Robustness of Incentive Mechanisms Against System Misspecification in Congestion Games

Bryce L. Ferguson; Chih-Yuan Chiu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 18 references

Robustness of Incentive Mechanisms Against System Misspecification in Congestion Games

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Small model errors add no new equilibria to tolled congestion games.

desk verdict Prop. 1 is a clean, correct local-robustness result; Prop. 2 is a promising LP bound whose equality claim currently rests on an abridged proof that needs to be completed before it can be taken as exact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11791 v2 pith:FFN7L5T6 submitted 2025-05-17 cs.GT cs.SYeess.SY

Chih-Yuan Chiu , Bryce L. Ferguson This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GTcs.SYeess.SY MSC 91A1090C05

keywords congestiongamespriceofanarchytolldesignmodelmisspecificationlocallineartollsatomicprogrammingNashequilibriumrobustness

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies what happens to tolls in atomic congestion games when the designer's model of resource costs (for example, road latencies) is slightly wrong. It proves that for small enough errors in the cost parameters used to set tolls, the tolled game admits no new pure Nash equilibria compared with correct tolls, so the price of anarchy cannot worsen. It then provides a linear program whose value, for any fixed relative error level, gives the worst-case price of anarchy over all atomic congestion games with at most n agents and resource costs spanned by a given set of basis functions. This yields a computable worst-case degradation guarantee for local linear toll mechanisms under system misspecification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the resource-labeling aggregation that converts the worst-case PoA question into a linear program. Each resource $e$ is labeled $(x_e, y_e, z_e, j)$, where $x_e$ is the number of agents using $e$ in both the equilibrium and the optimal allocation, $y_e$ in the equilibrium only, $z_e$ in the optimal allocation only, and $j$ indexes the basis function; the LP variables $\theta$ and $\hat{\theta}$ sum the true and misspecified cost coefficients over all resources sharing a label. Proposition 1 is carried by an even simpler mechanism: the function $h_a(\hat{\gamma})$ measuring an agent's benefit from deviating to an alternative action is continuous in $\hat{\gamma}$, and the joint-action space is finite, so a strictly profitable deviation remains profitable in a whole neighborhood of $\gamma$. Proposition 2's LP extends the standard PoA-computation method for atomic congestion games, encoding the misspecification through the box constraint $(1-\delta)\theta \le \hat{\theta} \le (1+\delta)\theta$ and recovering the noise-free case at $\delta=0$.

What would settle it

Enumerate all atomic congestion games with three agents and two affine basis functions, compute the true worst-case price of anarchy under $\delta$-perturbed tolls by exhaustive search, and compare it with $1/p^*(\delta)$ from the linear program; any gap would falsify the equality in Proposition 2. A single instance where an arbitrarily small perturbation creates a new pure Nash equilibrium would similarly falsify Proposition 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that misspecified local linear tolls are robust at small error scales: for any true cost parameters $\gamma$, there is an $\epsilon$ such that any toll parameters $\tilde{\gamma}$ within $\epsilon$ of $\gamma$ satisfy $ANE(G(\gamma), T(\tilde{\gamma})) \subseteq ANE(G(\gamma), T(\gamma))$, meaning no new pure Nash equilibria appear. Because the price of anarchy is the worst system cost over the equilibrium set, this inclusion implies $PoA(G(\gamma), T(\tilde{\gamma})) \le PoA(G(\gamma), T(\gamma))$ for all such $\tilde{\gamma}$; the same holds for multiplicative perturbations. For larger errors, the paper claims that over the class of atomic congestion games with at most $n$ agents and costs spanned by a fixed basis, the worst-case PoA under relative parameter error $\delta$ is exactly $1/p^*(\delta)$, where $p^*(\delta)$ is the optimal value of an explicit linear program. The LP aggregates resources by how many agents use them in the worst-case equilibrium and in the optimal allocation, and couples true coefficients $\theta$ with misspecified coefficients $\hat{\theta}$ through the box constraint $(1-\delta)\theta \le \hat{\theta} \le (1+\delta)\theta$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper asserts, with an abridged proof, that its linear-programming relaxation is lossless and that a game with at most the allowed number of agents attains the worst-case bound; if that assertion fails, the formula gives only an upper bound on the price of anarchy rather than the exact worst case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a fixed game, small additive or multiplicative errors in the cost parameters used to set local linear tolls cannot introduce new pure Nash equilibria, so the price of anarchy does not increase.
Setting $\delta=0$ in the linear program recovers the known worst-case price-of-anarchy results for local linear tolls under perfect information.
For any specified error level $\delta$ and basis $B$, the linear program produces a number $1/p^*(\delta)$ that upper-bounds the price of anarchy over every atomic congestion game with at most $n$ agents whose costs lie in the basis span.
Numerical experiments on the Sioux Falls network show the fraction of toll realizations that create new equilibria rises with the noise level, matching the predicted existence of a robustness threshold.
In the affine-cost simulations, the nominally optimal congestion-dependent toll is less robust than the nominally optimal constant toll, which matters for mechanism selection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the equality in Proposition 2 holds, a toll designer could use $1/p^*(\delta)$ as a certificate: given an estimation-error budget $\delta$, the mechanism is guaranteed, over the entire model class, not to degrade efficiency beyond this ratio.
The same inclusion-of-equilibria argument would apply to any finite game with continuous payoff parameters, so the local robustness may extend to subsidies, nonlinear taxes, and other smoothly parameterized incentives beyond local linear tolls.
The simulations' relation between toll magnitude and robustness suggests that deliberately regularizing or shrinking toll values could produce designs that are less sensitive to misspecification; the paper does not make this design claim.
One could probe the LP's tightness computationally by solving (9) for small $n$ and comparing with exhaustive enumeration of all games and all $\delta$-perturbed tolls, which would also reveal whether the abridged construction really attains the bound.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this paper proves one small, clean robustness fact and then pushes a bigger claim that is not yet fully supported. If you need the local-robustness result (Prop. 1), it is solid. If you need the exact worst-case degradation (Prop. 2), wait for a complete proof.

Prop. 1 says that for a fixed game, tolls designed from slightly noisy cost parameters cannot introduce new pure Nash equilibria, so the price of anarchy cannot strictly increase. The proof is a finite-minimum continuity argument and it is correct. The corollaries for multiplicative error and for PoA follow. That is a genuinely useful result for toll designers: small estimation error is not a reason to panic.

The bigger contribution is Prop. 2, an LP whose optimum is claimed to equal the worst-case PoA over all games in the class when tolls are designed with relative error delta. The LP extends the authors' earlier PoA-LP framework, and the setup is plausible. But the proof is explicitly abridged. The critical steps—that aggregating the Nash inequalities into one sum is lossless, that the per-label constraint (16) captures the per-resource misspecification, and that a game with at most n agents attains the LP value—are all asserted rather than demonstrated. In particular, aggregate deviation inequality (11b) is weaker than requiring every agent's deviation to be nonpositive, and the construction at the end of Sec. IV never defines the action sets. As written, equation (8) gives at best an upper bound. This is the load-bearing gap.

The experiments are honest but light: they solve the LP and sample random perturbations, which illustrates the bound but cannot certify tightness. The citation pattern is fine—the earlier LP machinery is peer-reviewed, and the paper is explicit about borrowing it.

Bottom line: Prop. 1 deserves publication. Prop. 2 is a valuable target, and I suspect it is true, but the current manuscript does not prove it. I would send this to a serious referee with instructions to require a complete proof or a verified tightness construction for Prop. 2. It is close, but not there.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies atomic congestion games with local linear tolls computed from a possibly misspecified system model. The true game has resource costs parameterized by γ, while the toll designer uses parameters γ̃; the deployed mechanism is T(γ̃). The main theoretical results are: (i) Proposition 1, which states that for sufficiently small perturbations of γ the Nash equilibrium set of the tolled game does not expand, so the price of anarchy does not increase (Corollaries 2 and 3); and (ii) Proposition 2, which claims that the worst-case price of anarchy over a class of games with relative parameter error δ is exactly 1/p⋆(δ), where p⋆(δ) is the value of a linear program. The paper also reports Monte-Carlo simulations on a simplified Sioux Falls network and LP-based numerical evaluations for affine congestion games.

Significance. If Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: it gives an elementary continuity-based robustness guarantee for local linear tolls and provides a computationally tractable LP for the worst-case degradation of the price of anarchy under a structured misspecification model. The proof of Proposition 1 is clean and self-contained, and the local-robustness corollaries follow immediately from the finite-set argument. The LP framework builds on the authors' prior work [3,9], which is peer-reviewed independent support; the manuscript does not appear circular. However, the exactness claim in Proposition 2 is not established in the submitted text, and without it the central quantitative result reduces to an upper bound. Because this gap is explicitly acknowledged by the authors in Sec. IV and is likely fixable by supplying the omitted construction, the appropriate outcome is major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV, Proposition 2, Eq. (8)] The equality sup_{G(γ)} PoA(G(γ),T(γ̃)) = 1/p⋆(δ) is not proven by the abridged proof. The text states that steps 1-4 are lossless and cites [3,9], but for the misspecified-toll setting no full demonstration is provided. In particular, the aggregate equilibrium inequality (11b) only requires the sum over agents of unilateral-deviation costs to be nonpositive; a pure Nash equilibrium requires each individual summand to be nonpositive. A feasible solution of (11) or (9) need not correspond to any actual game, because the per-resource constraint |γ̃_e,j − γ_e,j| ≤ δγ_e,j is replaced in (16) by the per-label aggregate constraint (1−δ)θ ≤ θ̃ ≤ (1+δ)θ, which is necessary but not sufficient for the existence of a per-resource decomposition. The final paragraph of Sec. IV sketches a construction with 'n resources per label' but never defines the agents' action sets, never shows that the labels remain as claimed, and never proves that the proposed allocation is a Nash equilibrium or that its PoA equals 1/p⋆(δ). As written, (8) is therefore only an upper bound. The authors should supply a complete proof of the attaining-game construction, or explicitly restate the result as an upper bound.
[Sec. III, Corollary 1 and Corollary 3] The proofs of Corollaries 1 and 3 define δ := max{ε/γ_e,j : γ_e,j > 0}. This is the wrong extremum: with the maximum, for every positive γ_e,j we have δγ_e,j ≥ ε, so the condition |γ̃_e,j − γ_e,j| ≤ δγ_e,j does not imply γ̃ lies in the ε-ball used in Proposition 1. The correct definition is δ := min{ε/γ_e,j : γ_e,j > 0}, with a separate convention for zero coefficients. The statements of the corollaries are true with the corrected choice, but the proofs as written are invalid. Since these corollaries are the multiplicative-perturbation versions of the paper's central local-robustness claim, this needs to be fixed.
[Sec. IV, from Eq. (10) to Eq. (11) and Eq. (16)] The paper asserts that aggregating the Nash-equilibrium inequalities and aggregating the per-resource misspecification bounds into per-label constraints do not change the optimal value. This is a load-bearing point for Proposition 2. Even if the individual-deviation issue were resolved, the per-label constraint (1−δ)θ ≤ θ̃ ≤ (1+δ)θ is strictly weaker than the original per-resource constraints: given aggregate θ and θ̃ satisfying the former, there may be no assignment of γ_e,j and γ̃_e,j to the individual resources in the label that satisfies the latter. A proof of the converse is needed. The citations to [3,9] cover the noiseless case, but the misspecified case introduces the additional variable θ̃ and the coupling constraint (16), so the losslessness does not carry over automatically.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. IV, Proposition 2 statement] The quantifier in the statement 'For any δ ≥ 0 and eγ satisfying ... sup_{G(γ)} PoA(G(γ),T(eγ)) = 1/p⋆(δ)' is ambiguous: the left-hand side depends on the arbitrary fixed eγ while the right-hand side depends only on δ. The proof's Eq. (10) indicates the intended meaning is a supremum over both G(γ) and eγ subject to the misspecification bound; the proposition should be reworded accordingly.
[Sec. V-A] There is a notation inconsistency: the text uses 'NSF' in the sentence 'the maximum and average PoA realized in NSF generally increase with δ' while the game is named GSF. Also, the sentence 'E = [10], I = [7]' appears to use I for the node set, while I is later used for the label set; a different symbol for the node set would avoid confusion.
