Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 45 references

The Bakers and Millers Game with Restricted Locations

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Restricted baker locations do not destroy equilibrium existence: a polynomial-time algorithm finds a pure Nash equilibrium in the Bakers and Millers Game, with tight efficiency bounds on equilibria.

desk verdict Strong, well-motivated generalization of the Bakers and Millers Game with clean bounds, but the central existence proof has a gap in Lemma 2.3 that needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05334 v2 pith:LCLH2SZI submitted 2025-01-09 cs.GT cs.AI

Simon Krogmann , Pascal Lenzner , Alexander Skopalik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.AI
keywords bakersandmillersgamerestrictedlocationspureNashequilibriumpriceofanarchystabilitycoveragefractionalhedonicgamesmin-costflow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies a strategic location-choice game in which millers can open shops anywhere but each baker can only use a personal subset of locations. Its central claim is that pure Nash equilibria always exist in this restricted setting and can be found in polynomial time, even though existence is trivial only when everyone can choose every location. It also pins down the efficiency of equilibria measured by coverage, the number of bakers with at least one miller at their location: the best equilibrium loses at most a factor $1+\frac{\min(|L|,|M|)-1}{|M|}$ in covered bakers, the worst can lose $|B|$, and the algorithm's own equilibrium has an extra $\frac{e}{e-1}$ factor. These results matter because asymmetric access constraints are common in real markets and because the location-choice layer generalizes standard fractional hedonic games.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the potential function $\Phi_{t^*}(s) = \sum_{\ell \in L} M_{t^*}(\ell) H_{B_s(\ell)}$, a Rosenthal potential for the bakers once millers are fixed, where $H_i$ is the $i$-th harmonic number. Algorithm 1's final phase maximizes this potential via a reduction to integral min-cost flow, and the difference graph, which records each baker's move from the greedy assignment to the potential-maximizing assignment, is used to argue that miller deviations remain unprofitable. The approximation argument leans on the known $\frac{e}{e-1}$ ratio of the greedy maximum $k$-coverage algorithm.

What would settle it

Find an instance with, say, three to five locations and a handful of bakers and millers where Algorithm 1's output is not a pure Nash equilibrium, or where the difference graph has a start location with several outgoing arcs and the inequality $B_{s^*}(p_1)+1 \le B_s(p_1)$ fails; then check directly whether a miller at the low-utility location has an improving deviation. A short computer search over small instances would settle whether such a counterexample exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that restricting one side's feasible locations does not destroy equilibrium existence. Algorithm 1 constructs a strategy profile $(s^*, t^*)$ that is a pure Nash equilibrium in polynomial time, using a three-phase construction: first bakers are concentrated greedily into the fullest accessible locations, then millers are placed at their best-response locations, and finally bakers are rebalanced to maximize a Rosenthal potential while preserving the miller equilibrium. The same algorithm yields a coverage approximation of $\left(1+\frac{\min(|L|,|M|)-1}{|M|}\right)\frac{e}{e-1}$, while the price of stability is exactly $1+\frac{\min(|L|,|M|)-1}{|M|}$ and the price of anarchy is exactly $|B|$. The paper also proves that computing the socially optimal profile or the socially optimal pure Nash equilibrium is NP-hard.