2006
DOI: 10.1007/11944874_30
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wardrop Equilibria and Price of Stability for Bottleneck Games with Splittable Traffic

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among other results, they derived bounds on the price of anarchy. For subsequent work on the price of anarchy in bottleneck routing games with atomic and non-atomic players, we refer to the paper by Mazalov et al (2006).…”
Section: Further Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among other results, they derived bounds on the price of anarchy. For subsequent work on the price of anarchy in bottleneck routing games with atomic and non-atomic players, we refer to the paper by Mazalov et al (2006).…”
Section: Further Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For subsequent work on the price of anarchy in bottleneck routing games with atomic and non-atomic players, we refer to the paper by Mazalov et al [36].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite being a more realistic model for network routing, they have not received similar attention in the literature. For classes of non-atomic (with infinitesimally small players) and atomic splittable games (finite number of players with arbitrarily splittable demand) existence of PNE and bounds on the price of anarchy were considered in [12,36]. For atomic games with unsplittable demand PNE do always exist [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, several recent works [4,6,7,12,17] obtain results on the price of anarchy with the ℓ ∞ aggregation function in the conceptually similar but technically different atomic selfish routing model, where there is a finite number of players who each control a non‐negligible amount of traffic. The ℓ ∞ aggregation function was considered for the selfish routing model considered here in [11], but no price of anarchy results were given.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%