Game among interdependent networks: The impact of rationality on system robustness

Many real-world systems are composed of interdependent networks that rely on one another. Such networks are typically designed and operated by different entities, who aim at maximizing their own payoffs. There exists a game among these entities when designing their own networks. In this paper, we study the game investigating how the rational behaviors of entities impact the system robustness. We first introduce a mathematical model to quantify the interacting payoffs among varying entities. Then we study the Nash equilibrium of the game and compare it with the optimal social welfare. We reveal that the cooperation among different entities can be reached to maximize the social welfare in continuous game only when the average degree of each network is constant. Therefore, the huge gap between Nash equilibrium and optimal social welfare generally exists. The rationality of entities makes the system inherently deficient and even renders it extremely vulnerable in some cases. We analyze our model for two concrete systems with continuous strategy space and discrete strategy space, respectively. Furthermore, we uncover some factors (such as weakening coupled strength of interdependent networks, designing suitable topology dependency of the system) that help reduce the gap and the system vulnerability.

[1]  L. Christophorou Science , 2018, Emerging Dynamics: Science, Energy, Society and Values.

[2]  M. Newman Spread of epidemic disease on networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Evolution of public cooperation on interdependent networks: The impact of biased utility functions , 2012, ArXiv.

[4]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Robustness of a Network of Networks , 2010, Physical review letters.

[5]  October I Physical Review Letters , 2022 .

[6]  S. Havlin,et al.  Robustness of a network formed by n interdependent networks with a one-to-one correspondence of dependent nodes. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Robin Wilson,et al.  Modern Graph Theory , 2013 .

[8]  H. Stanley,et al.  Fractal boundaries of complex networks , 2008, 0804.1968.

[9]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Information sharing promotes prosocial behaviour , 2013, ArXiv.

[10]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Self-organization towards optimally interdependent networks by means of coevolution , 2014, ArXiv.

[11]  E. B. Wilson PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. , 1919, Science.

[12]  M. Dufwenberg Game theory. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[13]  A. Châtelain,et al.  The European Physical Journal D , 1999 .

[14]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Cascade of failures in coupled network systems with multiple support-dependent relations , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  S. Havlin,et al.  Interdependent networks: reducing the coupling strength leads to a change from a first to second order percolation transition. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[16]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[17]  D. Saad Europhysics Letters , 1997 .