The effect of collusion in congestion games

Abstract

In this paper we initiate the study of how collusion alters the quality of solutions obtained in competitive games. The price of anarchy aims to measure the cost of the lack of coordination by comparing the quality of a Nash equilibrium to that of a centrally designed optimal solution. This notion assumes that players act not only selfishly, but also independently. We propose a framework for modeling groups of colluding players, in which members of a coalition cooperate so as to selfishly maximize their collective welfare. Clearly, such coalitions can improve the social welfare of the participants, but they can also harm the welfare of those outside the coalition. One might hope that the improvement for the coalition participants outweighs the negative effects on the others. This would imply that increased cooperation can only improved the overall solution quality of stable outcomes. However, increases in coordination can actually lead to significant decreases in total social welfare. In light of this, we propose the price of collusion as a measure of the possible negative effect of collusion, specifying the factor by which solution quality can deteriorate in the presence of coalitions. We give examples to show that the price of collusion can be arbitrarily high even in convex games. Our main results show that in the context of load-balancing games, the price of collusion depends upon the disparity in market power among the game participants. We show that in some symmetric nonatomic games (where all users have access to the same set of strategies) increased cooperation always improves the solution quality, and in the discrete analogs of such games, the price of collusion is bounded by two.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 114 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.