BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Moshe Babaioff

Moshe Babaioff appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computer Science and Game TheoryData Structures and Algorithmsecon.THMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputational ComplexitySocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

22works
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

22 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Best-of-Both-Worlds Fair-Share Allocations

We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items among $n$ agents with additive valuations, when agents have equal entitlements to the goods, and there are no transfers. Best-of-Both-Worlds (BoBW) fairness mechanisms aim to give all agents both an ex-ante guarantee (such as getting the proportional share in expectation) and an ex-post guarantee. Prior BoBW results have focused on ex-post guarantees that are based on the "up to one item" paradigm, such as envy-free up to one item (EF1). In this work we attempt to give every agent a high value ex-post, and specifically, a constant fraction of his maximin share (MMS). The up to one item paradigm fails to give such a guarantee, and it is not difficult to present examples in which previous BoBW mechanisms give agents only a $\frac{1}{n}$ fraction of their MMS. Our main result is a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that computes a distribution over allocations that is ex-ante proportional, and ex-post, every allocation gives every agent at least his proportional share up to one item, and more importantly, at least half of his MMS. Moreover, this last ex-post guarantee holds even with respect to a more demanding notion of a share, introduced in this paper, that we refer to as the truncated proportional share (TPS). Our guarantees are nearly best possible, in the sense that one cannot guarantee agents more than their proportional share ex-ante, and one cannot guarantee agents more than a $\frac{n}{2n-1}$ fraction of their TPS ex-post.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Fair Shares: Feasibility, Domination and Incentives

We consider fair allocation of a set $M$ of indivisible goods to $n$ equally-entitled agents, with no monetary transfers. Every agent $i$ has a valuation $v_i$ from some given class of valuation functions. A share $s$ is a function that maps a pair $(v_i,n)$ to a value, with the interpretation that if an allocation of $M$ to $n$ agents fails to give agent $i$ a bundle of value at least equal to $s(v_i,n)$, this serves as evidence that the allocation is not fair towards $i$. For such an interpretation to make sense, we would like the share to be feasible, meaning that for any valuations in the class, there is an allocation that gives every agent at least her share. The maximin share was a natural candidate for a feasible share for additive valuations. However, Kurokawa, Procaccia and Wang [2018] show that it is not feasible. We initiate a systematic study of the family of feasible shares. We say that a share is \emph{self maximizing} if truth-telling maximizes the implied guarantee. We show that every feasible share is dominated by some self-maximizing and feasible share. We seek to identify those self-maximizing feasible shares that are polynomial time computable, and offer the highest share values. We show that a SM-dominating feasible share -- one that dominates every self-maximizing (SM) feasible share -- does not exist for additive valuations (and beyond). Consequently, we relax the domination property to that of domination up to a multiplicative factor of $ρ$ (called $ρ$-dominating). For additive valuations we present shares that are feasible, self-maximizing and polynomial-time computable. For $n$ agents we present such a share that is $\frac{2n}{3n-1}$-dominating. For two agents we present such a share that is $(1 - ε)$-dominating. Moreover, for these shares we present poly-time algorithms that compute allocations that give every agent at least her share.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Optimal Collaterals in Multi-Enterprise Investment Networks

We study a market of investments on networks, where each agent (vertex) can invest in any enterprise linked to her, and at the same time, raise capital for her firm's enterprise from other agents she is linked to. Failing to raise sufficient capital results with the firm defaulting, being unable to invest in others. Our main objective is to examine the role of collateral contracts in handling the strategic risk that can propagate to a systemic risk throughout the network in a cascade of defaults. We take a mechanism-design approach and solve for the optimal scheme of collateral contracts that capital raisers offer their investors. These contracts aim at sustaining the efficient level of investment as a unique Nash equilibrium, while minimizing the total collateral. Our main results contrast the network environment with its non-network counterpart (where the sets of investors and capital raisers are disjoint). We show that for acyclic investment networks, the network environment does not necessitate any additional collaterals, and systemic risk can be fully handled by optimal bilateral collateral contracts between capital raisers and their investors. This is, unfortunately, not the case for cyclic investment networks. We show that bilateral contracting will not suffice to resolve systemic risk, and the market will need an external entity to design a global collateral scheme for all capital raisers. Furthermore, the minimum total collateral that will sustain the efficient level of investment as a unique equilibrium may be arbitrarily higher, even in simple cyclic investment networks, compared with its corresponding non-network environment. Additionally, we prove computational-complexity results, both for a single enterprise and for networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Simplicity in Auctions Revisited: The Primitive Complexity

