2011
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-24873-3_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strategy-Proof Mechanisms for Facility Location Games with Many Facilities

Abstract: This paper is devoted to the location of public facilities in a metric space. Selfish agents are located in this metric space, and their aim is to minimize their own cost, which is the distance from their location to the nearest facility. A central authority has to locate the facilities in the space, but she is ignorant of the true locations of the agents. The agents will therefore report their locations, but they may lie if they have an incentive to do it. We consider two social costs in this paper: the sum o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
36
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Escoffier at al. [5] proved that in this case, the INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL mechanism is strategyproof and achieves an approximation ratio of (K + 1)/2 for K-Facility Location in general metric spaces. Interestingly, Theorem 7.1 shows that these instances are among the hardest ones for deterministic anonymous mechanisms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Escoffier at al. [5] proved that in this case, the INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL mechanism is strategyproof and achieves an approximation ratio of (K + 1)/2 for K-Facility Location in general metric spaces. Interestingly, Theorem 7.1 shows that these instances are among the hardest ones for deterministic anonymous mechanisms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The main goal of [30] is the location of a single facility on the real line when agents have single-peaked preferences, and the corresponding bounds shown in Table 1 are from that paper. A series of papers have studied generalizations of the problem to more general metric spaces [1,11,32], multiple facilities [14,23,26,27] or even enhancing strategyproof mechanisms with additional capabilities [21,22]. Most of the related work actually considers the same objectives that we do here, namely the social cost or the maximum cost, with the notable exceptions of the least-squares objective [18], the L p norm of costs [17] or the minimax envy [5].…”
Section: Related Work On Facility Locationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our primary objective is to explore double-peaked preferences in facility location settings similar to the ones studied extensively for single-peaked preferences throughout the years [1,11,14,18,20,23,26,27,30,32]. For that reason, following the literature we assume that the cost functions are the same for all agents and that the cost increases linearly, at the same rate, as the output moves away from the peaks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main message is that deterministic strategyproof mechanisms can achieve a bounded approximation ratio 1 only if we have at most 2 facilities [Procaccia and Tennenholtz 2009;Fotakis and Tzamos 2013a]. On the other hand, randomized mechanisms are known to achieve better approximation ratios for 2 facilities and also a bounded approximation ratio if we have any number k of facilities and only k + 1 agents [Escoffier et al 2011]. Notably, instances with only k + 1 agents are known to be hard for deterministic mechanisms.…”
Section: The Model and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%