1 / 61

A Stackelberg Strategy for Routing Flow over Time

A Stackelberg Strategy for Routing Flow over Time. Umang Bhaskar , Lisa Fleischer Dartmouth College Elliot Anshelevich Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Traffic Routing. Road network. Data network. Traffic Routing. Safe zone. Evacuation planning. Traffic Routing. Routing Delays.

hua
Télécharger la présentation

A Stackelberg Strategy for Routing Flow over Time

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Stackelberg Strategy for Routing Flow over Time UmangBhaskar, Lisa Fleischer Dartmouth College Elliot Anshelevich Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

  2. Traffic Routing • Road network • Data network

  3. Traffic Routing Safe zone • Evacuation planning

  4. Traffic Routing

  5. Routing Delays delay • Delay on edges increases with usage delay

  6. Optimal Routing delay • Delay on edges increases with usage delay • Optimalrouting minimizes f(delay)

  7. Uncoordinated Routing delay • But players choose route independently delay

  8. Routing Games delay • Each player picks route to minimize delay • Delays depend on other players delay

  9. Equilibria • Equilibrium: - every player minimizes delay w.r.t. others - no player can unilaterally reduce delay • Studied in many contexts

  10. Price of Anarchy quality of equilibria • How does equilibrium compare to optimal routing? • Price of Anarchy • (PoA) f(delay) of worst equilibria = f(delay) of optimal routing measures system efficiency

  11. Static Flows • Most routing games assume static flows • Static: time-invariant xe xe s t xe

  12. Flows over Time • Edges have fixed capacities and delays • Flow on an edge may vary with time ce, de s t

  13. Flows over Time B A c = 100 bps d = 2 seconds M = 1000 bits Arrival graph: Total time: 12 seconds 100 Quickest flow: flow that gets to destination as soon as possible Bits per second 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time

  14. Temporal Routing Games B A c = 100 bps d = 2 seconds M = 1000 bits • Routing Games + Flows over Time = Temporal Routing Games • Player minimizes time it reaches destination

  15. Temporal Routing Games • Assumptions: • Players are infinitesimal t s M • Model: • Players are ordered at s • Each player picks a path from s to t • Minimizes the time it arrives at t Arrival Graph: M Flow rate at t Time

  16. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time

  17. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 Queue 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time

  18. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 Queue 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time • Queues grow when inflow exceeds capacity on an edge • Queues are first in, first out (FIFO) • Queuing models used in modeling traffic [Vickrey ‘69, Yagar ‘71]

  19. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time

  20. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time

  21. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time

  22. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 M 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time

  23. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 M 2 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 M Time Quickest Flow: Flow rate at t M c = 1, d = 1 2 fp = 1 1 s t v M fp = 1 c = 2, d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 Time

  24. Temporal Routing Games Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 M 2 1 s t M c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time our case • For single-source, single sink, equilibrium exists • [Koch, Skutella, ’09; Cominetti, Correa, Larre ‘11] • How does equilibrium in these games compare with optimal? • What is the PoA?

  25. Objectives M’ =? Evacuation Price of Anarchy: Flow rate at t |Flow| reaching t by time T Time T Flow rate at t Time Price of Anarchy: M Time for M to reach t ? Time ∫ = ? Total Delay Price of Anarchy: Flow rate at t Sum of times for M to reach t Time ? Maximum delay of a player Flow rate at t Time

  26. Results M’ = ? Evacuation Price of Anarchy: Ω(log n) [KS ‘09] Flow rate at t |Flow| reaching t by time T Time T Flow rate at t Time Price of Anarchy: ≥e/(e-1) [KS ‘09] M Time for M to reach t ? Time ∫ = ? Total Delay Price of Anarchy: Flow rate at t Sum of times for M to reach t Time ? Ω(n) [MLS ‘10] Maximum delay of a player Flow rate at t Time

  27. Results Our Results M’ = ? Evacuation Price of Anarchy: Ω(log n) [KS ‘09] Flow rate at t |Flow| reaching t by time T Time T Flow rate at t Time Price of Anarchy: ≥e/(e-1) [KS ‘09] M Time for M to reach t = e/(e-1) † ? Time ∫ =? Total Delay Price of Anarchy: Flow rate at t = 2 e/(e-1) † Sum of times for M to reach t Time ? Ω(n) [MLS ‘10] Maximum delay of a player Flow rate at t †can be enforced by reducing capacities Time

