On Simultaneous Two-player Combinatorial Auctions

We consider the following communication problem: Alice and Bob each have some valuation functions $v_1(\cdot)$ and $v_2(\cdot)$ over subsets of $m$ items, and their goal is to partition the items into $S, \bar{S}$ in a way that maximizes the welfare, $v_1(S) + v_2(\bar{S})$. We study both the allocation problem, which asks for a welfare-maximizing partition and the decision problem, which asks whether or not there exists a partition guaranteeing certain welfare, for binary XOS valuations. For interactive protocols with $poly(m)$ communication, a tight 3/4-approximation is known for both [Fei06,DS06]. For interactive protocols, the allocation problem is provably harder than the decision problem: any solution to the allocation problem implies a solution to the decision problem with one additional round and $\log m$ additional bits of communication via a trivial reduction. Surprisingly, the allocation problem is provably easier for simultaneous protocols. Specifically, we show: 1) There exists a simultaneous, randomized protocol with polynomial communication that selects a partition whose expected welfare is at least $3/4$ of the optimum. This matches the guarantee of the best interactive, randomized protocol with polynomial communication. 2) For all $\varepsilon > 0$, any simultaneous, randomized protocol that decides whether the welfare of the optimal partition is $\geq 1$ or $\leq 3/4 - 1/108+\varepsilon$ correctly with probability $> 1/2 + 1/ poly(m)$ requires exponential communication. This provides a separation between the attainable approximation guarantees via interactive ($3/4$) versus simultaneous ($\leq 3/4-1/108$) protocols with polynomial communication. In other words, this trivial reduction from decision to allocation problems provably requires the extra round of communication

Economic Efficiency Requires Interaction

We study the necessity of interaction between individuals for obtaining approximately efficient allocations. The role of interaction in markets has received significant attention in economic thinking, e.g. in Hayek's 1945 classic paper. We consider this problem in the framework of simultaneous communication complexity. We analyze the amount of simultaneous communication required for achieving an approximately efficient allocation. In particular, we consider two settings: combinatorial auctions with unit demand bidders (bipartite matching) and combinatorial auctions with subadditive bidders. For both settings we first show that non-interactive systems have enormous communication costs relative to interactive ones. On the other hand, we show that limited interaction enables us to find approximately efficient allocations

Combinatorial Auctions Do Need Modest Interaction

We study the necessity of interaction for obtaining efficient allocations in subadditive combinatorial auctions. This problem was originally introduced by Dobzinski, Nisan, and Oren (STOC'14) as the following simple market scenario: $m$ items are to be allocated among $n$ bidders in a distributed setting where bidders valuations are private and hence communication is needed to obtain an efficient allocation. The communication happens in rounds: in each round, each bidder, simultaneously with others, broadcasts a message to all parties involved and the central planner computes an allocation solely based on the communicated messages. Dobzinski et.al. showed that no non-interactive ($1$-round) protocol with polynomial communication (in the number of items and bidders) can achieve approximation ratio better than $\Omega(m^{{1}/{4}})$, while for any $r \geq 1$, there exists $r$-round protocols that achieve $\widetilde{O}(r \cdot m^{{1}/{r+1}})$ approximation with polynomial communication; in particular, $O(\log{m})$ rounds of interaction suffice to obtain an (almost) efficient allocation. A natural question at this point is to identify the "right" level of interaction (i.e., number of rounds) necessary to obtain an efficient allocation. In this paper, we resolve this question by providing an almost tight round-approximation tradeoff for this problem: we show that for any $r \geq 1$, any $r$-round protocol that uses polynomial communication can only approximate the social welfare up to a factor of $\Omega(\frac{1}{r} \cdot m^{{1}/{2r+1}})$. This in particular implies that $\Omega(\frac{\log{m}}{\log\log{m}})$ rounds of interaction are necessary for obtaining any efficient allocation in these markets. Our work builds on the recent multi-party round-elimination technique of Alon, Nisan, Raz, and Weinstein (FOCS'15) and settles an open question posed by Dobzinski et.al. and Alon et. al