In this paper we revisit the notion of simplicity in mechanisms. We consider a seller of $m$ items, facing a single buyer with valuation $v$. We observe that previous attempts to define complexity measures often fail to classify mechanisms that are intuitively considered simple (e.g., the "selling separately" mechanism) as such. We suggest to view a menu as simple if a bundle that maximizes the buyer's profit can be found by conducting a few primitive operations that are considered simple. The \emph{primitive complexity of a menu} is the number of primitive operations needed to (adaptively) find a profit-maximizing entry in the menu. In this paper, the primitive operation that we study is essentially computing the outcome of the "selling separately" mechanism. Does the primitive complexity capture the simplicity of other auctions that are intuitively simple? We consider \emph{bundle-size pricing}, a common pricing method in which the price of a bundle depends only on its size. Our main technical contribution is determining the primitive complexity of bundle-size pricing menus in various settings. We show that for any distribution $\cal D$ over weighted matroid rank valuations, even distributions with arbitrary correlation among their values, there is always a bundle-size pricing menu with low primitive complexity that achieves almost the same revenue as the optimal bundle-size pricing menu. As part of this proof we provide a randomized algorithm that for any weighted matroid rank valuation $v$ and integer $k$, finds the most valuable set of size $k$ with only a poly-logarithmic number of demand and value queries. We show that this result is essentially tight in several aspects. For example, if the valuation $v$ is submodular, then finding the most valuable set of size $k$ requires exponentially many queries (this solves an open question of Badanidiyuru et al. [EC'12]).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Truthful Online Scheduling of Cloud Workloads under Uncertainty

Cloud computing customers often submit repeating jobs and computation pipelines on \emph{approximately} regular schedules, with arrival and running times that exhibit variance. This pattern, typical of training tasks in machine learning, allows customers to partially predict future job requirements. We develop a model of cloud computing platforms that receive statements of work (SoWs) in an online fashion. The SoWs describe future jobs whose arrival times and durations are probabilistic, and whose utility to the submitting agents declines with completion time. The arrival and duration distributions, as well as the utility functions, are considered private customer information and are reported by strategic agents to a scheduler that is optimizing for social welfare. We design pricing, scheduling, and eviction mechanisms that incentivize truthful reporting of SoWs. An important challenge is maintaining incentives despite the possibility of the platform becoming saturated. We introduce a framework to reduce scheduling under uncertainty to a relaxed scheduling problem without uncertainty. Using this framework, we tackle both adversarial and stochastic submissions of statements of work, and obtain logarithmic and constant competitive mechanisms, respectively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for an Additive Buyer

We consider a monopolist seller with $n$ heterogeneous items, facing a single buyer. The buyer has a value for each item drawn independently according to (non-identical) distributions, and her value for a set of items is additive. The seller aims to maximize his revenue. We suggest using the a-priori better of two simple pricing methods: selling the items separately, each at its optimal price, and bundling together, in which the entire set of items is sold as one bundle at its optimal price. We show that for any distribution, this mechanism achieves a constant-factor approximation to the optimal revenue. Beyond its simplicity, this is the first computationally tractable mechanism to obtain a constant-factor approximation for this multi-parameter problem. We additionally discuss extensions to multiple buyers and to valuations that are correlated across items.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Escaping Cannibalization? Correlation-Robust Pricing for a Unit-Demand Buyer

We consider a robust version of the revenue maximization problem, where a single seller wishes to sell $n$ items to a single unit-demand buyer. In this robust version, the seller knows the buyer's marginal value distribution for each item separately, but not the joint distribution, and prices the items to maximize revenue in the worst case over all compatible correlation structures. We devise a computationally efficient (polynomial in the support size of the marginals) algorithm that computes the worst-case joint distribution for any choice of item prices. And yet, in sharp contrast to the additive buyer case (Carroll, 2017), we show that it is NP-hard to approximate the optimal choice of prices to within any factor better than $n^{1/2-ε}$. For the special case of marginal distributions that satisfy the monotone hazard rate property, we show how to guarantee a constant fraction of the optimal worst-case revenue using item pricing; this pricing equates revenue across all possible correlations and can be computed efficiently.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Playing on a Level Field: Sincere and Sophisticated Players in the Boston Mechanism with a Coarse Priority Structure

