47,482 research outputs found
Dominant Strategies Implementation when Compensations are Allowed:a Characterization FundaciĂłn
Dominant strategies truthful implementation of flexible social objectives involves the ability of the planner to alter the individual incentives in such a way that the externality imposed on society by each agent reporting a given type is fully internalized in the agent’s final payoff. In other words, the agents’ objective function must mimic the social objectives. We find that our main result is robust enough to explain why well-known mechanisms like Groves’s transfers work in some contexts while some other social objectives are not implementable in dominant strategies.Individual decisiveness, compensation mechanisms, dominant strategies.
Welfare Maximization and Truthfulness in Mechanism Design with Ordinal Preferences
We study mechanism design problems in the {\em ordinal setting} wherein the
preferences of agents are described by orderings over outcomes, as opposed to
specific numerical values associated with them. This setting is relevant when
agents can compare outcomes, but aren't able to evaluate precise utilities for
them. Such a situation arises in diverse contexts including voting and matching
markets.
Our paper addresses two issues that arise in ordinal mechanism design. To
design social welfare maximizing mechanisms, one needs to be able to
quantitatively measure the welfare of an outcome which is not clear in the
ordinal setting. Second, since the impossibility results of Gibbard and
Satterthwaite~\cite{Gibbard73,Satterthwaite75} force one to move to randomized
mechanisms, one needs a more nuanced notion of truthfulness.
We propose {\em rank approximation} as a metric for measuring the quality of
an outcome, which allows us to evaluate mechanisms based on worst-case
performance, and {\em lex-truthfulness} as a notion of truthfulness for
randomized ordinal mechanisms. Lex-truthfulness is stronger than notions
studied in the literature, and yet flexible enough to admit a rich class of
mechanisms {\em circumventing classical impossibility results}. We demonstrate
the usefulness of the above notions by devising lex-truthful mechanisms
achieving good rank-approximation factors, both in the general ordinal setting,
as well as structured settings such as {\em (one-sided) matching markets}, and
its generalizations, {\em matroid} and {\em scheduling} markets.Comment: Some typos correcte
Mechanisms for Multi-unit Combinatorial Auctions with a Few Distinct Goods
We design and analyze deterministic truthful approximation mechanisms for multi-unit Combinatorial Auctions involving only a constant number of distinct goods, each in arbitrary limited supply. Prospective buyers (bidders) have preferences over multisets of items, i.e., for more than one unit per distinct good. Our objective is to determine allocations of multisets that maximize the Social Welfare. Our main results are for multi-minded and submodular bidders. In the first setting each bidder has a positive value for being allocated one multiset from a prespecified demand set of alternatives. In the second setting each bidder is associated to a submodular valuation function that defines his value for the multiset he is allocated. For multi-minded bidders, we design a truthful Fptas that fully optimizes the Social Welfare, while violating the supply constraints on goods within factor (1 + ), for any fixed > 0 (i.e., the approximation applies to the constraints and not to the Social Welfare). This result is best possible, in that full optimization is impossible without violating the supply constraints. For submodular bidders, we obtain a Ptas that approximates the optimum Social Welfare within factor (1 + ), for any fixed > 0, without violating the supply constraints. This result is best possible as well. Our allocation algorithms are Maximal-in-Range and yield truthful mechanisms, when paired with Vickrey-Clarke-Groves payments
Truthful Online Scheduling with Commitments
We study online mechanisms for preemptive scheduling with deadlines, with the
goal of maximizing the total value of completed jobs. This problem is
fundamental to deadline-aware cloud scheduling, but there are strong lower
bounds even for the algorithmic problem without incentive constraints. However,
these lower bounds can be circumvented under the natural assumption of deadline
slackness, i.e., that there is a guaranteed lower bound on the ratio
between a job's size and the time window in which it can be executed.
In this paper, we construct a truthful scheduling mechanism with a constant
competitive ratio, given slackness . Furthermore, we show that if is
large enough then we can construct a mechanism that also satisfies a commitment
property: it can be determined whether or not a job will finish, and the
requisite payment if so, well in advance of each job's deadline. This is
notable because, in practice, users with strict deadlines may find it
unacceptable to discover only very close to their deadline that their job has
been rejected
- …