Skip to main content
Log in

A family of strategyproof mechanisms for activity scheduling

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent years have seen various designs of strategyproof mechanisms in the facility location game and the obnoxious facility game, by considering the facility’s geo-location as a point in the spatial domain. In this paper, we extend this point to be a continuous interval, and study a novel activity scheduling game to schedule an activity in the normalized time domain [0, 1] based on all agents’ time reports for preferences/conflicts. The activity starts at time point y and lasts for a fixed time period of d with \(0\le d\le 1\). Each agent \(i\in N = \{1, \cdots , n\}\) wants his preferred time interval \([t_i,t_i+l_i]\) to be close to or overlap with the activity interval \([y,y+d]\). Since agents are heterogeneous, we consider each agent i has weight \(\alpha _i\) or \(\beta _i\) when the activity is scheduled after or before his time interval, respectively. Thus each agent i’s cost is his weight (\(\alpha _i\) or \(\beta _i\)) multiplied by the time difference between his time interval \([t_i,t_i+l_i]\) and the activity interval \([y,y+d].\) The social cost is the summation of all agents’ costs. In this game, agents’ preferred time intervals \([t_i,t_i+l_i]\)’s are private information and they may misreport such information to the social planner. Our objective is to choose the activity starting time y so that the mechanisms are strategyproof (i.e., all agents should be truthful to report \(t_i\)’s and \(l_i\)’s) and perform well with respect to minimizing the social cost. We design a mechanism outputting an optimal solution and prove that it is group strategyproof. For the objective of minimizing the maximum cost among agents, we design another strategyproof mechanism with the approximation ratio \(1+\min \{\alpha /\beta ,\beta /\alpha \}\) when \(\alpha _i=\alpha , \beta _i = \beta\) for \(i\in N,\) and prove it is the best strategyproof mechanism. In the obnoxious activity scheduling game, each agent prefers his conflicting time interval \([t_i,t_i+l_i]\) to be far away from the activity interval \([y,y+d]\). We design deterministic and randomized group strategyproof mechanisms, and compare their provable approximation ratios to the lower bounds. Finally, we consider the cost/utility of each agent as a 0-1 indicator function and find group strategyproof mechanisms for minimizing the social cost and maximizing the social utility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anastasiadis, E., & Deligkas, A. (2018). Heterogeneous facility location games. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 623–631.

  2. Chan, H., Filos-Ratsikas, A., Li, B., et al. (2021). Mechanism design for facility location problem: A survey. In: The 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2021), pp. 1–17.

  3. Cheng, Y., Yu, W., & Zhang, G. (2011). Mechanisms for obnoxious facility game on a path. In: International Conference on Combinatorial Optimization and Applications (COCOA), Springer, pp. 262–271.

  4. de Keijzer, B., & Wojtczak, D. (2018). Facility reallocation on the line. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 188–194.

  5. Duan, L., Li, B., Li, M., et al. (2019). Heterogeneous two-facility location games with minimum distance requirement. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1461–1469.

  6. Feigenbaum, I., & Sethuraman, J. (2015). Strategyproof mechanisms for one-dimensional hybrid and obnoxious facility location models. In: Workshop on Incentive and Trust in E-Communities at the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).

  7. Filos-Ratsikas, A., Li, M., Zhang, J., et al. (2017). Facility location with double-peaked preferences, 31(6), 1209–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fong, K.C., Li, M., Lu, P., et al. (2018). Facility location games with fractional preferences. In: Proceedings of the 32th AAAI Confererence on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).

  9. Han, Q., & Du, D. (2011). Moneyless Strategy-proof Mechanism on Single-sinked Policy Domain: Characterization and Applications. Faculty of Business Administration: University of New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hassani, S. (1999). Dirac delta function. In: Mathematical Physics: A Modem Introduction to Its Foundations. Springer, pp. 159–171.

  11. Hou, E. S., Ansari, N., & Ren, H. (1994). A genetic algorithm for multiprocessor scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 5(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ibara, K., & Nagamochi, H. (2012). Characterizing mechanisms in obnoxious facility game. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Combinatorial Optimization and Applications (COCOA), Springer, pp. 301–311.

  13. Lu, P., Wang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2009). Tighter bounds for facility games. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE), Springer, pp. 137–148.

  14. Ozdamar, L. (1999). A genetic algorithm approach to a general category project scheduling problem. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C Applications and Reviews, 1, 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Procaccia, A.D., & Tennenholtz, M. (2009). Approximate mechanism design without money. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 177–186.

  16. Serafino, P., & Ventre, C. (2014). Heterogeneous facility location without money on the line. In: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 807–812.

  17. Stankovic, J.A., Spuri, M., & Ramamritham, K., et al. (2012) Deadline scheduling for real-time systems: EDF and related algorithms, Vol 460. Springer Science & Business Media.

  18. Sui, X., Boutilier, C., & Sandholm, T.W. (2013). Analysis and optimization of multi-dimensional percentile mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 27th AAAI Confererence on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 367–374.

  19. Todo, T., Iwasaki, A., Yokoo, M. (2011). False-name-proof mechanism design without money. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 2 (AAMAS), pp. 651–658.

  20. Wada, Y., Ono, T., Todo, T., et al. (2018). Facility location with variable and dynamic populations. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 336–344.

  21. Xu, X., Li, M., & Duan, L. (2020) Strategyproof mechanisms for activity scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1539–1547.

  22. Xu, X., Li, B., Li, M., et al. (2021). Two-facility location games with minimum distance requirement. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70, 719–756.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang, I. T. (2008). Utility-based decision support system for schedule optimization. Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 595–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ye, D., Mei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Strategy-proof mechanism for obnoxious facility location on a line. In: Proceedings of the 21th International Computing and Combinatorics Conference (COCOON), Springer, pp. 45–56

  25. Yuan, H., Wang, K., Fong, K.C., et al. (2016). Facility location games with optional preference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 1520–1527.

  26. Zhang, Q., & Li, M. (2014). Strategyproof mechanism design for facility location games with weighted agents on a line. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 28(4), 756–773.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Zou, S., & Li, M. (2015). Facility location games with dual preference. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 615–623.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinping Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Part of work has been presented in the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2020), Auckland, New Zealand, May 9–13, 2020 [21] .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, X., Zhang, J., Li, M. et al. A family of strategyproof mechanisms for activity scheduling. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 37, 44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-023-09624-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-023-09624-7

Keywords

Navigation