Source-linked AI summary
Learning-Augmented Strategyproof Facility Location in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with $\ell_p$ Distances
Hau Chan, Jianan Lin, Chenhao Wang
TL;DR
The paper asks what consistency and robustness CMP achieves for utilitarian facility location in ℓ_p spaces, extending analysis beyond the previously studied Euclidean settings. The paper analyzes CMP_c with an exogenous prediction and uses coordinate-median constraints to compare its cost with the cost at an optimal facility. The analysis establishes exact guarantees in two dimensions for every p and dimension-independent upper bounds for 1 < p < +∞, with high-dimensional instances approaching those bounds.
Problem
The paper asks what consistency and robustness CMP achieves for utilitarian facility location in ℓ_p spaces, extending analysis beyond the previously studied Euclidean settings.
Source: §1 · p. 2Method
The paper analyzes CMP_c with an exogenous prediction and uses coordinate-median constraints to compare its cost with the cost at an optimal facility.
Source: Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions · p. 3, §2.1 · p. 5, §4.1 · p. 14Results
The analysis establishes exact guarantees in two dimensions for every p and dimension-independent upper bounds for 1 < p < +∞, with high-dimensional instances approaching those bounds.
Source: Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions · p. 3, §5 · p. 21Takeaways & Limitations
The results extend the prediction-free analysis of Gravin and Jia and recover their learning-augmented Euclidean bounds.
Source: §5 · p. 21Exact consistency and robustness for each fixed d ≥ 3 and 1 < p ≤ +∞ remain open; the high-dimensional analysis loses information by reducing coordinate constraints to a single mean constraint.
Source: §5 · p. 22
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
We study learning-augmented mechanism design for locating a single facility in $\mathbb{R}^d$ to minimize the sum of the agents' $\ell_p$ distances to the facility. We analyze the coordinate-wise median with predictions (CMP) mechanism, which adds $cn$ virtual agents at a predicted optimal facility location to the $n$ reported locations and returns their coordinate-wise median. The parameter $c\in[0,1)$ represents confidence in the prediction; CMP is known to be strategyproof when both are fixed independently of the reports. We determine its approximation guarantees under correct predictions (consistency) and arbitrary predictions (robustness) in two settings. First, for $d=2$, we establish exact guarantees for every $p\in[1,+\infty]$. For $1<p<+\infty$, the consistency and robustness are respectively $\Bigl(1+\bigl(\frac{1-c}{1+c}\bigr)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\Bigr)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}$ and $\Bigl(1+\bigl(\frac{1+c}{1-c}\bigr)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\Bigr)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}$. We use the median condition in each coordinate to compare the mechanism's cost with the optimal cost, and establish tightness using instances with agents at only three distinct locations. Second, for $1<p<+\infty$, we obtain dimension-independent consistency and robustness upper bounds valid for every $d\ge1$. For each fixed $p$ and $c$, we construct families of instances whose ratios approach the respective upper bounds as $d\to\infty$, proving asymptotic tightness. We also establish exact guarantees for $p=1$ in every dimension and asymptotically tight bounds for $p=+\infty$. Our high-dimensional results recover the prediction-free bounds of Gravin and Jia (STOC 2025) when $c=0$ and their learning-augmented bounds in arbitrary-dimensional Euclidean spaces when $p=2$.
1 Introduction
This paper asks what consistency and robustness the coordinate-wise median with predictions achieves for utilitarian facility location in ℓ_p spaces. It gives exact planar guarantees and dimension-independent high-dimensional bounds, extending prior learning-augmented analysis beyond Euclidean distance.
1 Introduction
- The study extends earlier learning-augmented facility-location analysis, which had determined CMP guarantees for the Euclidean plane and arbitrary-dimensional Euclidean spaces.The paper identifies the corresponding guarantees beyond Euclidean distance as previously undetermined.Source: §1 · p. 2, §1.2 · p. 4
Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions.
