Paper detail

Voronoi Choice Games

We study novel variations of Voronoi games and associated random processes that we call Voronoi choice games. These games provide a rich framework for studying questions regarding the power of small numbers of choices in multi-player, competitive scenarios, and they further lead to many interesting, non-trivial random processes that appear worthy of study. As an example of the type of problem we study, suppose a group of $n$ miners are staking land claims through the following process: each miner has $m$ associated points independently and uniformly distributed on an underlying space, so the $k$th miner will have associated points $p_{k1},p_{k2},\ldots,p_{km}$. Each miner chooses one of these points as the base point for their claim. Each miner obtains mining rights for the area of the square that is closest to their chosen base, that is, they obtain the Voronoi cell corresponding to their chosen point in the Voronoi diagram of the $n$ chosen points. Each player's goal is simply to maximize the amount of land under their control. What can we say about the players' strategy and the equilibria of such games? In our main result, we derive bounds on the expected number of pure Nash equilibria for a variation of the 1-dimensional game on the circle where a player owns the arc starting from their point and moving clockwise to the next point. This result uses interesting properties of random arc lengths on circles, and demonstrates the challenges in analyzing these kinds of problems. We also provide several other related results. In particular, for the 1-dimensional game on the circle, we show that a pure Nash equilibrium always exists when each player owns the part of the circle nearest to their point, but it is NP-hard to determine whether a pure Nash equilibrium exists in the variant when each player owns the arc starting from their point clockwise to the next point.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.