BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Shahar Dobzinski

Shahar Dobzinski contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer Science and Game Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Are Gross Substitutes a Substitute for Submodular Valuations?

The class of gross substitutes (GS) set functions plays a central role in Economics and Computer Science. GS belongs to the hierarchy of {\em complement free} valuations introduced by Lehmann, Lehmann and Nisan, along with other prominent classes: $GS \subsetneq Submodular \subsetneq XOS \subsetneq Subadditive$. The GS class has always been more enigmatic than its counterpart classes, both in its definition and in its relation to the other classes. For example, while it is well understood how closely the Submodular, XOS and Subadditive classes (point-wise) approximate one another, approximability of these classes by GS remained wide open. Our main result is the existence of a submodular valuation (one that is also budget additive) that cannot be approximated by GS within a ratio better than $Ω(\frac{\log m}{\log\log m})$, where $m$ is the number of items. En route, we uncover a new symmetrization operation that preserves GS, which may be of independent interest. We show that our main result is tight with respect to budget additive valuations. Additionally, for a class of submodular functions that we refer to as {\em concave of Rado} valuations (this class greatly extends budget additive valuations), we show approximability by GS within an $O(\log^2m)$ factor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Hardness of Dominant Strategy Mechanism Design

We study the communication complexity of dominant strategy implementations of combinatorial auctions. We start with two domains that are generally considered "easy": multi-unit auctions with decreasing marginal values and combinatorial auctions with gross substitutes valuations. For both domains we have fast algorithms that find the welfare-maximizing allocation with communication complexity that is poly-logarithmic in the input size. This immediately implies that welfare maximization can be achieved in ex-post equilibrium with no significant communication cost, by using VCG payments. In contrast, we show that in both domains the communication complexity of any dominant strategy implementation that achieves the optimal welfare is polynomial in the input size. We then move on to studying the approximation ratios achievable by dominant strategy mechanisms. For multi-unit auctions with decreasing marginal values, we provide a dominant-strategy communication FPTAS. For combinatorial auctions with general valuations, we show that there is no dominant strategy mechanism that achieves an approximation ratio better than $m^{1-ε}$ that uses $poly(m,n)$ bits of communication, where $m$ is the number of items and $n$ is the number of bidders. In contrast, a \emph{randomized} dominant strategy mechanism that achieves an $O(\sqrt m)$ approximation with $poly(m,n)$ communication is known. This proves the first gap between computationally efficient deterministic dominant strategy mechanisms and randomized ones. En route, we answer an open question on the communication cost of implementing dominant strategy mechanisms for more than two players, and also solve some open problems in the area of simultaneous combinatorial auctions.

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
preprint2020arXiv

The Communication Complexity of Payment Computation

Let $(f,P)$ be an incentive compatible mechanism where $f$ is the social choice function and $P$ is the payment function. In many important settings, $f$ uniquely determines $P$ (up to a constant) and therefore a common approach is to focus on the design of $f$ and neglect the role of the payment function. Fadel and Segal [JET, 2009] question this approach by taking the lenses of communication complexity: can it be that the communication complexity of an incentive compatible mechanism that implements $f$ (that is, computes both the output and the payments) is much larger than the communication complexity of computing the output? I.e., can it be that $cc_{IC}(f)>>cc(f)$? Fadel and Segal show that for every $f$, $cc_{IC}(f)\leq exp(cc(f))$. They also show that fully computing the incentive compatible mechanism is strictly harder than computing only the output: there exists a social choice function $f$ such that $cc_{IC}(f)=cc(f)+1$. In a follow-up work, Babaioff, Blumrosen, Naor, and Schapira [EC'08] provide a social choice function $f$ such that $cc_{IC}(f)=Θ(n\cdot cc(f))$, where $n$ is the number of players. The question of whether the exponential upper bound of Fadel and Segal is tight remained wide open. In this paper we solve this question by explicitly providing an $f$ such that $cc_{IC}(f)= exp(cc(f))$. In fact, we establish this via two very different proofs. In contrast, we show that if the players are risk-neutral and we can compromise on a randomized truthful-in-expectation implementation (and not on deterministic ex-post implementation) gives that $cc_{TIE}(f)=poly(n,cc(f))$ for every function $f$, as long as the domain of $f$ is single parameter or a convex multi-parameter domain. We also provide efficient algorithms for deterministic computation of payments in several important domains.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access