- For 1 < p < +∞, the paper determines the exact consistency and robustness of CMPc in R2 under ℓp distances; finite instances with at most three distinct agent locations attain or approach the respective bounds arbitrarily closely.Source: Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions · p. 3
- The planar upper bounds combine coordinate-median constraints with cost inequalities, and tightness follows from finite instances with at most three agent locations.The proof groups agents by which side of the mechanism output they occupy in each coordinate and applies Hölder’s inequality.Source: Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions · p. 3
Asymptotically Tight Bounds in High Dimensions.
- For 1 < p < +∞, CMP_c has dimension-independent consistency and robustness upper bounds, with families of instances approaching those bounds as d grows.For p = 1 the guarantees are exact in every dimension, while the p = +∞ bounds are asymptotically tight.Source: Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions · p. 3, Asymptotically Tight Bounds in High… · p. 3
- The high-dimensional results recover the prediction-free bounds of Gravin and Jia when c = 0 and their learning-augmented guarantees for arbitrary-dimensional Euclidean spaces when p = 2.Source: Asymptotically Tight Bounds in High… · p. 3
1.2 Additional Related Work
- Related work studies facility-location variants that change the facility model, location space, preferences, information, or objective; this paper retains a single attractive facility and utilitarian cost in R^d.The closest learning-augmented comparisons are the planar and high-dimensional Euclidean analyses of Agrawal et al. [1] and Gravin and Jia.Source: §1.2 · p. 4
2 Preliminaries
The paper studies single-facility location in ℓ_p(R^d), measuring social cost by the sum of agents’ distances. It defines consistency and robustness for CMP_c, which adds prediction-location weight to the coordinate-wise median and is deterministic, anonymous, and strategyproof.
2.1 Settings
- The setting places n agents at locations in R^d and seeks a facility minimizing the sum of their ℓ_p distances.Source: §2.1 · p. 5
- The prediction is exogenous: it remains fixed when an agent changes her report, and the mechanism is evaluated over arbitrary prediction errors.The mechanism maps the reported profile and prediction to a facility location.Source: §2.1 · p. 5
- Consistency bounds the approximation ratio when the prediction is optimal, whereas robustness bounds it for every prediction.Both guarantees are required uniformly over finite populations and location profiles.Source: §2.1 · pp. 5–6
2.2 CMP Mechanism
- CMP_c adds cn virtual agents at the predicted location and returns the augmented profile’s coordinate-wise median, using the lower median in each coordinate.Virtual agents contribute weight but are not included in social cost; because c < 1, the mechanism is unanimous.Source: §2.2 · p. 6
- CMP_c is deterministic, anonymous, and strategyproof when the prediction and confidence parameter are fixed independently of reports.The proof applies the generalized-median strategyproofness argument coordinate by coordinate, so misreporting cannot reduce an agent’s ℓ_p cost.Source: §2.2 · pp. 6–7
3 Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions
This section establishes tight planar consistency and robustness bounds for CMPc across all p. It derives upper bounds from coordinate-wise median constraints and demonstrates tightness with three-location extremal instances, including ordinary finite profiles that approach the weighted bounds.
3 Tight Bounds in Two Dimensions
- For every c in [0,1) and p in [1,+∞], CMPc has exact planar consistency and robustness; for 1<p<∞ the factors are (1+((1-c)/(1+c))^(p/(p-1)))^((p-1)/p) and (1+((1+c)/(1-c))^(p/(p-1)))^((p-1)/p), respectively.At p=+∞, the factors are 2/(1+c) and 2/(1-c), respectively.Source: §3 · p. 7
3.1 Upper Bounds
- Coordinate-wise median constraints bound real-agent weight on each side of the output, yielding upper bounds by comparing costs with the prediction for consistency and an optimum for robustness.The argument groups agents by coordinate signs relative to the output and extends to p=1 and p=+∞ by taking limits.Source: §3 · p. 7, §3.1 · p. 11
3.2 Tightness
- For 1<p<∞, three-location instances attain both factors: horizontal groups flank the origin, while the vertical group and prediction produce the consistency and robustness cases.The matching constructions use µ=(1-c)/2 with the correct prediction for consistency and µ=(1+c)/2 with prediction at the origin for robustness.Source: §3.2 · p. 12
