Nash,et al.  NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES , 1951, Classics in Game Theory.

[30]  Vittorio Bilò On the packing of selfish items , 2006, Proceedings 20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium.

[31]  Artur Czumaj Selfish Routing on the Internet , 2004, Handbook of Scheduling.

[32]  Éva Tardos,et al.  The effect of collusion in congestion games , 2006, STOC '06.

[33]  Robert J. Aumann,et al.  16. Acceptable Points in General Cooperative n-Person Games , 1959 .

[34]  Marios Mavronicolas,et al.  A new model for selfish routing , 2008, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[35]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.