  28. Temporal Routing Games • Main Result: Can enforce bound of e / (e-1) on Time PoA by reducing edge capacities M ? • Procedure: - compute quickest flow (can compute in poly time [FF ’62]) - reduce edge capacities to that used by quickest flow c = 1, d = 1 fp = 1 v w s t c = 2, d = 0 c = 1.5 , d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 fp = 1

  29. Temporal Routing Games • Main Result: Can enforce bound of e / (e-1) on Time PoA by reducing edge capacities M ? • Procedure: - compute quickest flow (can compute in poly time [FF ’62]) - reduce edge capacities to that used by quickest flow c = 1, d = 1 fp = 1 v w s t c = 2, d = 0 c = 1 , d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 fp = 1

  30. Temporal Routing Games • Main Result: Can enforce bound of e / (e-1) on Time PoA by reducing edge capacities M ? • Procedure: - compute quickest flow (can compute in poly time [FF ’62]) - reduce edge capacities to that used by quickest flow • Main Theorem: If quickest flow saturates graph, then Time PoA ≤ e / (e-1)

  31. Temporal Routing Games If quickest flow saturates graph, then TimePoA ≤ e / (e-1) Theorem 1: M ? Can enforce bound of e / (e-1) on TimePoA by reducing edge capacities ∫ = ? If quickest flow saturates graph, then Total DelayPoA ≤ 2e / (e-1) Theorem 2: Can enforce bound of 2e / (e-1) on Total DelayPoA by reducing edge capacities

  32. Talk Outline For this talk: • Structure of Quickest flow • Structure of equilibria • Sketch weaker version of Theorem 1.

  33. Quickest Flows Flow rate at t OPT: c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t Time v M c = 2, d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 • Quickest flow is static flow repeated over time [FF ‘62]

  34. Quickest Flows Flow rate at t OPT: c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t Time v fp = 1 M c = 2, d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 • Quickest flow is static flow repeated over time [FF ‘62]

  35. Quickest Flows Flow rate at t OPT: c = 1, d = 1 2 fp = 1 1 s t Time v fp = 1 M c = 2, d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 • Quickest flow is static flow repeated over time [FF ‘62]

  36. Phases in Equilibria Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 Queue 2 1 s t M c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time

  37. Phases in Equilibria Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t M c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time

  38. Phases in Equilibria Flow rate at t c = 1, d = 1 2 1 s t M c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time

  39. Phases in Equilibria • Equilibrium proceeds in “phases” [KS ‘09] • Phase characterized by • edges being used • edges with queue • Within phase, flow rate at t is fixed

  40. 1-Phase Equilibrium For this talk: For one-phase equilibrium, Time PoA ≤ 2 • Quickest flow • Phases in equilibria • Sketch of proof

  41. A Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time M EQ M

  42. A Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time M EQ M c = 1, d = 1 fp = 1 Quickest Flow Flow rate at t co = 2 s t v fp = 1 c = 2, d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 OPT Time

  43. A Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time M EQ M c = 1, d = 1 fp = 1 Quickest Flow Flow rate at t co = 2 s t v fp = 1 c = 2, d = 0 c = 1, d = 0 OPT co Time Claim 1: ce EQ ≤ co OPT EQ ≤ OPT ce

  44. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time EQ

  45. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 Time EQ

  46. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 τ(θ) increasing Time EQ τ(θ) : minimum time taken to reach t at time θ

  47. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 τ(θ) increasing Time EQ τ(θ) : minimum time taken to reach t at time θ co - ce Claim 2: τ(EQ) ≥ EQ co

  48. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 τ(θ) increasing Time EQ τ(θ) : minimum time taken to reach t at time θ co - ce Claim 2: τ(EQ) ≥ EQ co • But graph has path p of length ≤ OPT not being used (ce < co) • When τ(θ) ≥ OPT, this path p should be used (phase ends)

  49. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 τ(θ) increasing Time EQ τ(θ) : minimum time taken to reach t at time θ co - ce co - ce Claim 2: θ ≥ EQ Claim 3: τ(EQ) ≤ OPT Claim 2: τ(EQ) ≥ EQ co co • But graph has path p of length ≤ OPT not being used (ce < co) • When τ(θ) ≥ OPT, this path p should be used (phase ends)

  50. A Second Bound on EQ Arrival Graphs: c = 1, d = 1 Flow rate at t Equilibrium ce = 1 s t c = 2, d = 0 v c = 1, d = 0 τ(θ) increasing Time EQ τ(θ) : minimum time taken to reach t at time θ co - ce + Claim 3: τ(EQ) ≤ OPT Claim 2: τ(EQ) ≥ EQ co co Claim 4: EQ ≤ OPT co - ce

More Related