Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.5555/3635637.3663135acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Facility Location Games with Task Allocation

Published: 06 May 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Facility location games have been studied extensively but most are about locating facilities given agents' profiles. However, in some real-life scenarios, the facility's location may be fixed already. When there are multiple facilities the strategic agents will always go to the closest one, resulting in the remote facilities unused. In this paper, we introduce the model that includes two facilities and n rational agents. There is one task at each facility to be done. Each agent will select one task and aims to minimize the amount of work assigned to her. Our goal is to design the allocation rules to achieve social optimality, i.e., every Nash equilibrium guarantees that every task can be completed. We show that no allocation rule can achieve social optimality without positive/negative incentives. For negative incentives, we propose a class of allocation rules with dummy work, where social optimality can be achieved, and no worker does the dummy work. For positive incentives, we first give a simple rule that achieves social optimality and propose a more complex rule to achieve the minimum subsidy.

References

[1]
Hau Chan, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Minming Li, and Chenhao Wang. 2021. Mechanism Design for Facility Location Problems: A Survey. In 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 4356--4365.
[2]
Dominic DiPalantino and Milan Vojnovic. 2009. Crowdsourcing and all-pay auctions. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. 119--128.
[3]
Jeff Howe. 2006. The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired magazine 14, 6 (2006), 1--4.
[4]
Jon Kleinberg and Sigal Oren. 2022. Mechanisms for (Mis) allocating Scientific Credit. Algorithmica 84, 2 (2022), 344--378.
[5]
Winter Mason and Duncan J Watts. 2009. Financial incentives and the" performance of crowds". In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation. 77--85.
[6]
Hervé Moulin. 1980. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice 35, 4 (1980), 437--455.
[7]
Ariel D Procaccia and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2009. Approximate mechanism design without money. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. 177--186.
[8]
Dejun Yang, Guoliang Xue, Xi Fang, and Jian Tang. 2012. Crowdsourcing to smartphones: Incentive mechanism design for mobile phone sensing. In Proceedings of the 18th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking. 173--184.
[9]
Xinglin Zhang, Zheng Yang, Zimu Zhou, Haibin Cai, Lei Chen, and Xiangyang Li. 2014. Free market of crowdsourcing: Incentive mechanism design for mobile sensing. IEEE transactions on parallel and distributed systems 25, 12 (2014), 3190--3200.
[10]
Yu Zhang and Mihaela Van der Schaar. 2012. Reputation-based incentive protocols in crowdsourcing applications. In 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, 2140--2148.

Index Terms

  1. Facility Location Games with Task Allocation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    AAMAS '24: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
    May 2024
    2898 pages
    ISBN:9798400704864

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Richland, SC

    Publication History

    Published: 06 May 2024

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. facility location games
    2. nash equilibrium
    3. task allocation

    Qualifiers

    • Extended-abstract

    Funding Sources

    • Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR China

    Conference

    AAMAS '24
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 28
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)28
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 14 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media