We study mechanisms for the facility location problem augmented with predictions of the optimal facility location. We demonstrate that an egalitarian viewpoint which considers both the maximum distance of any agent from the facility and the minimum utility of any agent provides important new insights compared to a viewpoint that just considers the maximum distance. As in previous studies, we consider performance in terms of consistency (worst case when predictions are accurate) and robustness (worst case irrespective of the accuracy of predictions). By considering how mechanisms with predictions can perform poorly, we design new mechanisms that are more robust. Indeed, by adjusting parameters, we demonstrate how to trade robustness for consistency. We go beyond the single facility problem by designing novel strategy proof mechanisms for locating two facilities with bounded consistency and robustness that use two predictions for where to locate the two facilities.

Many learning problems hinge on the fundamental problem of subset selection, i.e., identifying a subset of important and representative points. For example, selecting the most significant samples in ML training cannot only reduce training costs but also enhance model quality. Submodularity, a discrete analogue of convexity, is commonly used for solving subset selection problems. However, existing algorithms for optimizing submodular functions are sequential, and the prior distributed methods require at least one central machine to fit the target subset. In this paper, we relax the requirement of having a central machine for the target subset by proposing a novel distributed bounding algorithm with provable approximation guarantees. The algorithm iteratively bounds the minimum and maximum utility values to select high quality points and discard the unimportant ones. When bounding does not find the complete subset, we use a multi-round, partition-based distributed greedy algorithm to identify the remaining subset. We show that these algorithms find high quality subsets on CIFAR-100 and ImageNet with marginal or no loss in quality compared to centralized methods, and scale to a dataset with 13 billion points.

We study the mechanism design problem of a social planner for locating two facilities on a line interval [0, 1], where a set of n strategic agents report their locations and a mechanism determines the locations of the two facilities. We consider the requirement of a minimum distance 0 ≤ d ≤ 1 between the two facilities. Given the two facilities are heterogeneous, we model the cost/utility of an agent as the sum of his distances to both facilities. In the heterogeneous two-facility location game to minimize the social cost, we show that the optimal solution can be computed in polynomial time and prove that carefully choosing one optimal solution as output is strategyproof. We also design a strategyproof mechanism minimizing the maximum cost. Given the two facilities are homogeneous, we model the cost/utility of an agent as his distance to the closer facility. In the homogeneous two-facility location game for minimizing the social cost, we show that any deterministic strategyproof mechanism has unbounded approximation ratio. Moreover, in the obnoxious heterogeneous two-facility location game for maximizing the social utility, we propose new deterministic group strategyproof mechanisms with provable approximation ratios and establish a lower bound (7 − d)/6 for any deterministic strategyproof mechanism. We also design a strategyproof mechanism maximizing the minimum utility. In the obnoxious homogeneous two-facility location game for maximizing the social utility, we propose deterministic group strategyproof mechanisms with provable approximation ratios and establish a lower bound 4/3. Besides, in the two-facility location game with triple-preference, where each facility may be favorable, obnoxious, indifferent for any agent, we further motivate agents to report both their locations and preferences towards the two facilities truthfully, and design a deterministic group strategyproof mechanism with an approximation ratio 4.

In this paper, we propose a fractional preference model for the facility location game with two facilities that serve the similar purpose on a line where each agent has his location information as well as fractional preference to indicate how well they prefer the facilities. The preference for each facility is in the range of [0, L] such that the sum of the preference for all facilities is equal to 1. The utility is measured by subtracting the sum of the cost of both facilities from the total length L where the cost of facilities is defined as the multiplication of the fractional preference and the distance between the agent and the facilities. We first show that the lower bound for the objective of minimizing total cost is at least Ω(n^1/3). Hence, we use the utility function to analyze the agents' satification. Our objective is to place two facilities on [0, L] to maximize the social utility or the minimum utility. For each objective function, we propose deterministic strategy-proof mechanisms. For the objective of maximizing the social utility, we present an optimal deterministic strategy-proof mechanism in the case where agents can only misreport their locations. In the case where agents can only misreport their preferences, we present a 2-approximation deterministic strategy-proof mechanism. Finally, we present a 4-approximation deterministic strategy-proof mechanism and a randomized strategy-proof mechanism with an approximation ratio of 2 where agents can misreport both the preference and location information. Moreover, we also give a lower-bound of 1.06. For the objective of maximizing the minimum utility, we give a lower-bound of 1.5 and present a 2-approximation deterministic strategy-proof mechanism where agents can misreport both the preference and location.

Some well-known paradoxes in decision making (e.g., the Allais paradox, the St. Peterburg paradox, the Ellsberg paradox, and the Machina paradox) reveal that choices conventional expected utility theory predicts could be inconsistent with empirical observations. So, solutions to these paradoxes can help us better understand humans decision making accurately. This is also highly related to the prediction power of a decision-making model in real-world applications. Thus, various models have been proposed to address these paradoxes. However, most of them can only solve parts of the paradoxes, and for doing so some of them have to rely on the parameter tuning without proper justifications for such bounds of parameters. To this end, this paper proposes a new descriptive decision-making model, expected utility with relative loss reduction, which can exhibit the same qualitative behaviours as those observed in experiments of these paradoxes without any additional parameter setting. In particular, we introduce the concept of relative loss reduction to reflect people's tendency to prefer ensuring a sufficient minimum loss to just a maximum expected utility in decision-making under risk or ambiguity.