Paper detail

Basic Network Creation Games with Communication Interests

Network creation games model the creation and usage costs of networks formed by a set of selfish peers. Each peer has the ability to change the network in a limited way, e.g., by creating or deleting incident links. In doing so, a peer can reduce its individual communication cost. Typically, these costs are modeled by the maximum or average distance in the network. We introduce a generalized version of the basic network creation game (BNCG). In the BNCG (by Alon et al., SPAA 2010), each peer may replace one of its incident links by a link to an arbitrary peer. This is done in a selfish way in order to minimize either the maximum or average distance to all other peers. That is, each peer works towards a network structure that allows himself to communicate efficiently with all other peers. However, participants of large networks are seldom interested in all peers. Rather, they want to communicate efficiently only with a small subset of peers. Our model incorporates these (communication) interests explicitly. In the MAX-version, each node tries to minimize its maximum distance to nodes it is interested in. Given peers with interests and a communication network forming a tree, we prove several results on the structure and quality of equilibria in our model. For the MAX-version, we give an upper worst case bound of O(\sqrt{n}) for the private costs in an equilibrium of n peers. Moreover, we give an equilibrium for a circular interest graph where a node has private cost Ω(\sqrt{n}), showing that our bound is tight. This example can be extended such that we get a tight bound of Θ(\sqrt{n}) for the price of anarchy. For the case of general communication networks we show the price of anarchy to be Θ(n). Additionally, we prove an interesting connection between a maximum independent set in the interest graph and the private costs of the peers.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.