Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics: The Barbados Lectures

This document collects the lecture notes from my mini-course "Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics," taught at the Bellairs Research Institute of McGill University, Holetown, Barbados, February 19--23, 2017, as the 29th McGill Invitational Workshop on Computational Complexity. The goal of this mini-course is twofold: (i) to explain how complexity theory has helped illuminate several barriers in economics and game theory; and (ii) to illustrate how game-theoretic questions have led to new and interesting complexity theory, including recent several breakthroughs. It consists of two five-lecture sequences: the Solar Lectures, focusing on the communication and computational complexity of computing equilibria; and the Lunar Lectures, focusing on applications of complexity theory in game theory and economics. No background in game theory is assumed.Comment: Revised v2 from December 2019 corrects some errors in and adds some recent citations to v1 Revised v3 corrects a few typos in v

Public projects, Boolean functions and the borders of Border's theorem

Border's theorem gives an intuitive linear characterization of the feasible interim allocation rules of a Bayesian single-item environment, and it has several applications in economic and algorithmic mechanism design. All known generalizations of Border's theorem either restrict attention to relatively simple settings, or resort to approximation. This paper identifies a complexity-theoretic barrier that indicates, assuming standard complexity class separations, that Border's theorem cannot be extended significantly beyond the state-of-the-art. We also identify a surprisingly tight connection between Myerson's optimal auction theory, when applied to public project settings, and some fundamental results in the analysis of Boolean functions.Comment: Accepted to ACM EC 201

On the Inefficiency of the Uniform Price Auction

We present our results on Uniform Price Auctions, one of the standard sealed-bid multi-unit auction formats, for selling multiple identical units of a single good to multi-demand bidders. Contrary to the truthful and economically efficient multi-unit Vickrey auction, the Uniform Price Auction encourages strategic bidding and is socially inefficient in general. The uniform pricing rule is, however, widely popular by its appeal to the natural anticipation, that identical items should be identically priced. In this work we study equilibria of the Uniform Price Auction for bidders with (symmetric) submodular valuation functions, over the number of units that they win. We investigate pure Nash equilibria of the auction in undominated strategies; we produce a characterization of these equilibria that allows us to prove that a fraction 1-1/e of the optimum social welfare is always recovered in undominated pure Nash equilibrium -- and this bound is essentially tight. Subsequently, we study the auction under the incomplete information setting and prove a bound of 4-2/k on the economic inefficiency of (mixed) Bayes Nash equilibria that are supported by undominated strategies.Comment: Additions and Improvements upon SAGT 2012 results (and minor corrections on the previous version

Simple Mechanisms for a Subadditive Buyer and Applications to Revenue Monotonicity

We study the revenue maximization problem of a seller with n heterogeneous items for sale to a single buyer whose valuation function for sets of items is unknown and drawn from some distribution D. We show that if D is a distribution over subadditive valuations with independent items, then the better of pricing each item separately or pricing only the grand bundle achieves a constant-factor approximation to the revenue of the optimal mechanism. This includes buyers who are k-demand, additive up to a matroid constraint, or additive up to constraints of any downwards-closed set system (and whose values for the individual items are sampled independently), as well as buyers who are fractionally subadditive with item multipliers drawn independently. Our proof makes use of the core-tail decomposition framework developed in prior work showing similar results for the significantly simpler class of additive buyers [LY13, BILW14]. In the second part of the paper, we develop a connection between approximately optimal simple mechanisms and approximate revenue monotonicity with respect to buyers' valuations. Revenue non-monotonicity is the phenomenon that sometimes strictly increasing buyers' values for every set can strictly decrease the revenue of the optimal mechanism [HR12]. Using our main result, we derive a bound on how bad this degradation can be (and dub such a bound a proof of approximate revenue monotonicity); we further show that better bounds on approximate monotonicity imply a better analysis of our simple mechanisms.Comment: Updated title and body to version included in TEAC. Adapted Theorem 5.2 to accommodate \eta-BIC auctions (versus exactly BIC

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

Revenue Maximization and Ex-Post Budget Constraints

We consider the problem of a revenue-maximizing seller with m items for sale to n additive bidders with hard budget constraints, assuming that the seller has some prior distribution over bidder values and budgets. The prior may be correlated across items and budgets of the same bidder, but is assumed independent across bidders. We target mechanisms that are Bayesian Incentive Compatible, but that are ex-post Individually Rational and ex-post budget respecting. Virtually no such mechanisms are known that satisfy all these conditions and guarantee any revenue approximation, even with just a single item. We provide a computationally efficient mechanism that is a $3$-approximation with respect to all BIC, ex-post IR, and ex-post budget respecting mechanisms. Note that the problem is NP-hard to approximate better than a factor of 16/15, even in the case where the prior is a point mass \cite{ChakrabartyGoel}. We further characterize the optimal mechanism in this setting, showing that it can be interpreted as a distribution over virtual welfare maximizers. We prove our results by making use of a black-box reduction from mechanism to algorithm design developed by \cite{CaiDW13b}. Our main technical contribution is a computationally efficient $3$-approximation algorithm for the algorithmic problem that results by an application of their framework to this problem. The algorithmic problem has a mixed-sign objective and is NP-hard to optimize exactly, so it is surprising that a computationally efficient approximation is possible at all. In the case of a single item ($m=1$), the algorithmic problem can be solved exactly via exhaustive search, leading to a computationally efficient exact algorithm and a stronger characterization of the optimal mechanism as a distribution over virtual value maximizers