Who gains and who loses from a manipulable school-choice mechanism? Studying the outcomes of sincere and sophisticated students under the manipulable Boston Mechanism as compared with the strategy-proof Deferred Acceptance, we provide robust "anything-goes" theorems for large random markets with coarse priority structures. I.e., there are many sincere and sophisticated students who prefer the Boston Mechanism to Deferred Acceptance, and vice versa. Some populations may even benefit from being sincere (if also perceived as such). Our findings reconcile qualitative differences between previous theory and known empirical results. We conclude by studying market forces that can influence the choice between these mechanisms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Networks of Complements

We consider a network of sellers, each selling a single product, where the graph structure represents pair-wise complementarities between products. We study how the network structure affects revenue and social welfare of equilibria of the pricing game between the sellers. We prove positive and negative results, both of "Price of Anarchy" and of "Price of Stability" type, for special families of graphs (paths, cycles) as well as more general ones (trees, graphs). We describe best-reply dynamics that converge to non-trivial equilibrium in several families of graphs, and we use these dynamics to prove the existence of approximately-efficient equilibria.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On Bitcoin and Red Balloons

Many large decentralized systems rely on information propagation to ensure their proper function. We examine a common scenario in which only participants that are aware of the information can compete for some reward, and thus informed participants have an incentive not to propagate information to others. One recent example in which such tension arises is the 2009 DARPA Network Challenge (finding red balloons). We focus on another prominent example: Bitcoin, a decentralized electronic currency system. Bitcoin represents a radical new approach to monetary systems. It has been getting a large amount of public attention over the last year, both in policy discussions and in the popular press. Its cryptographic fundamentals have largely held up even as its usage has become increasingly widespread. We find, however, that it exhibits a fundamental problem of a different nature, based on how its incentives are structured. We propose a modification to the protocol that can eliminate this problem. Bitcoin relies on a peer-to-peer network to track transactions that are performed with the currency. For this purpose, every transaction a node learns about should be transmitted to its neighbors in the network. The current implemented protocol provides an incentive to nodes to not broadcast transactions they are aware of. Our solution is to augment the protocol with a scheme that rewards information propagation. Since clones are easy to create in the Bitcoin system, an important feature of our scheme is Sybil-proofness. We show that our proposed scheme succeeds in setting the correct incentives, that it is Sybil-proof, and that it requires only a small payment overhead, all this is achieved with iterated elimination of dominated strategies. We complement this result by showing that there are no reward schemes in which information propagation and no self-cloning is a dominant strategy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Mechanism Design with Strategic Mediators

We consider the problem of designing mechanisms that interact with strategic agents through strategic intermediaries (or mediators), and investigate the cost to society due to the mediators' strategic behavior. Selfish agents with private information are each associated with exactly one strategic mediator, and can interact with the mechanism exclusively through that mediator. Each mediator aims to optimize the combined utility of his agents, while the mechanism aims to optimize the combined utility of all agents. We focus on the problem of facility location on a metric induced by a publicly known tree. With non-strategic mediators, there is a dominant strategy mechanism that is optimal. We show that when both agents and mediators act strategically, there is no dominant strategy mechanism that achieves any approximation. We, thus, slightly relax the incentive constraints, and define the notion of a two-sided incentive compatible mechanism. We show that the $3$-competitive deterministic mechanism suggested by Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2013) and Dekel et al. (2010) for lines extends naturally to trees, and is still $3$-competitive as well as two-sided incentive compatible. This is essentially the best possible. We then show that by allowing randomization one can construct a $2$-competitive randomized mechanism that is two-sided incentive compatible, and this is also essentially tight. This result also closes a gap left in the work of Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2013) and Lu et al. (2009) for the simpler problem of designing strategy-proof mechanisms for weighted agents with no mediators on a line, while extending to the more general model of trees. We also investigate a further generalization of the above setting where there are multiple levels of mediators.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Price Competition, Fluctuations, and Welfare Guarantees

