Abstract:The facility location with strategic agents is a canonical problem in the literature on mechanism design without money. Recently, Agrawal et. al. considered this problem in the context of machine learning augmented algorithms, where the mechanism designer is also given a prediction of the optimal facility location. An ideal mechanism in this framework produces an outcome that is close to the social optimum when the prediction is accurate (consistency) and gracefully degrades as the prediction deviates from the truth, while retaining some of the worst-case approximation guarantees (robustness). The previous work only addressed this problem in the two-dimensional Euclidean space providing optimal trade-offs between robustness and consistency guarantees for deterministic mechanisms.
We consider the problem for \emph{general} metric spaces. Our only assumption is that the metric is continuous, meaning that any pair of points must be connected by a continuous shortest path. We introduce a novel mechanism that in addition to agents' reported locations takes a predicted optimal facility location $\hat{o}$. We call this mechanism $\texttt{Harmonic}$, as it selects one of the reported locations $\tilde{\ell}_i$ with probability inversely proportional to $d(\hat{o},\tilde{\ell}_i)+ \Delta$ for a constant parameter $\Delta$. While \harm \ mechanism is not truthful, we can \emph{characterize the set of undominated strategies} for each agent $i$ as solely consisting of the points on a shortest path from their true location $\ell_i$ to the predicted location $\hat{o}$. We further derive \emph{consistency and robustness guarantees on the Price of Anarchy (PoA)} for the game induced by the mechanism.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problem does this paper attempt to solve?
This paper aims to solve how to use machine - learning - augmented advice to optimize the facility location problem in general metric spaces. Specifically, the paper focuses on how to design a mechanism in an environment containing strategic agents, so that the mechanism can approach the socially optimal solution (consistency) when the prediction is accurate, and still maintain a certain worst - case approximation guarantee (robustness) when the prediction is inaccurate.
#### Background and Motivation
The traditional facility location problem usually assumes that all agents will truthfully report their locations, but agents in reality may be strategic and may misreport their locations to influence the final location - selection decision. Therefore, researchers introduced the concept of mechanism design, that is, to design a mechanism so that even if agents can misreport their locations, the mechanism can still achieve good results. However, traditional methods can often only provide performance guarantees in the worst - case scenario, which may be too pessimistic in practical applications.
Recent research has shown that by introducing machine - learning predictions, the performance of the mechanism can be improved to a certain extent. For example, Agrawal et al. showed how to use predictions to design a strategy - proof mechanism close to the optimal solution in two - dimensional Euclidean space. However, most of these methods are limited to low - dimensional Euclidean spaces and have not been extended to more general metric spaces.
#### Main Contributions of the Paper
1. **Proposing the Harmonic Mechanism**: The authors propose a new mechanism called the Harmonic mechanism. This mechanism selects a reported location as the facility location with a probability inversely proportional to its distance from the predicted location. This mechanism is not only applicable to general metric spaces, but also can approach the optimal solution when the prediction is accurate and maintain a certain robustness when the prediction is inaccurate.
2. **Analyzing Consistency and Robustness**: The authors analyze in detail the consistency and robustness of the Harmonic mechanism. When the predicted location is γ - approximately optimal, the α - consistency of the Harmonic mechanism is:
\[
\alpha=\gamma(1 + 2c)
\]
where \(c\) is the ratio of the parameter \(\Delta\) to the average distance \(a\), that is, \(c=\frac{\Delta}{a}\), and \(a = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^{n}d(\hat{o},\ell_{i})\)
When the prediction is inaccurate, the mechanism can still maintain a certain approximation guarantee.
3. **Balancing Consistency and Robustness**: By adjusting the parameter \(\Delta\), consistency and robustness can be flexibly balanced. A smaller \(\Delta\) means better consistency, while a larger \(\Delta\) makes the mechanism closer to the Random Dictatorship, thereby improving robustness.
4. **Analysis of Non - Strategy - Proof Mechanisms**: Although the Harmonic mechanism is not strategy - proof, the authors show how it can limit the agents' non - dominated strategy space and prove the existence of pure Nash equilibria. In addition, the authors analyze the Price of Anarchy (PoA) of the game induced by the Harmonic mechanism and give the corresponding bounds.
### Formula Summary
- **Selection Probability of the Harmonic Mechanism**:
\[
\Pr[f\leftarrow\tilde{\ell}_{i}]=\frac{1}{d(\hat{o},\tilde{\ell}_{i})+\Delta}\big/\sum_{j = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{d(\hat{o},\tilde{\ell}_{j})+\Delta}
\]
- **Consistency**:
When the predicted location \(\hat{o}\) is \(\gamma\)- approximately optimal, the \(\alpha\)- consistency of the Harmonic mechanism is:
\[
\alpha=\gamma(1 + 2c)
\]
where \(c=\frac{\Delta}{a}\), and \(a=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^{n}d(\hat{o},\ell_{i})\)
- **Robustness**:
- For general metric spaces, the robustness of the Harmonic mechanism is:
\[
O\left(1+\frac{1}{c^{3}}\right)
\]
- For strictly convex metric spaces, the robustness is...