The Surprising Power of Hiding Information in Facility Location
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facility location is the problem of locating a public facility based on the preferences of multiple agents. In the classic framework, where each agent holds a single location on a line and can misreport it, strategyproof mechanisms for choosing the location of the facility are well-understood.We revisit this problem in a more general framework. We assume that each agent may hold several locations on the line with different degrees of importance to the agent. We study mechanisms which elicit the locations of the agents and different levels of information about their importance. Further, in addition to the classic manipulation of misreporting locations, we introduce and study a new manipulation, whereby agents may hide some of their locations. We argue for its novelty in facility location and applicability in practice. Our results provide a complete picture of the power of strategyproof mechanisms eliciting different levels of information and with respect to each type of manipulation. Surprisingly, we show that in some cases hiding locations can be a strictly more powerful manipulation than misreporting locations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it