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that a pure Nash equilibrium always exists rests on a single unproven step: when bakers are shifted to the potential-maximizing locations, the least satisfied miller must not end up with fewer bakers than before, and the paper's written justification of this step is incomplete for locations that send bakers to multiple other locations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Restricted baker locations do not prevent equilibrium existence: Algorithm 1 computes a pure Nash equilibrium in polynomial time for every instance.
  • The equilibrium produced by Algorithm 1 has coverage at least $\mathrm{OPT} / \left(\left(1+\frac{\min(|L|,|M|)-1}{|M|}\right)\frac{e}{e-1}\right)$, where $\mathrm{OPT}$ is the optimal coverage.
  • The price of stability is exactly $1+\frac{\min(|L|,|M|)-1}{|M|}$, so the best equilibrium always covers at least this fraction of the bakers that an optimal placement could cover, and some instances force exactly this loss.
  • The price of anarchy is exactly $|B|$, meaning coordinated play can be up to the number of bakers worse than uncoordinated equilibrium play.
  • Finding the social optimum or the socially optimal pure Nash equilibrium is NP-hard, even though a near-optimal equilibrium can be found efficiently.
  • Weighted bakers with unweighted millers admit an improving-response cycle, so potential-based proofs do not extend directly to that weighted setting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the gap flagged in Lemma 2.3 could be probed by a small computer search; if the inequality $B_{s^*}(p_1)+1 \le B_s(p_1)$ fails for a start location with multiple outgoing arcs, Algorithm 1's correctness proof would need repair, even if the existence theorem itself holds.
  • Editorial inference: the location-choice layer could be added to other hedonic game families beyond fractional and diversity games; the natural next test is whether Nash stability remains guaranteed when coalition sets are restricted by such a location filter.
  • Editorial inference: because weighted agents already produce an improving-response cycle, extending these results to weighted bakers or millers would require a different technique than potential functions.
  • Editorial inference: since the paper leaves open whether the combined approximation factor is tight, a concrete test is whether instances can force Algorithm 1 to attain the full product $\left(1+\frac{\min(|L|,|M|)-1}{|M|}\right)\frac{e}{e-1}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Bakers and Millers Game with restricted baker locations, a two-sided strategic location-choice game in which bakers have an agent-specific set of feasible locations and millers can choose any location. Agent utilities are ratios of opposite-type to same-type agents at the chosen location. The main contribution is a polynomial-time algorithm (Algorithm 1) that computes a pure Nash equilibrium; the resulting equilibrium is shown to approximate the maximum coverage (number of bakers with at least one miller at their location) within a factor of (1 + (min(|L|,|M|)-1)/|M|) * e/(e-1). The paper also proves tight bounds on the price of anarchy (|B|) and price of stability (1 + (min(|L|,|M|)-1)/|M|), and shows NP-hardness of computing a social-welfare-optimal strategy profile and of computing a socially optimal pure Nash equilibrium. The model is positioned as a generalization of simple symmetric fractional hedonic games and of hedonic diversity games with single-peaked utilities.

Significance. If the correctness proof is completed, the paper makes a solid contribution: it provides a constructive existence proof for pure Nash equilibria in a nontrivial extension of fractional hedonic games, uses a clean min-cost-flow reduction to compute a potential maximizer, and gives tight efficiency bounds. The algorithmic result and the PoA/PoS characterizations are nicely packaged, and the NP-hardness reductions from Maximum k-Coverage are standard but effective. The connection to hedonic games and the coverage-based social welfare measure are well motivated. The main theoretical claim, however, currently rests on an incomplete proof step in Lemma 2.3, so the significance is conditional on repairing that gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lemma 2.3, Eq. (6)] The sentence after Eq. (6) — "which implies that the minimal utility of any miller for s* is not smaller than for s" — is not justified by the preceding inequalities. Eq. (6) compares the s*-utility of a path's start with the s-utility of that path's endpoint; it says nothing directly about internal vertices of a path or about locations that are not starts of paths. The claim can be repaired, but the repair requires an additional case distinction that is absent: if a location v has net outflow in the difference graph, then outdegree(v) > indegree(v), so v is the start of at least one path and Eq. (6) applies to v; if v has net inflow, then B_s*(v) >= B_s(v), so u_s*(v) >= u_s(v). Without this argument, the global minimum-utility claim is unsupported, and since that claim is used in Eqs. (7)-(10) to rule out miller deviations, the proof of Lemma 2.3 — and hence of Theorem 2.1 — is incomplete as written.
  2. [Lemma 3.4] The proof asserts that "each of the |M| locations inside L_opt has at least as many bakers assigned to it as the most profitable location ℓ outside L_opt," and justifies this only by saying that otherwise a better L'_opt could be formed by swapping in ℓ. This exchange argument is load-bearing because it is what prevents a miller from profitably deviating to a location outside L_opt. As written, the assertion is too terse: it should explicitly argue that the number of bakers assigned to a location in L_opt is at least the number of bakers for which that location is the only feasible option in L_opt, and that if an outside location ℓ had more assigned bakers than some l in L_opt, then replacing l by ℓ would increase the coverage of L_opt, contradicting its optimality. Please expand this step.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Several headings contain the typo "Eqilibrium" instead of "Equilibrium" (e.g., Lemma 2.2, Lemma 2.3, and the paragraph before Lemma 2.2).
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 9] Line 9 of Algorithm 1 refers to "Theorem 2.4" when it should refer to "Lemma 2.4"; the same misreference appears in the sentence after Lemma 2.3.
  3. [Lemma 2.3, Eq. (3)] The phrase "rearranging the bakers backwards along that path" should explicitly state that this means reversing every arc of the path, moving each baker from p_{i+1} back to p_i. This makes clear why the move is feasible (each baker returns to a location it occupied in s) and why only p1 and pm change. As written, the statement could be misread as moving an arbitrary baker from pm to p1, which need not be feasible.
  4. [Lemma 2.3, Figure 4 caption] The caption of Figure 4 says "For Theorem 2.3" but should say "For Lemma 2.3".
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (12)] The paragraph after Eq. (12) states that in equilibrium the first sum evaluates to |M|. This uses the fact that in equilibrium every miller must be located at a location with at least one baker; otherwise the miller could improve by moving to a location with a baker. Please state this explicitly.
  6. [Lemma 3.4] The sentence "If not L_opt = L, then L_opt has |M| locations" should clarify that this is the case |M| <= |L|; if |M| > |L| then L_opt = L and there are no outside locations, so the subsequent argument is moot. Adding this clarification would help the reader follow the case analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: derivation rests on external Rosenthal-potential, min-cost-flow, and greedy-coverage results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. Algorithm 1 is a constructive procedure: greedy max-coverage location ordering (Section 2, lines 2-6), greedy miller best responses (line 8), and a potential-function maximizer computed by min-cost flow (Lemma 2.4). Baker equilibrium follows from the exact Rosenthal potential argument, with no fitted parameters. Miller equilibrium maintenance (Lemma 2.3) is attempted via the difference graph and the global maximizer property; even if the inference from equation (6) to the global minimum-utility claim is incomplete as a proof, that claim is not assumed as an input and is not equivalent to the conclusion by construction. The welfare bounds combine the external e/(e-1) greedy k-coverage ratio (Hochbaum-Pathria [29]) with explicit constructions, and the PoS/PoA bounds are proved from scratch. Self-citations ([26], [33]-[35]) appear only in related-work comparisons and are not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems rest only on standard results in algorithmic game theory and combinatorial optimization. There are no free parameters, no fitted values, and no newly postulated entities. The only conceptual novelty is the modeling restriction on baker locations, which is part of the problem definition rather than an extra assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math NP-hardness of Maximum k-Coverage and the e/(e-1) approximation ratio of the greedy algorithm for it
    Invoked in Theorems 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9 to prove NP-hardness and the approximation factor.
  • standard math Rosenthal's exact potential function guarantees existence of pure Nash equilibria in congestion games and is maximized here
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2.1 and in Lemma 2.4 to justify computing a baker equilibrium by maximizing Phi_t*.
  • standard math Orlin's strongly polynomial minimum-cost flow algorithm
    Used in Lemma 2.4 to compute the maximizer of Phi_t* in polynomial time.
  • domain assumption Equivalence of the game to simple symmetric FHGs on complete bipartite valuation graphs and to HDGs with single-peaked utilities
    Used in the introduction to position the model; it is a modeling claim, not a mathematical premise for the main theorems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Bakers and Millers Game with Restricted Locations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCLH2SZI

@misc{pith2026250105334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Bakers and Millers Game with Restricted Locations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCLH2SZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05334}
}
abstract

We study strategic location choice by customers and sellers, termed the Bakers and Millers Game in the literature. In our generalized setting, each miller can freely choose any location for setting up a mill, while each baker is restricted in the choice of location for setting up a bakery. For optimal bargaining power, a baker would like to select a location with many millers to buy flour from and with little competition from other bakers. Likewise, a miller aims for a location with many bakers and few competing millers. Thus, both types of agents choose locations to optimize the ratio of agents of opposite type divided by agents of the same type at their chosen location. Originally raised in the context of Fractional Hedonic Games, the Bakers and Millers Game has applications that range from commerce to product design. We study the impact of location restrictions on the properties of the game. While pure Nash equilibria trivially exist in the setting without location restrictions, we show via a sophisticated, efficient algorithm that even the more challenging restricted setting admits equilibria. Moreover, the computed equilibrium approximates the optimal social welfare by a factor of at most $2\left(\frac{e}{e-1}\right)$. Furthermore, we give tight bounds on the price of anarchy/stability. On the conceptual side, the location choice feature adds a new layer to the standard setting of Hedonic Games, in the sense that agents that select the same location form a coalition. This allows to naturally restrict the possible coalitions that can be formed. With this, our model generalizes simple symmetric Fractional Hedonic Games on complete bipartite valuation graphs and also Hedonic Diversity Games with utilities single-peaked at 0. We believe that this generalization is also a very interesting direction for other types of Hedonic Games.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the Bakers and Millers Game with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the first loop of Algorithm 1: Loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An instance with two Nash equilibria which differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For Theorem 2.3 and the state (s, t ∗ ) on the left, the arrows indicate the strategy changes of bakers from s to s ∗ , e.g., there is a baker 𝑏 with 𝑠𝑏 = 𝑣 and 𝑠 ∗ 𝑏 = 𝑧. This results in the difference graph 𝐺 on the right, with the two paths 𝑃1 and 𝑃2 making up the p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: To compute the maximizer of Φt ∗ , the instance on the left with the given assignment of millers t ∗ is reduced to the MinCostFlow instance on the right by Theorem 2.4. All edge capacities are 1 and the costs are given by the labels. Lemma 2.4 (Potential Function Maxim…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This instance illustrates the worst case for the price [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An instance with |L| = |M | with the price of stabil￾ity approaching 1 + min( | L |,|M | )−1 |M | as 𝑛 → ∞. Left: The social welfare optimum, right: the only pure Nash equilibrium. 3.2 Complexity and Approximation of Optimal Solutions We first show hardness of computin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An instance with weighted bakers and unweighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Voudouris

    Aishwarya Agarwal, Edith Elkind, Jiarui Gan, Ayumi Igarashi, Warut Suksom- pong, and Alexandros A. Voudouris. 2021. Schelling games on graphs.Artificial Intelligence301, 103576 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTINT.2021.103576

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Elliot Anshelevich, Anirban Dasgupta, Jon Kleinberg, Éva Tardos, Tom Wexler, and Tim Roughgarden. 2004. The Price of Stability for Network Design with Fair Cost Allocation. InFOCS. 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2004.68

    work page doi:10.1109/focs.2004.68 2004

  3. [3]

    Haris Aziz, Florian Brandl, Felix Brandt, Paul Harrenstein, Martin Olsen, and Dominik Peters. 2019. Fractional Hedonic Games.Transactions on Economics and Computation7, 2, Article 6 (2019), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3327970

    work page doi:10.1145/3327970 2019

  4. [4]

    Haris Aziz, Felix Brandt, and Paul Harrenstein. 2014. Fractional hedonic games. InAAMAS. 5–12. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2615731.2615736

    work page arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Davide Bilò, Vittorio Bilò, Pascal Lenzner, and Louise Molitor. 2022. Tolerance is Necessary for Stability: Single-Peaked Swap Schelling Games. InIJCAI. 81–87. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/12

    doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/12 2022

  6. [6]

    Vittorio Bilò, Angelo Fanelli, Michele Flammini, Gianpiero Monaco, and Luca Moscardelli. 2018. Nash stable outcomes in fractional hedonic games: Existence, efficiency and computation.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research62 (2018), 315–371. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11211

    doi:10.1613/jair.1.11211 2018

  7. [7]

    Duncan Black. 1948. On the rationale of group decision-making.Journal of political economy56, 1 (1948), 23–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1825026

    work page arXiv 1948

  8. [8]

    Richard Blundell. 1988. Consumer behaviour: theory and empirical evidence—a survey.The Economic Journal98, 389 (1988), 16–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2233510

    work page 1988

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Niclas Boehmer and Edith Elkind. 2020. Individual-Based Stability in Hedonic Diversity Games. InAAAI. 1822–1829. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.V34I02.5549

