How Much Can Approximate Equilibria Change the Social Cost of Selfish Routing?

For decades, static solution concepts (Nash, Correlated, and Coarse Correlated Equilibria) and the Price of Anarchy (PoA) have formed the bedrock of algorithmic game theory, with no-regret learning proving fast convergence to such game-theoretic equilibria. We show that reducing multi-agent learning to static equilibrium and black-box regret analysis obscures underlying dynamic disequilibrium and game theoretic bounds. First, interior Nash equilibria lack $C^1$ vector field information, meaning agents cannot distinguish aligned from strictly opposing incentives. Inheriting this geometry, the worst-case pure Nash equilibria dictating robust PoA bounds manifest as topologically unstable strict saddles, and in canonical congestion games, as global repellers supported on almost everywhere strictly dominated strategies. Anchoring efficiency guarantees to these unstable states causes algebraic sensitivity; we prove that accommodating all strictly positive affine costs renders the PoA unbounded. Furthermore, projecting learning trajectories onto the discrete simplex of correlated play systematically accommodates non-rationalizable behavior. Evaluating dynamics via Coarse Correlated Equilibria or proximal refinements fails to preclude strictly dominated strategies. Moreover, optimal $O(1/T)$ swap-regret minimization does not preclude macroscopic turbulence, manifesting as chaotic limit sets even in minimal games. Finally, we examine the non-atomic limit of congestion games. Though considered highly stable with tight sub-linear $Θ(p/\ln p)$ PoA bounds (where $p$ is the polynomial degree), we prove that under discrete-time learning, the unique equilibrium destabilizes into Li-Yorke chaos and global attractors whose time-averaged inefficiency degrades exponentially as $2^p$. These results necessitate re-evaluating worst-case equilibrium frameworks for dynamically grounded metrics.

We study Stackelberg (leader--follower) tuning of network parameters (tolls, capacities, incentives) in combinatorial congestion games, where selfish users choose discrete routes (or other combinatorial strategies) and settle at a congestion equilibrium. The leader minimizes a system-level objective (e.g., total travel time) evaluated at equilibrium, but this objective is typically nonsmooth because the set of used strategies can change abruptly. We propose ZO-Stackelberg, which couples a projection-free Frank--Wolfe equilibrium solver with a zeroth-order outer update, avoiding differentiation through equilibria. We prove convergence to generalized Goldstein stationary points of the true equilibrium objective, with explicit dependence on the equilibrium approximation error, and analyze subsampled oracles: if an exact minimizer is sampled with probability $κ_m$, then the Frank--Wolfe error decays as $\mathcal{O}(1/(κ_m T))$. We also propose stratified sampling as a practical way to avoid a vanishing $κ_m$ when the strategies that matter most for the Wardrop equilibrium concentrate in a few dominant combinatorial classes (e.g., short paths). Experiments on real-world networks demonstrate that our method achieves orders-of-magnitude speedups over a differentiation-based baseline while converging to follower equilibria.

We give the first unconditional family of polynomial-time algorithms that breaks the $1/3$ approximation barrier for symmetric bimatrix games. For every fixed $δ>0$, an algorithm in this family computes a symmetric $(1-1/\sqrt{2}+δ)$-approximate Nash equilibrium, improving on the previous best guarantee of $(1/3+δ)$ due to Kontogiannis and Spirakis [2011].