Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userStrategy Proof Mechanisms for Facility Location with Capacity Limits
82
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Toby Walsh
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Toby Walsh
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
An important feature of many real world facility location problems are capacity limits on the facilities. We show here how capacity constraints make it harder to design strategy proof mechanisms for facility location, but counter-intuitively can improve the guarantees on how well we can approximate the optimal solution.
rate research
Read More
Facility location problems often permit facilities to be located at any position. But what if this is not the case in practice? What if facilities can only be located at particular locations like a highway exit or close to a bus stop? We consider here the impact of such constraints on the location of facilities on the performance of strategy proof mechanisms for locating facilities.We study four different performance objectives: the total distance agents must travel to their closest facility, the maximum distance any agent must travel to their closest facility, and the utilitarian and egalitarian welfare.We show that constraining facilities to a limited set of locations makes all four objectives harder to approximate in general.
We study the impact on mechanisms for facility location of moving from one dimension to two (or more) dimensions and Euclidean or Manhattan distances. We consider three fundamental axiomatic properties: anonymity which is a basic fairness property, Pareto optimality which is one of the most important efficiency properties, and strategy proofness which ensures agents do not have an incentive to mis-report. We also consider how well such mechanisms can approximate the optimal welfare. Our results are somewhat negative. Moving from one dimension to two (or more) dimensions often makes these axiomatic properties more difficult to achieve. For example, with two facilities in Euclidean space or with just a single facility in Manhattan space, no mechanism is anonymous, Pareto optimal and strategy proof. By contrast, mechanisms on the line exist with all three properties.We also show that approximation ratios may increase when moving to two (or more) dimensions. All our impossibility results are minimal. If we drop one of the three axioms (anonymity, Pareto optimality or strategy proofness) multiple mechanisms satisfy the other two axioms.
We address the problem of strategyproof (SP) facility location mechanisms on discrete trees. Our main result is a full characterization of onto and SP mechanisms. In particular, we prove that when a single agent significantly affects the outcome, the trajectory of the facility is almost contained in the trajectory of the agent, and both move in the same direction along the common edges. We show tight relations of our characterization to previous results on discrete lines and on continuous trees. We then derive further implications of the main result for infinite discrete lines.
Game tree search algorithms such as minimax have been used with enormous success in turn-based adversarial games such as Chess or Checkers. However, such algorithms cannot be directly applied to real-time strategy (RTS) games because a number of reasons. For example, minimax assumes a turn-taking game mechanics, not present in RTS games. In this paper we present RTMM, a real-time variant of the standard minimax algorithm, and discuss its applicability in the context of RTS games. We discuss its strengths and weaknesses, and evaluate it in two real-time games.
Many two-sided matching markets, from labor markets to school choice programs, use a clearinghouse based on the applicant-proposing deferred acceptance algorithm, which is well known to be strategy-proof for the applicants. Nonetheless, a growing amount of empirical evidence reveals that applicants misrepresent their preferences when this mechanism is used. This paper shows that no mechanism that implements a stable matching is obviously strategy-proof for any side of the market, a stronger incentive property than strategy-proofness that was introduced by Li (2017). A stable mechanism that is obviously strategy-proof for applicants is introduced for the case in which agents on the other side have acyclical preferences.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