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Anna Bogomolnaia and Matthew O. Jackson. 2002. The stability of hedonic coalition structures.Games and Economic Behavior38, 2 (2002), 201–230. https: //doi.org/10.1006/game.2001.0877

    2002

  3. [11]

    Florian Brandl, Felix Brandt, and Martin Strobel. 2015. Fractional Hedonic Games: Individual and Group Stability. InAAMAS. 1219–1227. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 5555/2772879.2773307

    2015

  4. [14]

    Ankit Chauhan, Pascal Lenzner, and Louise Molitor. 2018. Schelling Segregation with Strategic Agents. InSAGT, Vol. 11059. 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-99660-8_13

    2018 doi

  5. [15]

    Anthony Downs. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy65, 2 (1957), 135–150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1827369

    1957

  6. [16]

    Dreze and Joseph Greenberg

    Jacques H. Dreze and Joseph Greenberg. 1980. Hedonic coalitions: Optimality and stability.Econometrica(1980), 987–1003. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912943

    1980 doi

  7. [17]

    Christoph Dürr and Kim Thang Nguyen. 2007. Nash Equilibria in Voronoi Games on Graphs. InESA. 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75520-3_4

    2007 doi

  8. [18]

    Hagen Echzell, Tobias Friedrich, Pascal Lenzner, Louise Molitor, Marcus Pappik, Friedrich Schöne, Fabian Sommer, and David Stangl. 2019. Convergence and Hardness of Strategic Schelling Segregation. InWINE. 156–170. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-35389-6_12

    2019 doi

  9. [19]

    Eiselt, Gilbert Laporte, and Jaques-Francois Thisse

    Horst A. Eiselt, Gilbert Laporte, and Jaques-Francois Thisse. 1993. Competitive Location Models: A Framework and Bibliography.Transportation Science27, 1 (1993), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.27.1.44

    1993 doi

  10. [20]

    Alex Fabrikant, Christos Papadimitriou, and Kunal Talwar. 2004. The complexity of pure Nash equilibria. InSTOC. 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007352. 1007445

    2004 doi

  11. [21]

    Uriel Feige. 1998. A threshold of ln n for approximating set cover.J. ACM45, 4 (1998), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1145/285055.285059

    1998

  12. [22]

    Rainer Feldmann, Marios Mavronicolas, and Burkhard Monien. 2009. Nash Equilibria for Voronoi Games on Transitive Graphs. InWINE. 280–291. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10841-9_26

    2009 doi

  13. [23]

    Matthias Feldotto, Pascal Lenzner, Louise Molitor, and Alexander Skopalik. 2019. From Hotelling to Load Balancing: Approximation and the Principle of Minimum Differentiation. InAAMAS. 1949–1951. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3306127. 3331973

    2019 doi

  14. [24]

    Gaëtan Fournier and Marco Scarsini. 2019. Location Games on Networks: Ex- istence and Efficiency of Equilibria.Mathematics of Operations Research44, 1 (2019), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.1287/MOOR.2017.0921

    2019

  15. [25]

    Tobias Friedrich, Pascal Lenzner, Louise Molitor, and Lars Seifert. 2023. Single- Peaked Jump Schelling Games. InAAMAS. 2899–2901. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 5555/3545946.3599116

    2023

  16. [26]

    Jonathan Gadea Harder, Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, and Alexander Skopa- lik. 2023. Strategic Resource Selection with Homophilic Agents. InIJCAI. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2023/301

    2023 doi

  17. [27]

    Goemans, Li (Erran) Li, Vahab S

    Michel X. Goemans, Li (Erran) Li, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Marina Thottan. 2006. Market sharing games applied to content distribution in ad hoc networks.Journal on Selected Areas in Communications24, 5 (2006), 1020–1033. https://doi.org/10. 1109/JSAC.2006.872884

    2006

  18. [28]

    Hochbaum

    Dorit S. Hochbaum. 1996.Approximating covering and packing problems: set cover, vertex cover, independent set, and related problems. PWS Publishing Co., USA, 94–143

