IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcomop/v28y2014i4d10.1007_s10878-013-9598-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Qiang Zhang

    (City University of Hong Kong)

  • Minming Li

    (City University of Hong Kong)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiang Zhang & Minming Li, 2014. "Strategyproof mechanism design for facility location games with weighted agents on a line," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 756-773, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:28:y:2014:i:4:d:10.1007_s10878-013-9598-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10878-013-9598-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10878-013-9598-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10878-013-9598-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    2. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    3. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    4. Groves, Theodore, 1973. "Incentives in Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 617-631, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deligkas, Argyrios & Filos-Ratsikas, Aris & Voudouris, Alexandros A., 2023. "Heterogeneous facility location with limited resources," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 200-215.
    2. Xin Chen & Qizhi Fang & Wenjing Liu & Yuan Ding & Qingqin Nong, 2022. "Strategyproof mechanisms for 2-facility location games with minimax envy," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1628-1644, July.
    3. Qi Zhao & Wenjing Liu & Qingqin Nong & Qizhi Fang, 2023. "Constrained heterogeneous facility location games with max-variant cost," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 1-20, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth & Tayfun Sönmez, 2006. "Changing the Boston School Choice Mechanism," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000001022, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Sushil Bikhchandani & Sven de Vries & James Schummer & Rakesh V. Vohra, 2011. "An Ascending Vickrey Auction for Selling Bases of a Matroid," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 400-413, April.
    3. Xu, Su Xiu & Cheng, Meng & Kong, Xiang T.R. & Yang, Hai & Huang, George Q., 2016. "Private parking slot sharing," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 596-617.
    4. Tafreshian, Amirmahdi & Masoud, Neda, 2022. "A truthful subsidy scheme for a peer-to-peer ridesharing market with incomplete information," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 130-161.
    5. Shrestha, Ratna K., 2017. "Menus of price-quantity contracts for inducing the truth in environmental regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-7.
    6. Mishra, Debasis & Parkes, David C., 2007. "Ascending price Vickrey auctions for general valuations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 335-366, January.
    7. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    8. William H. Sandholm, 2005. "Negative Externalities and Evolutionary Implementation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(3), pages 885-915.
    9. Soumyakanti Chakraborty & Anup K. Sen & Amitava Bagchi, 2015. "Addressing the valuation problem in multi-round combinatorial auctions," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1145-1160, October.
    10. Toyotaka Sakai, 2017. "Considering Collective Choice: The Route 328 Problem in Kodaira City," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 68(3), pages 323-332, September.
    11. , & ,, 2015. "Strategy-proofness and efficiency with non-quasi-linear preferences: a characterization of minimum price Walrasian rule," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), May.
    12. d'Aspremont, Claude & Cremer, Jacques & Gerard-Varet, Louis-Andre, 2004. "Balanced Bayesian mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 385-396, April.
    13. Hiroki Saitoh & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2008. "Vickrey allocation rule with income effect," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(2), pages 391-401, May.
    14. John Duggan & Joanne Roberts, 2002. "Implementing the Efficient Allocation of Pollution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1070-1078, September.
    15. Takashi Kunimoto & Cuiling Zhang, 2021. "On incentive compatible, individually rational public good provision mechanisms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 431-468, August.
    16. Pär Holmberg, 2017. "Pro‐competitive Rationing in Multi‐unit Auctions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 372-395, October.
    17. Song, Yangwei, 2018. "Efficient Implementation with Interdependent Valuations and Maxmin Agents," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 92, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    18. Youngsub Chun & Manipushpak Mitra & Suresh Mutuswami, 2014. "Egalitarian equivalence and strategyproofness in the queueing problem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 425-442, June.
    19. C.-Philipp Heller & Johannes Johnen & Sebastian Schmitz, 2019. "Congestion Pricing: A Mechanism Design Approach," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 53(1), pages 74-7-98.
    20. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Mechanism design without quasilinearity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:28:y:2014:i:4:d:10.1007_s10878-013-9598-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.