Strong Price of Anarchy, Utility Games and Coalitional Dynamics

  • Yoram Bachrach
  • Vasilis Syrgkanis
  • Éva Tardos
  • Milan Vojnović
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8768)


We introduce a framework for studying the effect of cooperation on the quality of outcomes in utility games. Our framework is a coalitional analog of the smoothness framework of non-cooperative games. Coalitional smoothness implies bounds on the strong price of anarchy, the loss of quality of coalitionally stable outcomes. Our coalitional smoothness framework captures existing results bounding the strong price of anarchy of network design games. Moreover, we give novel strong price of anarchy results for any monotone utility-maximization game, showing that if each player’s utility is at least his marginal contribution to the welfare, then the strong price of anarchy is at most 2. This captures a broad class of games, including games that have a price of anarchy as high as the number of players. Additionally, we show that in potential games the strong price of anarchy is close to the price of stability, the quality of the best Nash equilibrium.

We also initiate the study of the quality of coalitional out-of-equilibrium outcomes in games. To this end, we define a coalitional version of myopic best-response dynamics, and show that the bound on the strong price of anarchy implied by coalitional smoothness, also extends with small degradation to the average quality of outcomes of the given dynamic.


Nash Equilibrium Congestion Game Potential Game Strong Equilibrium Pure Nash Equilibrium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albers, S.: On the value of coordination in network design. In: SODA (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andelman, N., Feldman, M., Mansour, Y.: Strong price of anarchy. Games and Economic Behavior 65(2), 289–317 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, E., Wexler, T., Roughgarden, T.: The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation. In: FOCS, pp. 295–304 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anshelevich, E., Hoefer, M.: Contribution Games in Networks. Algorithmica, 1–37 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aumann, R.J.: Acceptable points in general cooperative N-person games. In: Luce, R.D., Tucker, A.W. (eds.) Contribution to the theory of game IV, Annals of Mathematical Study 40, pp. 287–324. University Press (1959)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bachrach, Y., Syrgkanis, V., Tardos, É., Vojnovic, M.: Strong price of anarchy and coalitional dynamics. CoRR, abs/1307.2537 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blum, A., Mansour, Y.: Learning, Regret Minimization and Equilibria. Camb. Univ. Press (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein, A., Feldman, M., Mansour, Y.: Strong equilibrium in cost sharing connection games. Games and Economic Behavior 67(1), 51–68 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goemans, M., Mirrokni, V., Vetta, A.: Sink equilibria and convergence. In: FOCS, pp. 142–154 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harks, T., Klimm, M., Möhring, R.H.: Strong nash equilibria in games with the lexicographical improvement property. In: Leonardi, S. (ed.) WINE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5929, pp. 463–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzman, R., Law-Yone, N.: Strong equilibrium in congestion games. Games and Economic Behavior 21(1–2), 85–101 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maschler, M.: The bargaining set, kernel, and nucleolus. In: Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, vol. 1, ch.18, pp. 591–667. Elsevier (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moreno, D., Wooders, J.: Coalition-proof equilibrium. Games and Economic Behavior 17(1), 80–112 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nessah, R., Tian, G.: On the existence of strong nash equilibria. Working Papers 2009-ECO-06, IESEG School of Management (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roughgarden, T.: Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy. In: STOC (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roughgarden, T.: The price of anarchy in games of incomplete information. In: ACM EC (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roughgarden, T., Schoppmann, F.: Local smoothness and the price of anarchy in atomic splittable congestion games. In: SODA (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rozenfeld, O., Tennenholtz, M.: Strong and correlated strong equilibria in monotone congestion games. In: Spirakis, P., Mavronicolas, M., Kontogiannis, S. (eds.) WINE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4286, pp. 74–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Syrgkanis, V.: Bayesian Games and the Smoothness Framework. ArXiv e-prints (March 2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Syrgkanis, V., Tardos, E.: Composable and efficient mechanisms. In: STOC (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vetta, A.: Nash equilibria in competitive societies, with applications to facility location, traffic routing and auctions (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoram Bachrach
    • 1
  • Vasilis Syrgkanis
    • 2
  • Éva Tardos
    • 2
  • Milan Vojnović
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations