The Unintended Consequences of Minimizing the Price of Anarchy in Congestion Games

This work focuses on the design of taxes in atomic congestion games, a commonly studied model for competitive resource sharing. While most related studies focus on optimizing either the worst- or best-case performance (i.e., Price of Anarchy (PoA) or Price of Stability (PoS)), we investigate whether optimizing for the PoA has consequences on the PoS. Perhaps surprisingly, our results reveal a fundamental trade-off between the two performance metrics. Our main result demonstrates that the taxation rule that optimizes the PoA inherits a matching PoS, implying that the best outcome is no better than the worst outcome under such a design choice. We then study this trade-off in terms of the Pareto frontier between the PoA and PoS. Our results also establish that any taxes with PoS equal to 1 incur a much higher PoA, and that, in several well-studied cases, the untaxed setting lies strictly above the Pareto frontier.