Learning Multi-item Auctions with (or without) Samples

We provide algorithms that learn simple auctions whose revenue is approximately optimal in multi-item multi-bidder settings, for a wide range of valuations including unit-demand, additive, constrained additive, XOS, and subadditive. We obtain our learning results in two settings. The first is the commonly studied setting where sample access to the bidders' distributions over valuations is given, for both regular distributions and arbitrary distributions with bounded support. Our algorithms require polynomially many samples in the number of items and bidders. The second is a more general max-min learning setting that we introduce, where we are given "approximate distributions," and we seek to compute an auction whose revenue is approximately optimal simultaneously for all "true distributions" that are close to the given ones. These results are more general in that they imply the sample-based results, and are also applicable in settings where we have no sample access to the underlying distributions but have estimated them indirectly via market research or by observation of previously run, potentially non-truthful auctions. Our results hold for valuation distributions satisfying the standard (and necessary) independence-across-items property. They also generalize and improve upon recent works, which have provided algorithms that learn approximately optimal auctions in more restricted settings with additive, subadditive and unit-demand valuations using sample access to distributions. We generalize these results to the complete unit-demand, additive, and XOS setting, to i.i.d. subadditive bidders, and to the max-min setting. Our results are enabled by new uniform convergence bounds for hypotheses classes under product measures. Our bounds result in exponential savings in sample complexity compared to bounds derived by bounding the VC dimension, and are of independent interest.Comment: Appears in FOCS 201

Incentivizing the Dynamic Workforce: Learning Contracts in the Gig-Economy

In principal-agent models, a principal offers a contract to an agent to perform a certain task. The agent exerts a level of effort that maximizes her utility. The principal is oblivious to the agent's chosen level of effort, and conditions her wage only on possible outcomes. In this work, we consider a model in which the principal is unaware of the agent's utility and action space. She sequentially offers contracts to identical agents, and observes the resulting outcomes. We present an algorithm for learning the optimal contract under mild assumptions. We bound the number of samples needed for the principal obtain a contract that is within $\epsilon$ of her optimal net profit for every $\epsilon>0$

A General Theory of Sample Complexity for Multi-Item Profit Maximization

The design of profit-maximizing multi-item mechanisms is a notoriously challenging problem with tremendous real-world impact. The mechanism designer's goal is to field a mechanism with high expected profit on the distribution over buyers' values. Unfortunately, if the set of mechanisms he optimizes over is complex, a mechanism may have high empirical profit over a small set of samples but low expected profit. This raises the question, how many samples are sufficient to ensure that the empirically optimal mechanism is nearly optimal in expectation? We uncover structure shared by a myriad of pricing, auction, and lottery mechanisms that allows us to prove strong sample complexity bounds: for any set of buyers' values, profit is a piecewise linear function of the mechanism's parameters. We prove new bounds for mechanism classes not yet studied in the sample-based mechanism design literature and match or improve over the best known guarantees for many classes. The profit functions we study are significantly different from well-understood functions in machine learning, so our analysis requires a sharp understanding of the interplay between mechanism parameters and buyer values. We strengthen our main results with data-dependent bounds when the distribution over buyers' values is "well-behaved." Finally, we investigate a fundamental tradeoff in sample-based mechanism design: complex mechanisms often have higher profit than simple mechanisms, but more samples are required to ensure that empirical and expected profit are close. We provide techniques for optimizing this tradeoff

Approximately Optimal Mechanism Design: Motivation, Examples, and Lessons Learned

Optimal mechanism design enjoys a beautiful and well-developed theory, and also a number of killer applications. Rules of thumb produced by the field influence everything from how governments sell wireless spectrum licenses to how the major search engines auction off online advertising. There are, however, some basic problems for which the traditional optimal mechanism design approach is ill-suited --- either because it makes overly strong assumptions, or because it advocates overly complex designs. The thesis of this paper is that approximately optimal mechanisms allow us to reason about fundamental questions that seem out of reach of the traditional theory. This survey has three main parts. The first part describes the approximately optimal mechanism design paradigm --- how it works, and what we aim to learn by applying it. The second and third parts of the survey cover two case studies, where we instantiate the general design paradigm to investigate two basic questions. In the first example, we consider revenue maximization in a single-item auction with heterogeneous bidders. Our goal is to understand if complexity --- in the sense of detailed distributional knowledge --- is an essential feature of good auctions for this problem, or alternatively if there are simpler auctions that are near-optimal. The second example considers welfare maximization with multiple items. Our goal here is similar in spirit: when is complexity --- in the form of high-dimensional bid spaces --- an essential feature of every auction that guarantees reasonable welfare? Are there interesting cases where low-dimensional bid spaces suffice?Comment: Based on a talk given by the author at the 15th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), June 201