Hotelling-Downs Model with Limited Attraction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this paper we study variations of the standard Hotelling-Downs model of spatial competition, where each agent attracts the clients in a restricted neighborhood, each client randomly picks one attractive agent for service. Two utility functions for agents are considered: support utility and winner utility. We generalize the results by Feldman et al. to the case where the clients are distributed arbitrarily. In the support utility setting, we show that a pure Nash equilibrium always exists by formulating the game as a potential game. In the winner utility setting, we show that there exists a Nash equilibrium in two cases: when there are at most 3 agents and when the size of attraction area is at least half of the entire space. We also consider the price of anarchy and the fairness of equilibria and give tight bounds on these criteria.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Nov 2016.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1.
4 papers.
- 2023How Bad is Top-K Recommendation under Competing Content Creators?cited by 27
- 2021Two-Stage Facility Location Games with Strategic Clients and Facilitiescited by 5
- 2022Strategic Facility Location with Clients that Minimize Total Waiting Timecited by 3
- 2024Equilibria in Two-Stage Facility Location with Atomic Clientscited by 1
- 2024Equilibria in Two-Stage Facility Location with Atomic Clients5 Mar 2024
- 2023How Bad is Top-K Recommendation under Competing Content Creators?3 Feb 2023
- 2022Strategic Facility Location with Clients that Minimize Total Waiting Time25 Nov 2022
- 2021Two-Stage Facility Location Games with Strategic Clients and Facilities4 May 2021