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

Yifeng Teng

Yifeng Teng 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 AlgorithmsComputational ComplexityDiscrete MathematicsSocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
5topics
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Worst-Case Welfare of Item Pricing in the Tollbooth Problem

We study the worst-case welfare of item pricing in the \emph{tollbooth problem}. The problem was first introduced by Guruswami et al, and is a special case of the combinatorial auction in which (i) each of the $m$ items in the auction is an edge of some underlying graph; and (ii) each of the $n$ buyers is single-minded and only interested in buying all edges of a single path. We consider the competitive ratio between the hindsight optimal welfare and the optimal worst-case welfare among all item-pricing mechanisms, when the order of the arriving buyers is adversarial. We assume that buyers own the \emph{tie-breaking} power, i.e. they can choose whether or not to buy the demand path at 0 utility. We prove a tight competitive ratio of $3/2$ when the underlying graph is a single path (also known as the \emph{highway} problem), whereas item-pricing can achieve the hindsight optimal if the seller is allowed to choose a proper tie-breaking rule to maximize the welfare. Moreover, we prove an $O(1)$ upper bound of competitive ratio when the underlying graph is a tree. For general graphs, we prove an $Ω(m^{1/8})$ lower bound of the competitive ratio. We show that an $m^{Ω(1)}$ competitive ratio is unavoidable even if the graph is a grid, or if the capacity of every edge is augmented by a constant factor $c$. The results hold even if the seller has tie-breaking power.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Menu-size Complexity and Revenue Continuity of Buy-many Mechanisms

We study the multi-item mechanism design problem where a monopolist sells $n$ heterogeneous items to a single buyer. We focus on buy-many mechanisms, a natural class of mechanisms frequently used in practice. The buy-many property allows the buyer to interact with the mechanism multiple times instead of once as in the more commonly studied buy-one mechanisms. This imposes additional incentive constraints and thus restricts the space of mechanisms that the seller can use. In this paper, we explore the qualitative differences between buy-one and buy-many mechanisms focusing on two important properties: revenue continuity and menu-size complexity. Our first main result is that when the value function of the buyer is perturbed multiplicatively by a factor of $1\pmε$, the optimal revenue obtained by buy-many mechanisms only changes by a factor of $1 \pm \textrm{poly}(n,ε)$. In contrast, for buy-one mechanisms, the revenue of the resulting optimal mechanism after such a perturbation can change arbitrarily. Our second main result shows that under any distribution of arbitrary valuations, finite menu size suffices to achieve a $(1-ε)$-approximation to the optimal buy-many mechanism. We give tight upper and lower bounds on the number of menu entries as a function of $n$ and $ε$. On the other hand, such a result fails to hold for buy-one mechanisms as even for two items and a buyer with either unit-demand or additive valuations, the menu-size complexity of approximately optimal mechanisms is unbounded.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Pandora's Box with Correlations: Learning and Approximation

The Pandora's Box problem and its extensions capture optimization problems with stochastic input where the algorithm can obtain instantiations of input random variables at some cost. To our knowledge, all previous work on this class of problems assumes that different random variables in the input are distributed independently. As such it does not capture many real-world settings. In this paper, we provide the first approximation algorithms for Pandora's Box-type problems with correlations. We assume that the algorithm has access to samples drawn from the joint distribution on input. Algorithms for these problems must determine an order in which to probe random variables, as well as when to stop and return the best solution found so far. In general, an optimal algorithm may make both decisions adaptively based on instantiations observed previously. Such fully adaptive (FA) strategies cannot be efficiently approximated to within any sublinear factor with sample access. We therefore focus on the simpler objective of approximating partially adaptive (PA) strategies that probe random variables in a fixed predetermined order but decide when to stop based on the instantiations observed. We consider a number of different feasibility constraints and provide simple PA strategies that are approximately optimal with respect to the best PA strategy for each case. All of our algorithms have polynomial sample complexity. We further show that our results are tight within constant factors: better factors cannot be achieved even using the full power of FA strategies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Why Do Competitive Markets Converge to First-Price Auctions?

We consider a setting in which bidders participate in multiple auctions run by different sellers, and optimize their bids for the \emph{aggregate} auction. We analyze this setting by formulating a game between sellers, where a seller's strategy is to pick an auction to run. Our analysis aims to shed light on the recent change in the Display Ads market landscape: here, ad exchanges (sellers) were mostly running second-price auctions earlier and over time they switched to variants of the first-price auction, culminating in Google's Ad Exchange moving to a first-price auction in 2019. Our model and results offer an explanation for why the first-price auction occurs as a natural equilibrium in such competitive markets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Computational issues in time-inconsistent planning

Time-inconsistency refers to a paradox in decision making where agents exhibit inconsistent behaviors over time. Examples are procrastination where agents tends to costly postpone easy tasks, and abandonments where agents start a plan and quit in the middle. These behaviors are undesirable in the sense that agents make clearly suboptimal decisions over optimal ones. To capture such behaviors and more importantly, to quantify inefficiency caused by such behaviors, [Kleinberg & Oren 2014] propose a graph model which is essentially same as the standard planning model except for the cost structure. Using this model, they initiate the study of several interesting problems: 1) cost ratio: the worst ratio between the actual cost of the agent and the optimal cost, over all graph instances; 2) motivating subgraph: how to motivate the agent to reach the goal by deleting nodes and edges; 3) Intermediate rewards: how to motivate agents to reach the goal by placing intermediate rewards. Kleinberg and Oren give partial answers to these questions, but the main problems are still open. In fact, they raise these problems explicitly as open problems in their paper. In this paper, we give answers to all three open problems in [Kleinberg & Oren 2014]. First, we show a tight upper bound of cost ratio for graphs without Akerlof's structure, thus confirm the conjecture by Kleinberg and Oren that Akerlof's structure is indeed the worst case for cost ratio. Second, we prove that finding a motivating subgraph is NP-hard, showing that it is generally inefficient to motivate agents by deleting nodes and edges in the graph. Last but not least, we show that computing a strategy to place minimum amount of total reward is also NP-hard. Therefore, it is computational inefficient to motivate agents by placing intermediate rewards. The techniques we use to prove these results are nontrivial and of independent interests.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access