Shapley Facility Location Games

Facility location games have been a topic of major interest in economics, operations research and computer science, starting from the seminal work by Hotelling. Spatial facility location models have successfully predicted the outcome of competition in a variety of scenarios. In a typical facility location game, users/customers/voters are mapped to a metric space representing their preferences, and each player picks a point (facility) in that space. In most facility location games considered in the literature, users are assumed to act deterministically: given the facilities chosen by the players, users are attracted to their nearest facility. This paper introduces facility location games with probabilistic attraction, dubbed Shapley facility location games, due to a surprising connection to the Shapley value. The specific attraction function we adopt in this model is aligned with the recent findings of the behavioral economics literature on choice prediction. Given this model, our first main result is that Shapley facility location games are potential games; hence, they possess pure Nash equilibrium. Moreover, the latter is true for any compact user space, any user distribution over that space, and any number of players. Note that this is in sharp contrast to Hotelling facility location games. In our second main result we show that under the assumption that players can compute an approximate best response, approximate equilibrium profiles can be learned efficiently by the players via dynamics. Our third main result is a bound on the Price of Anarchy of this class of games, as well as showing the bound is tight. Ultimately, we show that player payoffs coincide with their Shapley value in a coalition game, where coalition gains are the social welfare of the users.

[1]  P. Dubey On the uniqueness of the Shapley value , 1975 .

[2]  Jirí Matousek,et al.  The one-round Voronoi game , 2002, SCG '02.

[3]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Intrinsic Robustness of the Price of Anarchy , 2015, J. ACM.

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

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

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

[7]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  The Probability Ranking Principle is Not Optimal in Adversarial Retrieval Settings , 2015, ICTIR.

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

[9]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description , 2010 .

[10]  L. Shapley,et al.  REGULAR ARTICLEPotential Games , 1996 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[12]  Yossi Azar,et al.  Fast convergence to nearly optimal solutions in potential games , 2008, EC '08.

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

[14]  L. Shapley,et al.  Potential Games , 1994 .

[15]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  17. A Value for n-Person Games , 1953 .

[16]  R. Rosenthal A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria , 1973 .

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

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

[19]  Sándor P. Fekete,et al.  The one-round Voronoi game replayed , 2005, Comput. Geom..

[20]  I. Erev,et al.  From Anomalies to Forecasts: A Choice Prediction Competition for Decisions under Risk and Ambiguity , 2015 .

[21]  Steve Chien,et al.  Convergence to approximate Nash equilibria in congestion games , 2007, SODA '07.

[22]  A. Shared Non-existence of Equilibrium for the Two-dimensional Three-firms Location Problem , 1975 .

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

[24]  I. Erev,et al.  Small feedback‐based decisions and their limited correspondence to description‐based decisions , 2003 .

[25]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  The search duel: a response to a strong ranker , 2014, SIGIR.

[26]  Adrian Vetta,et al.  Nash equilibria in competitive societies, with applications to facility location, traffic routing and auctions , 2002, The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2002. Proceedings..

[27]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Psychological Forest: Predicting Human Behavior , 2016, AAAI.

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

[29]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Worst-case equilibria , 1999 .

[30]  Otfried Cheong,et al.  Competitive facility location: the Voronoi game , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[31]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory: Preface , 2007 .

[32]  D. McFadden Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products , 1980 .