- At p=+∞, the same construction with horizontal groups at (-1,0) and (1,0) gives tight endpoint factors; at p=1, consistency is optimal.For p=+∞, the horizontal groups force cost at least 1-µ, while the mechanism returns the origin with cost one.Source: §3.2 · pp. 12–13
- Ordinary finite profiles can approach the respective weighted worst-case bounds arbitrarily closely, without requiring cn to be integral.The rational approximations establish tightness for suprema over ordinary finite profiles, even when exact attainment is unavailable.Source: §3.2 · p. 13
- For 1 < p < +∞, any planar consistency or robustness instance has a weighted three-location instance with at least as large a ratio and the specified optimal facility and prediction.The mechanism returns (0, 0); for ordinary finite profiles, the corresponding ratios can approach the worst-case bounds arbitrarily closely.Source: §3.2 · p. 13
- The planar upper bound uses both coordinate mass constraints through four sign groups, and the Euclidean guarantees recover those of Agrawal et al. [1].Source: §3.2 · p. 13
4 Asymptotically Tight Bounds in High Dimensions
This section establishes high-dimensional consistency and robustness bounds for CMP and shows that, for 1 < p < +∞, families of instances approach the dimension-independent upper bounds as dimension grows. It also gives endpoint results for p = 1 and p = +∞, and shows that the bounds recover prediction-free results when c = 0.
4.1 Upper Bounds
- For every 1 < p < +∞, CMP has consistency and robustness upper bounds valid for every dimension, and the bounds admit a one-dimensional characterization.The proof adapts an orthant relaxation to the biased coordinate medians induced by predictions.Source: §4.1 · pp. 14, 17
- The cited result states that both inequalities are asymptotically tight as the dimension d tends to infinity.The proof of Theorem 3’s upper bounds notes that the ℓ1 objective separates.Source: §4.1 · p. 18
4.2 Asymptotic Tightness
- For every fixed 1 < p < +∞ and c ∈ [0, 1), families of instances approach the upper bounds as dimension grows, so the bounds cannot be improved uniformly over dimension.The construction makes the CMP output the origin for consistency and robustness instances.Source: §4.2 · p. 19
- For 1 < p < +∞, constructed profiles attain the lower-bound ratios, and such profiles exist in every sufficiently large dimension, proving asymptotic tightness.The construction makes the predicted facility globally optimal and gives SC_p(x, f) / OPT_p(x) = Γ_p(µ); finite profiles approximate the limiting parameters.Source: §4.2 · p. 20
- For p = +∞, the consistency and robustness lower-bound limits are (3+c)/(1+c) and (3−c)/(1−c), respectively, proving asymptotic tightness.Finite profiles approximate these limits while preserving the selected median at zero.Source: §4.2 · p. 21
- At c = 0, the bounds recover prediction-free dimension-independent bounds, including Γ_p for 1 < p < +∞ and the limiting factor 3 for p = +∞.The planar values can be strictly smaller because the scalar relaxation does not preserve all coordinate-sign-group relations used in the planar proof.Source: §4.2 · p. 21
5 Conclusion
The paper establishes exact planar consistency and robustness guarantees for CMP and develops dimension-independent guarantees, with exact results for p = 1 and asymptotically tight bounds for p = +∞. It identifies fixed-dimension guarantees for d ≥3 as an open direction.
5 Conclusion
- In two dimensions, CMP has exact consistency and robustness guarantees for every p; the paper also gives exact p = 1 guarantees in every dimension and asymptotically tight p = +∞ bounds.For 1 < p < +∞, dimension-independent upper bounds are asymptotically tight as dimension grows.Source: §5 · p. 21
- The high-dimensional analysis uses a scalar mean constraint and symmetric instances whose cost ratios approach the bounds as dimension grows.The results recover prediction-free bounds when c = 0 and learning-augmented Euclidean bounds when p = 2.Source: §5 · p. 21
- Exact consistency and robustness for each fixed d ≥3 and 1 < p ≤+∞ remain open; the high-dimensional mean constraint loses information about jointly occurring sign patterns.Source: §5 · p. 22
- The authors report using GPT-based tools to develop and check intermediate lemmas, proofs, and calculations, and say they independently checked the assisted work.Source: §5 · p. 22