[Sec. IV, construction paragraph] The proposed construction states that 'for each resource labeled (x,y,z,j), we construct n resources with cost function ℓ(·)=θ⋆(x,y,z,j)b_j(·)/n'. If θ⋆ already aggregates coefficients over all resources of that label, it is unclear why each of the n constructed resources has coefficient θ⋆/n rather than a decomposition into n individual coefficients; this affects the label verification. The construction should specify the actual resources and action sets explicitly.
[Sec. III, Corollary 1 proof] The proof writes δ := max{ ... } without addressing coefficients γ_e,j = 0; since the expression divides by γ_e,j, a separate treatment is required. With the corrected minimum choice, zero coefficients force γ̃_e,j = 0 through the constraint (1−δ)γ_e,j ≤ γ̃_e,j ≤ (1+δ)γ_e,j, which is consistent but should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Prop. 1 is a direct continuity argument and Prop. 2 relies on prior peer-reviewed LP methods, not on fitting or on renaming its inputs as predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Proposition 1 proves containment of Nash equilibrium sets by the contrapositive: any non-equilibrium allocation has a strictly positive deviation gap at γ, and continuity of that gap in the toll parameters yields a positive uniform radius because the action set is finite. This is a self-contained mathematical argument and does not assume the conclusion. Corollaries 1-3 follow by the same continuity reasoning, not by fitting or redefinition. Proposition 2 is the only place where the proof is abridged, drawing on the authors' prior papers [3] and [9] for the LP transformation and for the claim that the aggregate Nash inequalities are lossless. Those cited results are peer-reviewed, concern exact-parameter toll design and PoA computation, and do not by themselves contain the misspecified-toll worst-case equality; hence they are genuine external support rather than a self-citation chain that forces the conclusion. The construction at the end of Section IV is sketched rather than fully verified, and its action sets are not explicitly defined, but an incomplete or vague proof is a soundness and completeness concern, not circularity: nothing in the paper defines p*(δ) in terms of the PoA value being predicted, nor fits a parameter to the target quantity and then reports it as a prediction. The numerical experiments validate Corollary 3 and Prop. 2 using an independent Sioux Falls model and Monte Carlo perturbations, further indicating that the central claims are not constructed from their own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the linear-basis parameterization, the local-linear toll class, the relative-error model, Rosenthal's existence theorem, and the lossless LP transformations imported from the authors' prior work [3,9]. No new entities are introduced. The specific γ values used in the Sioux Falls experiments are estimates from public data and are not fitted to the theorem; they serve only as a test case.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Resource cost functions lie in the linear span of a fixed finite set of non-negative, non-decreasing basis functions {b_j} with nonnegative coefficients γ.
This is the parameterization that makes the local linear toll class and the LP aggregation possible; if the true costs are outside the span, the misspecification model does not apply. Invoked in Sec. II.
domain assumption The designer uses a linear local toll mechanism T, which is linear and uses only each resource's own cost.
The results are stated for this toll class, motivated by optimality within local tolls in [3]. If the toll mechanism is not local-linear, Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 do not apply. Invoked in Sec. II and Prop. 2.
domain assumption Misspecification is bounded by a per-coefficient relative error, i.e., |γ̃_{e,j} - γ_{e,j}| ≤ δ γ_{e,j}.
This error model is used in Cor. 1, Cor. 3, and Prop. 2; the LP encodes it as (1-δ)θ ≤ θ̂ ≤ (1+δ)θ. If errors are heteroscedastic or correlated across resources, the bound may be loose. Invoked in Sec. IV.
standard math Every atomic congestion game with tolls has at least one pure Nash equilibrium (Rosenthal's theorem).
Needed for the PoA ratio (5) and for the equilibrium-set statements. Cited as [16].
ad hoc to paper The PoA LP transformations in [3,9] (restriction to a^NE and a^opt, normalization, reciprocal replacement, and aggregation of equilibrium inequalities) are lossless for the present setting.
The paper states 'Due to space constraints, we present an abridged proof with literature references for omitted portions.' The exactness of the transformation is invoked without proof, and the achieving-game construction is sketched. This is the load-bearing imported step for Prop. 2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustness of Incentive Mechanisms Against System Misspecification in Congestion Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFN7L5T6