In various markets where sellers compete in price, price oscillations are observed rather than convergence to equilibrium. Such fluctuations have been empirically observed in the retail market for gasoline, in airline pricing and in the online sale of consumer goods. Motivated by this, we study a model of price competition in which an equilibrium rarely exists. We seek to analyze the welfare, despite the nonexistence of an equilibrium, and present welfare guarantees as a function of the market power of the sellers. We first study best response dynamics in markets with sellers that provide a homogeneous good, and show that except for a modest number of initial rounds, the welfare is guaranteed to be high. We consider two variations: in the first the sellers have full information about the valuation of the buyer. Here we show that if there are $n$ items available across all sellers and $n_{\max}$ is the maximum number of items controlled by any given seller, the ratio of the optimal welfare to the achieved welfare will be at most $\log(\frac{n}{n-n_{\max}+1})+1$. As the market power of the largest seller diminishes, the welfare becomes closer to optimal. In the second variation we consider an extended model where sellers have uncertainty about the buyer's valuation. Here we similarly show that the welfare improves as the market power of the largest seller decreases, yet with a worse ratio of $\frac{n}{n-n_{\max}+1}$. The exponential gap in welfare between the two variations quantifies the value of accurately learning the buyer valuation. Finally, we show that extending our results to heterogeneous goods in general is not possible. Even for the simple class of $k$-additive valuations, there exists a setting where the welfare approximates the optimal welfare within any non-zero factor only for $O(1/s)$ fraction of the time, where $s$ is the number of sellers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Truthful Mechanisms with Implicit Payment Computation

It is widely believed that computing payments needed to induce truthful bidding is somehow harder than simply computing the allocation. We show that the opposite is true: creating a randomized truthful mechanism is essentially as easy as a single call to a monotone allocation rule. Our main result is a general procedure to take a monotone allocation rule for a single-parameter domain and transform it (via a black-box reduction) into a randomized mechanism that is truthful in expectation and individually rational for every realization. The mechanism implements the same outcome as the original allocation rule with probability arbitrarily close to 1, and requires evaluating that allocation rule only once. We also provide an extension of this result to multi-parameter domains and cycle-monotone allocation rules, under mild star-convexity and non-negativity hypotheses on the type space and allocation rule, respectively. Because our reduction is simple, versatile, and general, it has many applications to mechanism design problems in which re-evaluating the allocation rule is either burdensome or informationally impossible. Applying our result to the multi-armed bandit problem, we obtain truthful randomized mechanisms whose regret matches the information-theoretic lower bound up to logarithmic factors, even though prior work showed this is impossible for truthful deterministic mechanisms. We also present applications to offline mechanism design, showing that randomization can circumvent a communication complexity lower bound for deterministic payments computation, and that it can also be used to create truthful shortest path auctions that approximate the welfare of the VCG allocation arbitrarily well, while having the same running time complexity as Dijkstra's algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Mixed Strategies in Combinatorial Agency

In many multiagent domains a set of agents exert effort towards a joint outcome, yet the individual effort levels cannot be easily observed. A typical example for such a scenario is routing in communication networks, where the sender can only observe whether the packet reached its destination, but often has no information about the actions of the intermediate routers, which influences the final outcome. We study a setting where a principal needs to motivate a team of agents whose combination of hidden efforts stochastically determines an outcome. In a companion paper we devise and study a basic combinatorial agency model for this setting, where the principal is restricted to inducing a pure Nash equilibrium. Here we study various implications of this restriction. First, we show that, in contrast to the case of observable efforts, inducing a mixed-strategies equilibrium may be beneficial for the principal. Second, we present a sufficient condition for technologies for which no gain can be generated. Third, we bound the principals gain for various families of technologies. Finally, we study the robustness of mixed equilibria to coalitional deviations and the computational hardness of the optimal mixed equilibria.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Price Competition in Online Combinatorial Markets

We consider a single buyer with a combinatorial preference that would like to purchase related products and services from different vendors, where each vendor supplies exactly one product. We study the general case where subsets of products can be substitutes as well as complementary and analyze the game that is induced on the vendors, where a vendor's strategy is the price that he asks for his product. This model generalizes both Bertrand competition (where vendors are perfect substitutes) and Nash bargaining (where they are perfect complements), and captures a wide variety of scenarios that can appear in complex crowd sourcing or in automatic pricing of related products. We study the equilibria of such games and show that a pure efficient equilibrium always exists. In the case of submodular buyer preferences we fully characterize the set of pure Nash equilibria, essentially showing uniqueness. For the even more restricted "substitutes" buyer preferences we also prove uniqueness over {\em mixed} equilibria. Finally we begin the exploration of natural generalizations of our setting such as when services have costs, when there are multiple buyers or uncertainty about the the buyer's valuation, and when a single vendor supplies multiple products.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Bertrand Networks

