From Recommendation Systems to Facility Location Games

Recommendation systems are extremely popular tools for matching users and contents. However, when content providers are strategic, the basic principle of matching users to the closest content, where both users and contents are modeled as points in some semantic space, may yield low social welfare. This is due to the fact that content providers are strategic and optimize their offered content to be recommended to as many users as possible. Motivated by modern applications, we propose the widely studied framework of facility location games to study recommendation systems with strategic content providers. Our conceptual contribution is the introduction of a mediator to facility location models, in the pursuit of better social welfare. We aim at designing mediators that a) induce a game with high social welfare in equilibrium, and b) intervene as little as possible. In service of the latter, we introduce the notion of intervention cost, which quantifies how much damage a mediator may cause to the social welfare when an off-equilibrium profile is adopted. As a case study in high-welfare low-intervention mediator design, we consider the one-dimensional segment as the user domain. We propose a mediator that implements the socially optimal strategy profile as the unique equilibrium profile, and show a tight bound on its intervention cost. Ultimately, we consider some extensions, and highlight open questions for the general agenda.

[1]  R. Vohra,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory: Mechanism Design without Money , 2007 .

[2]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Variations on the Hotelling-Downs Model , 2016, AAAI.

[3]  Lawrence G. Sager Handbook of Computational Social Choice , 2015 .

[4]  M. Scarsini,et al.  Hotelling Games on Networks: Existence and Efficiency of Equilibria , 2014, ArXiv.

[5]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Approximate mechanism design without money , 2009, EC '09.

[6]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  A Game-Theoretic Approach to Recommendation Systems with Strategic Content Providers , 2018, NeurIPS.

[7]  Martin J. Osborne,et al.  Candidate Positioning and Entry in a Political Competition , 1993 .

[8]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Multi-unit Facility Location Games , 2016, WINE.

[9]  H. Hotelling Stability in Competition , 1929 .

[10]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Convergence of Learning Dynamics in Information Retrieval Games , 2018, AAAI.

[11]  R. Lipsey,et al.  The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Reconsidered: Some New Developments in the Theory of Spatial Competition , 1975 .

[12]  Gerard Salton,et al.  A vector space model for automatic indexing , 1975, CACM.

[13]  R. Aumann Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies , 1974 .

[14]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  A Game Theoretic Approach to Learning and Dynamics in Information Retrieval , 2018, ArXiv.

[15]  A. Shaked Existence and Computation of Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibrium for 3-Firms Location Problem , 1982 .

[16]  André de Palma,et al.  Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation , 1995 .

[17]  Ran Ben Basat A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Adversarial Retrieval Setting , 2017 .

[18]  Christian Ewerhart,et al.  Mixed Equilibrium in a Pure Location Game: The Case of N ≥ 4 Firms , 2014 .

[19]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Shapley Facility Location Games , 2017, WINE.

[20]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Adversarial Retrieval Setting , 2017, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[21]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .

[22]  Steffen Brenner,et al.  Location (Hotelling) Games and Applications , 2011 .

[23]  Y. Shilony,et al.  Hotelling's competition with general customer distributions , 1981 .

[24]  L. Shapley A Value for n-person Games , 1988 .

[25]  S. Boicheva Mechanism Design without Money , 2012 .

[26]  Zihe Wang,et al.  Hotelling-Downs Model with Limited Attraction , 2016, AAMAS.

[27]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  On Social Laws for Artificial Agent Societies: Off-Line Design , 1995, Artif. Intell..