@misc{pith2026250511791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustness of Incentive Mechanisms Against System Misspecification in Congestion Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFN7L5T6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11791}
}

read the original abstract

To steer the behavior of selfish, resource-sharing agents in a socio-technical system towards the direction of higher efficiency, the system designer requires accurate models of both agent behaviors and the underlying system infrastructure. For instance, traffic controllers often use road latency models to design tolls whose deployment can effectively mitigate traffic congestion. However, misspecifications of system parameters may restrict a system designer's ability to influence collective agent behavior toward efficient outcomes. In this work, we study the impact of system misspecifications on toll design for atomic congestion games. We prove that tolls designed under sufficiently minor system misspecifications, when deployed, do not introduce new Nash equilibria in atomic congestion games compared to tolls designed in the noise-free setting, implying a form of local robustness. We then upper bound the degree to which the worst-case equilibrium system performance could decrease when tolls designed under a given level of system misspecification are deployed. We validate our theoretical results via Monte-Carlo simulations as well as realizations of our worst-case guarantees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11791 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A simplified Sioux Falls network model in which commuters travel from an origin node (blue, indexed 1) to a destination node (red, indexed 7). The model contains 5 routes sharing 10 edges and 7 nodes. TABLE I POA CHANGE FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE FROM NOISY PARAMETERS Noise Max Average Fraction of Toll Sets that Level (δ) PoA PoA generate new Nash eq. 0.05 1.28 1.28 0.00 0.1 1.39 1.29 0.08 0.15 1.39 1.30 0.18 0.2 1.39 … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The PoA bound in congestion games with affine resource costs, as computed via Prop. 2, of Tλ(ℓ) = λ(ℓ + T (ℓ)) − ℓ where T is the optimal local toll mechanism computed in [3]. [3] Dario Paccagnan, Rahul Chandan, Bryce L. Ferguson, and Jason R. Marden. “Optimal Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games”. In: ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 9.3 (Aug. 2021). ISSN: 2167-8375. [4] George Christodoulou and Elias Koutsoupias. “The price o… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

The Economics of Welfare

Arthur Cecil Pigou. The Economics of Welfare . Macmillan, 1924

work page 1924
[2]

Taxes for Linear Atomic Congestion Games

Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, and Panagiotis Kanel- lopoulos. “Taxes for Linear Atomic Congestion Games”. In: ACM Trans. Algorithms 7.1 (Dec. 2010). ISSN : 1549-6325. Fig. 3. The PoA bound in congestion games with affine resource costs, as computed via Prop. 2, ofTλ(ℓ) = λ(ℓ +T (ℓ)) −ℓ whereT is the optimal local toll mechanism computed in [3]

work page 2010
[3]

Optimal Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games

Dario Paccagnan, Rahul Chandan, Bryce L. Ferguson, and Jason R. Marden. “Optimal Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games”. In: ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 9.3 (Aug. 2021). ISSN : 2167-8375

work page 2021
[4]

The price of anarchy of finite congestion games

George Christodoulou and Elias Koutsoupias. “The price of anarchy of finite congestion games”. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC ’05. Baltimore, MD, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2005, pp. 67–73. ISBN : 1581139608

work page 2005
[5]

Dynamic Taxes for Polynomial Congestion Games

Vittorio Bil `o and Cosimo Vinci. “Dynamic Taxes for Polynomial Congestion Games”. In: EC 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 2016, pp. 839–856. (Visited on 09/03/2019)

work page 2016
[6]

The Effectiveness of Subsidies and Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games

Bryce L. Ferguson, Philip N. Brown, and Jason R. Marden. “The Effectiveness of Subsidies and Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games”. In: IEEE Control Systems Letters 6 (2022), pp. 614–619

work page 2022
[7]

Cost-Balancing Tolls for Atomic Network Congestion Games

Dimitris Fotakis and Paul G. Spirakis. “Cost-Balancing Tolls for Atomic Network Congestion Games”. In: Internet Mathematics 5.4 (2008), pp. 343–363

work page 2008
[8]

Value of Information in Incentive Design: A Case Study in Simple Congestion Networks

Bryce L. Ferguson, Philip N. Brown, and Jason R. Marden. “Value of Information in Incentive Design: A Case Study in Simple Congestion Networks”. In: IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 10.6 (2023), pp. 3077–3088

work page 2023

Show all 18 references

[9]

Utility Design for Distributed Resource Allocation—Part I: Characterizing and Optimizing the Exact Price of Anarchy

Dario Paccagnan, Rahul Chandan, and Jason R. Marden. “Utility Design for Distributed Resource Allocation—Part I: Characterizing and Optimizing the Exact Price of Anarchy”. In: IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 65.11 (2020), pp. 4616–4631

2020
[10]

Semi-bandit Dynamics in Congestion Games: Con- vergence to Nash Equilibrium and No-regret Guarantees

Ioannis Panageas, Stratis Skoulakis, Luca Viano, Xiao Wang, and V olkan Cevher. “Semi-bandit Dynamics in Congestion Games: Con- vergence to Nash Equilibrium and No-regret Guarantees”. In: Pro- ceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning . ICML’23. Honolul...

