Two-Stage Facility Location Games with Strategic Clients and Facilities

Read original: arXiv:2105.01425 - Published 6/17/2024 by Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Louise Molitor, Alexander Skopalik

🌐

Overview

The paper explores non-cooperative facility location games where both facilities and clients act strategically and heavily influence each other.
This contrasts with traditional game-theoretic facility location models where clients simply select the closest opened facility without strategic behavior.
In the model, each facility location has a set of attracted clients, and each client has a set of shopping locations and a weight corresponding to their spending capacity.
Facility agents selfishly select a location to open their facility to maximize the total spending capacity of the attracted clients, while clients strategically decide how to distribute their spending across the opened facilities.
Clients aim to minimize their maximum waiting time for getting serviced, where a facility's waiting time corresponds to its total attracted client weight.

Plain English Explanation

The paper examines a type of game where both the facilities (e.g., stores, restaurants) and the clients (e.g., customers) behave strategically and influence each other's decisions. This is different from traditional models where clients simply choose the closest open facility without considering their own interests.

In this model, each facility location has a set of clients it can attract, and each client has a set of shopping locations they can choose from and a spending capacity. The facility owners want to open their facilities in locations that will attract the clients with the highest total spending capacity. Meanwhile, the clients want to distribute their spending in a way that minimizes the maximum time they have to wait to be served, as a facility's waiting time depends on the total client weight it attracts.

[This research explores a type of strategic facility location game where facilities and clients influence each other's decisions, in contrast with traditional game-theoretic models where clients simply choose the closest open facility.]

Technical Explanation

The paper shows that subgame perfect equilibria exist in these non-cooperative facility location games and provides almost tight constant bounds on the Price of Anarchy and the Price of Stability, which hold for a broader class of games with arbitrary client behavior.

Since the facilities and clients heavily influence each other, the paper provides an efficient algorithm that allows the facilities to anticipate the selfish clients' behavior when selecting their location. This algorithm also implies an efficient way to check for equilibrium in the game.

Additionally, the paper demonstrates that computing a socially optimal facility placement is NP-hard, and this result holds for all feasible client weight distributions. This means that finding the best overall outcome for both facilities and clients is a computationally difficult problem.

[The research examines a type of strategic resource selection game where facilities and clients influence each other, and shows that computing the optimal outcome is an NP-hard problem.]

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thorough analysis of the non-cooperative facility location game and the strategic interactions between facilities and clients. The authors have made a significant effort to characterize the equilibria, price of anarchy, and the computational complexity of finding optimal solutions.

One potential limitation of the research is that it assumes a specific client behavior model, where clients aim to minimize their maximum waiting time. While this is a natural and well-studied model, it would be interesting to see how the results would generalize to other client behavior models, such as those that consider fairness and incentives in addition to waiting times.

Additionally, the paper does not provide any empirical evaluation or case studies to demonstrate the practical relevance and implications of the theoretical results. It would be valuable to see how the insights from this research could be applied in real-world facility location problems, such as the placement of retail stores, healthcare facilities, or public services.

Conclusion

This paper makes a significant contribution to the understanding of non-cooperative facility location games, where both facilities and clients act strategically and influence each other's decisions. The theoretical results on the existence of equilibria, the bounds on the price of anarchy and stability, and the computational complexity of finding optimal solutions provide a solid foundation for further research in this area.

The insights from this work could have important implications for a wide range of practical applications, such as the strategic placement of businesses, public services, and other facilities that cater to a diverse set of clients with varying preferences and needs. By accounting for the strategic interactions between facilities and clients, decision-makers can develop more effective and efficient facility location strategies.

[The research explores a strategic facility location game where facilities and clients influence each other, providing theoretical insights that could inform practical applications across various domains.]