We study scenarios where multiple sellers of a homogeneous good compete on prices, where each seller can only sell to some subset of the buyers. Crucially, sellers cannot price-discriminate between buyers. We model the structure of the competition by a graph (or hyper-graph), with nodes representing the sellers and edges representing populations of buyers. We study equilibria in the game between the sellers, prove that they always exist, and present various structural, quantitative, and computational results about them. We also analyze the equilibria completely for a few cases. Many questions are left open.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Characterizing Truthful Multi-Armed Bandit Mechanisms

We consider a multi-round auction setting motivated by pay-per-click auctions for Internet advertising. In each round the auctioneer selects an advertiser and shows her ad, which is then either clicked or not. An advertiser derives value from clicks; the value of a click is her private information. Initially, neither the auctioneer nor the advertisers have any information about the likelihood of clicks on the advertisements. The auctioneer's goal is to design a (dominant strategies) truthful mechanism that (approximately) maximizes the social welfare. If the advertisers bid their true private values, our problem is equivalent to the "multi-armed bandit problem", and thus can be viewed as a strategic version of the latter. In particular, for both problems the quality of an algorithm can be characterized by "regret", the difference in social welfare between the algorithm and the benchmark which always selects the same "best" advertisement. We investigate how the design of multi-armed bandit algorithms is affected by the restriction that the resulting mechanism must be truthful. We find that truthful mechanisms have certain strong structural properties -- essentially, they must separate exploration from exploitation -- and they incur much higher regret than the optimal multi-armed bandit algorithms. Moreover, we provide a truthful mechanism which (essentially) matches our lower bound on regret.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Dynamic Pricing with Limited Supply

We consider the problem of dynamic pricing with limited supply. A seller has $k$ identical items for sale and is facing $n$ potential buyers ("agents") that are arriving sequentially. Each agent is interested in buying one item. Each agent's value for an item is an IID sample from some fixed distribution with support $[0,1]$. The seller offers a take-it-or-leave-it price to each arriving agent (possibly different for different agents), and aims to maximize his expected revenue. We focus on "prior-independent" mechanisms -- ones that do not use any information about the distribution. They are desirable because knowing the distribution is unrealistic in many practical scenarios. We study how the revenue of such mechanisms compares to the revenue of the optimal offline mechanism that knows the distribution ("offline benchmark"). We present a prior-independent dynamic pricing mechanism whose revenue is at most $O((k \log n)^{2/3})$ less than the offline benchmark, for every distribution that is regular. In fact, this guarantee holds without *any* assumptions if the benchmark is relaxed to fixed-price mechanisms. Further, we prove a matching lower bound. The performance guarantee for the same mechanism can be improved to $O(\sqrt{k} \log n)$, with a distribution-dependent constant, if $k/n$ is sufficiently small. We show that, in the worst case over all demand distributions, this is essentially the best rate that can be obtained with a distribution-specific constant. On a technical level, we exploit the connection to multi-armed bandits (MAB). While dynamic pricing with unlimited supply can easily be seen as an MAB problem, the intuition behind MAB approaches breaks when applied to the setting with limited supply. Our high-level conceptual contribution is that even the limited supply setting can be fruitfully treated as a bandit problem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Multi-parameter Mechanisms with Implicit Payment Computation

In this paper we show that payment computation essentially does not present any obstacle in designing truthful mechanisms, even for multi-parameter domains, and even when we can only call the allocation rule once. We present a general reduction that takes any allocation rule which satisfies "cyclic monotonicity" (a known necessary and sufficient condition for truthfulness) and converts it to a truthful mechanism using a single call to the allocation rule, with arbitrarily small loss to the expected social welfare. A prominent example for a multi-parameter setting in which an allocation rule can only be called once arises in sponsored search auctions. These are multi-parameter domains when each advertiser has multiple possible ads he may display, each with a different value per click. Moreover, the mechanism typically does not have complete knowledge of the click-realization or the click-through rates (CTRs); it can only call the allocation rule a single time and observe the click information for ads that were presented. % are not known. On the negative side, we show that an allocation that is truthful for any realization essentially cannot depend on the bids, and hence cannot do better than random selection for one agent. We then consider a relaxed requirement of truthfulness, only in expectation over the CTRs. Even for that relaxed version, making any progress is challenging as standard techniques for construction of truthful mechanisms (as using VCG or an MIDR allocation rule) cannot be used in this setting. We design an allocation rule with non-trivial performance and directly prove it is cyclic-monotone, and thus it can be used to create a truthful mechanism using our general reduction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