2023
[11]

Leello Dadi, Ioannis Panageas, Stratis Skoulakis, Luca Viano, and V olkan Cevher.Polynomial Convergence of Bandit No-Regret Dynam- ics in Congestion Games . 2024. arXiv: 2401.09628 [cs.GT]

2024 arXiv
[12]

Taming the Exponential Action Set: Sublinear Regret and Fast Convergence to Nash Equilibrium in Online Congestion Games

Jing Dong, Jingyu Wu, Siwei Wang, Baoxiang Wang, and Wei Chen. Taming the Exponential Action Set: Sublinear Regret and Fast Convergence to Nash Equilibrium in Online Congestion Games. 2023. arXiv: 2306.13673 [cs.GT]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Parameter Estimation in Op- timal Tolling for Traffic Networks Under the Markovian Traffic Equilibrium

Chih-Yuan Chiu and Shankar Sastry. “Parameter Estimation in Op- timal Tolling for Traffic Networks Under the Markovian Traffic Equilibrium”. In: 2024 American Control Conference (ACC) . 2024, pp. 1461–1467

2024
[14]

Qiwen Cui, Maryam Fazel, and Simon S. Du. Learning Optimal Tax Design in Nonatomic Congestion Games. 2025. arXiv: 2402.07437 [cs.GT]

2025 arXiv
[15]

Transportation Networks for Research

Transportation Networks for Research Core Team. Transportation Networks for Research . 1999

1999
[16]

A Class of Games Possessing Pure-strategy Nash Equilibria

Robert W. Rosenthal. “A Class of Games Possessing Pure-strategy Nash Equilibria”. In: Int. J. Game Theory 2.1 (Dec. 1973), pp. 65–67. ISSN : 0020-7276

1973
[17]

Traffic Assignment Manual

Bureau of Public Roads. Traffic Assignment Manual. Technical report, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Urban Planning Division, 1964

1964
[18]

When are marginal congestion tolls optimal?

Reshef Meir and David C Parkes. “When are marginal congestion tolls optimal?” In: ATT@ IJCAI. 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Economics of Welfare

Arthur Cecil Pigou. The Economics of Welfare . Macmillan, 1924

work page 1924

[2] [2]

Taxes for Linear Atomic Congestion Games

Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, and Panagiotis Kanel- lopoulos. “Taxes for Linear Atomic Congestion Games”. In: ACM Trans. Algorithms 7.1 (Dec. 2010). ISSN : 1549-6325. Fig. 3. The PoA bound in congestion games with affine resource costs, as computed via Prop. 2, ofTλ(ℓ) = λ(ℓ +T (ℓ)) −ℓ whereT is the optimal local toll mechanism computed in [3]

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Optimal Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games

Dario Paccagnan, Rahul Chandan, Bryce L. Ferguson, and Jason R. Marden. “Optimal Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games”. In: ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 9.3 (Aug. 2021). ISSN : 2167-8375

work page 2021

[4] [4]

The price of anarchy of finite congestion games

George Christodoulou and Elias Koutsoupias. “The price of anarchy of finite congestion games”. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC ’05. Baltimore, MD, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2005, pp. 67–73. ISBN : 1581139608

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Dynamic Taxes for Polynomial Congestion Games

Vittorio Bil `o and Cosimo Vinci. “Dynamic Taxes for Polynomial Congestion Games”. In: EC 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 2016, pp. 839–856. (Visited on 09/03/2019)

work page 2016

[6] [6]

The Effectiveness of Subsidies and Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games

Bryce L. Ferguson, Philip N. Brown, and Jason R. Marden. “The Effectiveness of Subsidies and Taxes in Atomic Congestion Games”. In: IEEE Control Systems Letters 6 (2022), pp. 614–619

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Cost-Balancing Tolls for Atomic Network Congestion Games

Dimitris Fotakis and Paul G. Spirakis. “Cost-Balancing Tolls for Atomic Network Congestion Games”. In: Internet Mathematics 5.4 (2008), pp. 343–363

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Value of Information in Incentive Design: A Case Study in Simple Congestion Networks

Bryce L. Ferguson, Philip N. Brown, and Jason R. Marden. “Value of Information in Incentive Design: A Case Study in Simple Congestion Networks”. In: IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 10.6 (2023), pp. 3077–3088

work page 2023