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

🌐

Two-Stage Facility Location Games with Strategic Clients and Facilities

Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Louise Molitor, Alexander Skopalik

We consider non-cooperative facility location games where both facilities and clients act strategically and heavily influence each other. This contrasts established game-theoretic facility location models with non-strategic clients that simply select the closest opened facility. In our model, every facility location has a set of attracted clients and each client has a set of shopping locations and a weight that corresponds to her spending capacity. Facility agents selfishly select a location for opening their facility to maximize the attracted total spending capacity, whereas clients strategically decide how to distribute their spending capacity among the opened facilities in their shopping range. We focus on a natural client behavior similar to classical load balancing: our selfish clients aim for a distribution that minimizes their maximum waiting times for getting serviced, where a facility's waiting time corresponds to its total attracted client weight. We show that subgame perfect equilibria exist and give almost tight constant bounds on the Price of Anarchy and the Price of Stability, which even hold for a broader class of games with arbitrary client behavior. Since facilities and clients influence each other, it is crucial for the facilities to anticipate the selfish clients' behavior when selecting their location. For this, we provide an efficient algorithm that also implies an efficient check for equilibrium. Finally, we show that computing a socially optimal facility placement is NP-hard and that this result holds for all feasible client weight distributions.

6/17/2024

💬

Strategic Facility Location with Clients that Minimize Total Waiting Time

Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Alexander Skopalik

We study a non-cooperative two-sided facility location game in which facilities and clients behave strategically. This is in contrast to many other facility location games in which clients simply visit their closest facility. Facility agents select a location on a graph to open a facility to attract as much purchasing power as possible, while client agents choose which facilities to patronize by strategically distributing their purchasing power in order to minimize their total waiting time. Here, the waiting time of a facility depends on its received total purchasing power. We show that our client stage is an atomic splittable congestion game, which implies existence, uniqueness and efficient computation of a client equilibrium. Therefore, facility agents can efficiently predict client behavior and make strategic decisions accordingly. Despite that, we prove that subgame perfect equilibria do not exist in all instances of this game and that their existence is NP-hard to decide. On the positive side, we provide a simple and efficient algorithm to compute 3-approximate subgame perfect equilibria.

6/14/2024

🔄

Equilibria in Two-Stage Facility Location with Atomic Clients

Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Alexander Skopalik, Marc Uetz, Marnix C. Vos

We consider competitive facility location as a two-stage multi-agent system with two types of clients. For a given host graph with weighted clients on the vertices, first facility agents strategically select vertices for opening their facilities. Then, the clients strategically select which of the opened facilities in their neighborhood to patronize. Facilities want to attract as much client weight as possible, clients want to minimize congestion on the chosen facility. All recently studied versions of this model assume that clients can split their weight strategically. We consider clients with unsplittable weights but allow mixed strategies. So clients may randomize over which facility to patronize. Besides modeling a natural client behavior, this subtle change yields drastic changes, e.g., for a given facility placement, qualitatively different client equilibria are possible. As our main result, we show that pure subgame perfect equilibria always exist if all client weights are identical. For this, we use a novel potential function argument, employing a hierarchical classification of the clients and sophisticated rounding in each step. In contrast, for non-identical clients, we show that deciding the existence of even approximately stable states is computationally intractable. On the positive side, we give a tight bound of $2$ on the price of anarchy which implies high social welfare of equilibria, if they exist.

7/10/2024

📈

Facility Location Games Beyond Single-Peakedness: the Entrance Fee Model

Mengfan Ma, Mingyu Xiao, Tian Bai, Bakh Khoussainov

The facility location game has been studied extensively in mechanism design. In the classical model, each agent's cost is solely determined by her distance to the nearest facility. In this paper, we introduce a novel model where each facility charges an entrance fee. Thus, the cost of each agent is determined by both the distance to the facility and the entrance fee of the facility. In our model, the entrance fee function is allowed to be an arbitrary function, causing agents' preferences may no longer be single-peaked anymore: This departure from the classical model introduces additional challenges. We systematically delve into the intricacies of the model, designing strategyproof mechanisms with favorable approximation ratios. Additionally, we complement these ratios with nearly-tight impossibility results. Specifically, for one-facility and two-facility games, we provide upper and lower bounds for the approximation ratios given by deterministic and randomized mechanisms with respect to utilitarian and egalitarian objectives.

4/16/2024