2021
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-86841-3_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Braess’ Paradox and Average Quality of Service in Transportation Network Cooperative Games

Abstract: In the theory of congestion games, the Braess' paradox shows that adding one resource to a network may sometimes worsen, rather than improve, the overall network performance. Here the paradox is investigated under a cooperative gametheoretic setting, in contrast to the non-cooperative one typically adopted in the literature. A family of cooperative games on networks is considered, whose utility function, defined in terms of a traffic assignment problem and the associated Wardrop equilibrium, expresses the aver… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 20 publications
(22 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another research direction-still related to computational issues-is to use appropriate machine learning techniques to predict Shapley values, as outlined by Passacantando et al (2021b) in another context (in which Shapley values were used to study the significance of arcs in graphs). In this way, approximate values for the Shapley values could be found, allowing the present analysis to be extended to larger data sets in future extensions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another research direction-still related to computational issues-is to use appropriate machine learning techniques to predict Shapley values, as outlined by Passacantando et al (2021b) in another context (in which Shapley values were used to study the significance of arcs in graphs). In this way, approximate values for the Shapley values could be found, allowing the present analysis to be extended to larger data sets in future extensions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%