On the Efficiency of the Walrasian Mechanism

Central results in economics guarantee the existence of efficient equilibria for various classes of markets. An underlying assumption in early work is that agents are price-takers, i.e., agents honestly report their true demand in response to prices. A line of research in economics, initiated by Hurwicz (1972), is devoted to understanding how such markets perform when agents are strategic about their demands. This is captured by the \emph{Walrasian Mechanism} that proceeds by collecting reported demands, finding clearing prices in the \emph{reported} market via an ascending price tâtonnement procedure, and returns the resulting allocation. Similar mechanisms are used, for example, in the daily opening of the New York Stock Exchange and the call market for copper and gold in London. In practice, it is commonly observed that agents in such markets reduce their demand leading to behaviors resembling bargaining and to inefficient outcomes. We ask how inefficient the equilibria can be. Our main result is that the welfare of every pure Nash equilibrium of the Walrasian mechanism is at least one quarter of the optimal welfare, when players have gross substitute valuations and do not overbid. Previous analysis of the Walrasian mechanism have resorted to large market assumptions to show convergence to efficiency in the limit. Our result shows that approximate efficiency is guaranteed regardless of the size of the market.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Combinatorial Auctions with Restricted Complements

Complements between goods - where one good takes on added value in the presence of another - have been a thorn in the side of algorithmic mechanism designers. On the one hand, complements are common in the standard motivating applications for combinatorial auctions, like spectrum license auctions. On the other, welfare maximization in the presence of complements is notoriously difficult, and this intractability has stymied theoretical progress in the area. For example, there are no known positive results for combinatorial auctions in which bidder valuations are multi-parameter and non-complement-free, other than the relatively weak results known for general valuations. To make inroads on the problem of combinatorial auction design in the presence of complements, we propose a model for valuations with complements that is parameterized by the "size" of the complements. A valuation in our model is represented succinctly by a weighted hypergraph, where the size of the hyper-edges corresponds to degree of complementarity. Our model permits a variety of computationally efficient queries, and non-trivial welfare-maximization algorithms and mechanisms. We design the following polynomial-time approximation algorithms and truthful mechanisms for welfare maximization with bidders with hypergraph valuations. 1- For bidders whose valuations correspond to subgraphs of a known graph that is planar (or more generally, excludes a fixed minor), we give a truthful and (1+epsilon)-approximate mechanism. 2- We give a polynomial-time, r-approximation algorithm for welfare maximization with hypergraph-r valuations. Our algorithm randomly rounds a compact linear programming relaxation of the problem. 3- We design a different approximation algorithm and use it to give a polynomial-time, truthful-in-expectation mechanism that has an approximation factor of O(log^r m).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Optimal Mechanisms for Selling Information

The buying and selling of information is taking place at a scale unprecedented in the history of commerce, thanks to the formation of online marketplaces for user data. Data providing agencies sell user information to advertisers to allow them to match ads to viewers more effectively. In this paper we study the design of optimal mechanisms for a monopolistic data provider to sell information to a buyer, in a model where both parties have (possibly correlated) private signals about a state of the world, and the buyer uses information learned from the seller, along with his own signal, to choose an action (e.g., displaying an ad) whose payoff depends on the state of the world. We provide sufficient conditions under which there is a simple one-round protocol (i.e. a protocol where the buyer and seller each sends a single message, and there is a single money transfer) achieving optimal revenue. In these cases we present a polynomial-time algorithm that computes the optimal mechanism. Intriguingly, we show that multiple rounds of partial information disclosure (interleaved by payment to the seller) are sometimes necessary to achieve optimal revenue if the buyer is allowed to abort his interaction with the seller prematurely. We also prove some negative results about the inability of simple mechanisms for selling information to approximate more complicated ones in the worst case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access