Skip to main content
Log in

Strategyproof mechanism design for facility location games with weighted agents on a line

  • Published:
Journal of Combinatorial Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Approximation mechanism design without money was first studied in Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2009) by considering a facility location game. In general, a facility is being opened and the cost of an agent is measured by its distance to the facility. In order to achieve a good social cost, a mechanism selects the location of the facility based on the locations reported by agents. It motivates agents to strategically report their locations to get good outcomes for themselves. A mechanism is called strategyproof if no agents could manipulate to get a better outcome by telling lies regardless of any configuration of other agents. The main contribution in this paper is to explore the strategyproof mechanisms without money when agents are distinguishable. There are two main variations on the nature of agents. One is that agents prefer getting closer to the facility, while the other is that agents prefer being far away from the facility. We first consider the model that directly extends the model in Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2009). In particular, we consider the strategyproof mechanisms without money when agents are weighted. We show that the strategyproof mechanisms in the case of unweighted agents are still the best in the weighted cases. We establish tight lower and upper bounds for approximation ratios on the optimal social utility and the minimum utility when agents prefer to stay close to the facility. We then provide the lower and upper bounds on the optimal social utility and lower bound on the minimum distance per weight when agents prefer to stay far away from the facility. We also extend our study in a natural direction where two facilities must be built on a real line. Secondly, we propose an novel threshold based model to distinguish agents. In this model, we present a strategyproof mechanism that leads to optimal solutions in terms of social cost.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. When the weights of agents are public knowledge, we can treat a single weighted agent as multiple unit weighted agents. By directly applying the results in Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2009), we know Mechanism 1 is an optimal and strategyproof mechanism for social cost.

  2. When the weights of agents are public knowledge, one could easily show that Mechanism 2 is still the best strategyproof mechanism we can have and it will give an approximation ratio of \((\frac{W_{max}}{W_{min}}+1)\). From the following results, when the weights are private information, the best strategyproof mechanism can also achieve an approximation ratio of \((\frac{W_{max}}{W_{min}}+1)\). This fact reveals that the knowledge of weights does not help much in the design of strategyproof mechanisms.

  3. When the weights of agents are public knowledge, Mechanism 3 is strategyproof with a guaranteed an approximation ratio of \(3\).

References

  • Ashlagi I, Fischer F, Kash I, Procaccia A (2010) Mix and match. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on electronic commerce (ACM-EC), Cambridge, pp 305–314

  • Caragiannis I, Filos-Ratsikas A, Procaccia A (2011) An improved 2-agent kidney exchange mechanism. In: Proceeding of the 6th international workshop of internet and network economics (WINE), Singapore, pp 37–48

  • Chen Y, Lai J, Parkes D, Procaccia A (2010) Truth, justice, and cake cutting. In: Proceedings of 24th AAAI, Atlanta, pp 756–761

  • Cheng Y, Yu W, Zhang G (2011) Mechanisms for obnoxious facility game on a path. Comb Optim Appl 6831:262–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke E (1971) Multipart pricing of public goods. Public choice 11(1):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escoffier B, Gourvès L, Kim Thang N, Pascual F, Spanjaard O (2011) Strategy-proof mechanisms for facility location games with many facilities. In: Brafman RI et al. (ed) Algorithmic decision theory, vol 6992. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–81

  • Fotakis D, Tzamos C (2010) Winner-imposing strategyproof mechanisms for multiple facility location games. In: Proceeding of the 5th international workshop of internet and network economics (WINE), pp 234–245.

  • Groves T (1973) Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41:617–631

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu P, Wang Y, Zhou Y (2009) Tighter bounds for facility games. In: Proceeding of the 5th international workshop of internet and network economics (WINE), Rome, pp 137–148.

  • Lu P, Sun X, Wang Y, Zhu Z (2010) Asymptotically optimal strategy-proof mechanisms for two-facility games. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on electronic commerce (ACM-EC), Cambridge, pp 315–324.

  • Nisan N, Ronen A (1999) Algorithmic mechanism design. In: Proceedings of the thirty-first annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), Atlanta, pp 129–140

  • Procaccia A, Tennenholtz M (2009) Approximate mechanism design without money. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on electronic commerce (ACM-EC), Stanford, pp 177–186

  • Roth A, Sönmez T (2005) Pairwise kidney exchange. J Econ Theory 125(2):151–188

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Todo T, Iwasaki A, Yokoo M (2011) False-name-proof mechanism design without money. In: The 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), vol 2. Taipei, pp 651–658

  • Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J Financ 16(1):8–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minming Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, Q., Li, M. Strategyproof mechanism design for facility location games with weighted agents on a line. J Comb Optim 28, 756–773 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-013-9598-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-013-9598-8

Keywords

Navigation