Nash Social Welfare in Selfish and Online Load Balancing

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 {\em selfish load balancing} (aka. {\em load balancing games}), where clients are non-cooperative selfish players aimed at minimizing their own cost solely, and {\em 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 selfish and online load balancing under the objective of minimizing the {\em 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.

[1]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Weighted Congestion Games: The Price of Anarchy, Universal Worst-Case Examples, and Tightness , 2014, TEAC.

[2]  Elias Koutsoupias,et al.  The price of anarchy of finite congestion games , 2005, STOC '05.

[3]  Yossi Azar,et al.  The Price of Routing Unsplittable Flow , 2005, STOC '05.

[4]  B. Awerbuch,et al.  Load Balancing in the Lp Norm , 1995, FOCS 1995.

[5]  Xin Huang,et al.  Envy-Freeness Up to Any Item with High Nash Welfare: The Virtue of Donating Items , 2019, EC.

[6]  T. Koopmans,et al.  Studies in the Economics of Transportation. , 1956 .

[7]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Bounding the inefficiency of equilibria in nonatomic congestion games , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[8]  R. Rosenthal A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria , 1973 .

[9]  Vittorio Bilò,et al.  A Unifying Tool for Bounding the Quality of Non-Cooperative Solutions in Weighted Congestion Games , 2011, Theory of Computing Systems.

[10]  Marios Mavronicolas,et al.  The Price of Anarchy for Restricted Parallel Links , 2006, Parallel Process. Lett..

[11]  A. C. Pigou Economics of welfare , 1920 .

[12]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[13]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games , 2005, AAAI.

[14]  Amos Fiat,et al.  New algorithms for an ancient scheduling problem , 1992, STOC '92.

[15]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare , 2016, EC.

[16]  Vittorio Bilò,et al.  On the Impact of Singleton Strategies in Congestion Games , 2017, ESA.

[17]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The price of anarchy is independent of the network topology , 2002, STOC '02.

[18]  Richard Cole,et al.  Approximating the Nash Social Welfare with Indivisible Items , 2018, SIAM J. Comput..

[19]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  The complexity of pure Nash equilibria , 2004, STOC '04.

[20]  Dimitris Fotakis,et al.  Stackelberg Strategies for Atomic Congestion Games , 2007, Theory of Computing Systems.

[21]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  Tight Bounds for Selfish and Greedy Load Balancing , 2006, Algorithmica.

[22]  Berthold Vöcking,et al.  On the Impact of Combinatorial Structure on Congestion Games , 2006, 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'06).

[23]  Joseph Y.-T. Leung,et al.  Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis , 2004 .

[24]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  An On-Line Scheduling Heuristic With Better Worst Case Ratio Than Graham's List Scheduling , 1993, SIAM J. Comput..

[25]  György Turán,et al.  On the performance of on-line algorithms for partition problems , 1989, Acta Cybern..

[26]  Marios Mavronicolas,et al.  A new model for selfish routing , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[27]  Yossi Azar,et al.  The competitiveness of on-line assignments , 1992, SODA '92.

[28]  Csaba D. Tóth,et al.  Selfish Load Balancing and Atomic Congestion Games , 2004, SPAA '04.

[29]  Jan Karel Lenstra,et al.  Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines , 1987, 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1987).

[30]  Susanne Albers,et al.  Better bounds for online scheduling , 1997, STOC '97.

[31]  Ellis Horowitz,et al.  Exact and Approximate Algorithms for Scheduling Nonidentical Processors , 1976, JACM.

[32]  Vittorio Bilò,et al.  Dynamic Taxes for Polynomial Congestion Games , 2016, EC.

[33]  Max Klimm,et al.  The Online Best Reply Algorithm for Resource Allocation Problems , 2019, SAGT.

[34]  Cosimo Vinci,et al.  Non-atomic one-round walks in congestion games , 2019, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[35]  David B. Shmoys,et al.  Using dual approximation algorithms for scheduling problems: Theoretical and practical results , 1985, 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1985).

[36]  Martin Gairing,et al.  Exact Price of Anarchy for Polynomial Congestion Games , 2006, SIAM J. Comput..

[37]  Vittorio Bilò,et al.  Performances of One-Round Walks in Linear Congestion Games , 2009, SAGT.

[38]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  Better bounds for online load balancing on unrelated machines , 2008, SODA '08.

[39]  Jacques Carlier,et al.  Handbook of Scheduling - Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis , 2004 .

[40]  Vahab S. Mirrokni,et al.  Convergence and approximation in potential games , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[41]  Martin Gairing,et al.  Total Latency in Singleton Congestion Games , 2007, WINE.

[42]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies , 1966 .

[43]  J. G. Wardrop,et al.  Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research , 1952 .

[44]  Andreas S. Schulz,et al.  The complexity of welfare maximization in congestion games , 2009, Networks.

[45]  Philip J. Fleming,et al.  How not to lie with statistics: the correct way to summarize benchmark results , 1986, CACM.

[46]  H. Scarf,et al.  How to Compute Equilibrium Prices in 1891 , 2005 .

[47]  Aranyak Mehta,et al.  Fairness and optimality in congestion games , 2005, EC '05.

[48]  Max Klimm,et al.  Efficiency of Equilibria in Uniform Matroid Congestion Games , 2016, SAGT.

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

[50]  Martin Hoefer,et al.  Approximating the Nash Social Welfare with Budget-Additive Valuations , 2017, SODA.

[51]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Worst-case Equilibria , 1999, STACS.

[52]  Simina Brânzei,et al.  Nash Social Welfare Approximation for Strategic Agents , 2016, EC.

[53]  Tim Roughgarden The maximum latency of selfish routing , 2004, SODA '04.

[54]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Dividing bads under additive utilities , 2018, Soc. Choice Welf..

[55]  David R. Karger,et al.  A better algorithm for an ancient scheduling problem , 1994, SODA '94.

[56]  Rudolf Fleischer,et al.  Online Scheduling Revisited , 2000, ESA.

[57]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Greedy Algorithms for Fair Division of Mixed Manna , 2019, ArXiv.

[58]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  Earning and Utility Limits in Fisher Markets , 2019, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[59]  Amos Fiat,et al.  On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling , 1997, JACM.

[60]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Online computation and competitive analysis , 1998 .

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

[62]  Rudolf Fleischer,et al.  On‐line scheduling revisited , 2000 .