    1996

  19. [29]

    Hochbaum and Anu Pathria

    Dorit S. Hochbaum and Anu Pathria. 1998. Analysis of the greedy approach in problems of maximum k-coverage.Naval Research Logistics (NRL)45, 6 (1998), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199809)45:6<615::AID-NAV5> 3.0.CO;2-5

    1998 doi

  20. [30]

    Harold Hotelling. 1929. Stability in Competition.The Economic Journal39, 153 (1929), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2224214

    1929 doi

  21. [31]

    Elon Kohlberg. 1983. Equilibrium store locations when consumers minimize travel time plus waiting time.Economics Letters11, 3 (1983), 211–216. https: //doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(83)90137-4

    1983 doi

  22. [32]

    Elias Koutsoupias and Christos Papadimitriou. 1999. Worst-Case Equilibria. In STACS. 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49116-3_38

    1999 doi

  23. [33]

    Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Louise Molitor, and Alexander Skopalik. 2021. Two-Stage Facility Location Games with Strategic Clients and Facilities. InIJCAI. 292–298. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/41

    2021 doi

  24. [34]

    Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, and Alexander Skopalik. 2023. Strategic Facility Location with Clients That Minimize Total Waiting Time. InAAAI. 5714–5721. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.V37I5.25709

    2023 doi

  25. [35]

    Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, Alexander Skopalik, Marc Uetz, and Marnix C. Vos. 2024. Equilibria in Two-Stage Facility Location with Atomic Clients. In IJCAI. 2842–2850. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2024/315

    2024 doi

  26. [36]

    Gianpiero Monaco and Luca Moscardelli. 2023. Nash Stability in Fractional Hedonic Games with Bounded Size Coalitions. InWINE, Vol. 14413. 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_29

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    Gianpiero Monaco, Luca Moscardelli, and Yllka Velaj. 2019. On the Performance of Stable Outcomes in Modified Fractional Hedonic Games with Egalitarian Social Welfare. InAAMAS. 873–881. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3306127.3331780

    2019

  28. [38]

    Gianpiero Monaco, Luca Moscardelli, and Yllka Velaj. 2020. Stable outcomes in modified fractional hedonic games.Autonomous Agents Multi Agent Systems34, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10458-019-09431-Z

    2020 doi

  29. [39]

    Dov Monderer and Lloyd S. Shapley. 1996. Potential Games.Games and Economic Behavior14, 1 (1996), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1996.0044

    1996

  30. [40]

    James B. Orlin. 1993. A faster strongly polynomial minimum cost flow algorithm. Operations Research41, 2 (1993), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.41.2.338

    1993 doi

  31. [41]

    Susan Hesse Owen and Mark S. Daskin. 1998. Strategic facility location: A review.European Journal of Operational Research111, 3 (1998), 423–447. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00186-6

    1998 doi

  32. [42]

    Hans Peters, Marc Schröder, and Dries Vermeulen. 2018. Hotelling’s location model with negative network externalities.International Journal of Game Theory 47, 3 (2018), 811–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00182-018-0615-0

    2018 doi

  33. [43]

    ReVelle and Horst A

    Charles S. ReVelle and Horst A. Eiselt. 2005. Location Analysis: A Synthesis and Survey.European Journal of Operational Research165, 1 (2005), 1–19. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.11.032

    2005 doi

  34. [44]

    Rosenthal

    Robert W. Rosenthal. 1973. A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria.International Journal of Game Theory2 (1973), 65–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF01737559

    1973 doi

  35. [45]

    2013.Con- sumer behaviour

    Leon Schiffman, Aron O’Cass, Angela Paladino, and Jamie Carlson. 2013.Con- sumer behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU

    2013

  36. [46]

    Daniel Schmand, Marc Schröder, and Alexander Skopalik. 2019. Network In- vestment Games with Wardrop Followers. InICALP. 151:1–151:14. https: //doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.ICALP.2019.151

    2019 doi

  37. [47]

    Adrian Vetta. 2002. Nash Equilibria in Competitive Societies, with Applications to Facility Location, Traffic Routing and Auctions. InFOCS. 416–425. https: //doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2002.1181966 9

    2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.