Source author record

Itai Feigenbaum

Itai Feigenbaum appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Computer Science and Game Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

1topics

3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

Selfish Knapsack

We consider a selfish variant of the knapsack problem. In our version, the items are owned by agents, and each agent can misrepresent the set of items she owns---either by avoiding reporting some of them (understating), or by reporting additional ones that do not exist (overstating). Each agent's objective is to maximize, within the items chosen for inclusion in the knapsack, the total valuation of her own chosen items. The knapsack problem, in this context, seeks to minimize the worst-case approximation ratio for social welfare at equilibrium. We show that a randomized greedy mechanism has attractive strategic properties: in general, it has a correlated price of anarchy of $2$ (subject to a mild assumption). For overstating-only agents, it becomes strategyproof; we also provide a matching lower bound of $2$ on the (worst-case) approximation ratio attainable by randomized strategyproof mechanisms, and show that no deterministic strategyproof mechanism can provide any constant approximation ratio. We also deal with more specialized environments. For the case of $2$ understating-only agents, we provide a randomized strategyproof $\frac{5+4\sqrt{2}}{7} \approx 1.522$-approximate mechanism, and a lower bound of $\frac{5\sqrt{5}-9}{2} \approx 1.09$. When all agents but one are honest, we provide a deterministic strategyproof $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2} \approx 1.618$-approximate mechanism with a matching lower bound. Finally, we consider a model where agents can misreport their items' properties rather than existence. Specifically, each agent owns a single item, whose value-to-size ratio is publicly known, but whose actual value and size are not. We show that an adaptation of the greedy mechanism is strategyproof and $2$-approximate, and provide a matching lower bound; we also show that no deterministic strategyproof mechanism can provide a constant approximation ratio.

preprint2015arXiv

Strategyproof Mechanisms for One-Dimensional Hybrid and Obnoxious Facility Location

We consider a strategic variant of the facility location problem. We would like to locate a facility on a closed interval. There are n agents located on that interval, divided into two types: type 1 agents, who wish for the facility to be as far from them as possible, and type 2 agents, who wish for the facility to be as close to them as possible. Our goal is to maximize a form of aggregated social benefit: maxisum- the sum of the agents' utilities, or the egalitarian objective- the minimal agent utility. The strategic aspect of the problem is that the agents' locations are not known to us, but rather reported to us by the agents- an agent might misreport his location in an attempt to move the facility away from or towards to his true location. We therefore require the facility-locating mechanism to be strategyproof, namely that reporting truthfully is a dominant strategy for each agent. As simply maximizing the social benefit is generally not strategyproof, our goal is to design strategyproof mechanisms with good approximation ratios. For the maxisum objective, in the deterministic setting, we provide a best-possible 3- approximate strategyproof mechanism; in the randomized setting, we provide a 23/13- approximate strategyproof mechanism and a lower bound of \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}. For the egalitarian objective, we provide a lower bound of 3/2 in the randomized setting, and show that no bounded approximation ratio is attainable in the deterministic setting. To obtain our deterministic lower bounds, we characterize all deterministic strategyproof mechanisms when all agents are of type 1. Finally, we consider a generalized model that allows an agent to control more than one location, and provide best-possible 3- and 3/2- approximate strategyproof mechanisms for maxisum, in the deterministic and randomized settings respectively, when only type 1 agents are present.

preprint2014arXiv

Approximately Optimal Mechanisms for Strategyproof Facility Location: Minimizing $L_p$ Norm of Costs

We consider the problem of locating a single facility on the real line. This facility serves a set of agents, each of whom is located on the line, and incurs a cost equal to his distance from the facility. An agent's location is private information that is known only to him. Agents report their location to a central planner who decides where to locate the facility. The planner's objective is to minimize a "social" cost function that depends on the agent-costs. However, agents might not report truthfully; to address this issue, the planner must restrict himself to {\em strategyproof} mechanisms, in which truthful reporting is a dominant strategy for each agent. A mechanism that simply chooses the optimal solution is generally not strategyproof, and so the planner aspires to use a mechanism that effectively {\em approximates} his objective function. In our paper, we study the problem described above with the social cost function being the $L_p$ norm of the vector of agent-costs. We show that the median mechanism (which is known to be strategyproof) provides a $2^{1-\frac{1}{p}}$ approximation ratio, and that is the optimal approximation ratio among all deterministic strategyproof mechanisms. For randomized mechanisms, we present two results. First, we present a negative result: we show that for integer $\infty>p>2$, no mechanism---from a rather large class of randomized mechanisms--- has an approximation ratio better than that of the median mechanism. This is in contrast to the case of $p=2$ and $p=\infty$ where a randomized mechanism provably helps improve the worst case approximation ratio. Second, for the case of 2 agents, we show that a mechanism called LRM, first designed by Procaccia and Tennenholtz for the special case of $L_{\infty}$, provides the optimal approximation ratio among all randomized mechanisms.

Institution

Affiliation not imported yet

This author record came from a source that does not expose affiliation metadata. Once the author claims the profile or we enrich the record from another provider, this section will link to the concrete institution.

Topic footprint