Composable and Efficient Mechanisms

We initiate the study of efficient mechanism design with guaranteed good properties even when players participate in multiple different mechanisms simultaneously or sequentially. We define the class of smooth mechanisms, related to smooth games defined by Roughgarden, that can be thought of as mechanisms that generate approximately market clearing prices. We show that smooth mechanisms result in high quality outcome in equilibrium both in the full information setting and in the Bayesian setting with uncertainty about participants, as well as in learning outcomes. Our main result is to show that such mechanisms compose well: smoothness locally at each mechanism implies efficiency globally. For mechanisms where good performance requires that bidders do not bid above their value, we identify the notion of a weakly smooth mechanism. Weakly smooth mechanisms, such as the Vickrey auction, are approximately efficient under the no-overbidding assumption. Similar to smooth mechanisms, weakly smooth mechanisms behave well in composition, and have high quality outcome in equilibrium (assuming no overbidding) both in the full information setting and in the Bayesian setting, as well as in learning outcomes. In most of the paper we assume participants have quasi-linear valuations. We also extend some of our results to settings where participants have budget constraints

Computational Efficiency Requires Simple Taxation

We characterize the communication complexity of truthful mechanisms. Our departure point is the well known taxation principle. The taxation principle asserts that every truthful mechanism can be interpreted as follows: every player is presented with a menu that consists of a price for each bundle (the prices depend only on the valuations of the other players). Each player is allocated a bundle that maximizes his profit according to this menu. We define the taxation complexity of a truthful mechanism to be the logarithm of the maximum number of menus that may be presented to a player. Our main finding is that in general the taxation complexity essentially equals the communication complexity. The proof consists of two main steps. First, we prove that for rich enough domains the taxation complexity is at most the communication complexity. We then show that the taxation complexity is much smaller than the communication complexity only in "pathological" cases and provide a formal description of these extreme cases. Next, we study mechanisms that access the valuations via value queries only. In this setting we establish that the menu complexity -- a notion that was already studied in several different contexts -- characterizes the number of value queries that the mechanism makes in exactly the same way that the taxation complexity characterizes the communication complexity. Our approach yields several applications, including strengthening the solution concept with low communication overhead, fast computation of prices, and hardness of approximation by computationally efficient truthful mechanisms

Draft Auctions

We introduce draft auctions, which is a sequential auction format where at each iteration players bid for the right to buy items at a fixed price. We show that draft auctions offer an exponential improvement in social welfare at equilibrium over sequential item auctions where predetermined items are auctioned at each time step. Specifically, we show that for any subadditive valuation the social welfare at equilibrium is an $O(\log^2(m))$-approximation to the optimal social welfare, where $m$ is the number of items. We also provide tighter approximation results for several subclasses. Our welfare guarantees hold for Bayes-Nash equilibria and for no-regret learning outcomes, via the smooth-mechanism framework. Of independent interest, our techniques show that in a combinatorial auction setting, efficiency guarantees of a mechanism via smoothness for a very restricted class of cardinality valuations, extend with a small degradation, to subadditive valuations, the largest complement-free class of valuations. Variants of draft auctions have been used in practice and have been experimentally shown to outperform other auctions. Our results provide a theoretical justification

Tight Bounds for the Price of Anarchy of Simultaneous First Price Auctions

We study the Price of Anarchy of simultaneous first-price auctions for buyers with submodular and subadditive valuations. The current best upper bounds for the Bayesian Price of Anarchy of these auctions are e/(e-1) [Syrgkanis and Tardos 2013] and 2 [Feldman et al. 2013], respectively. We provide matching lower bounds for both cases even for the case of full information and for mixed Nash equilibria via an explicit construction. We present an alternative proof of the upper bound of e/(e-1) for first-price auctions with fractionally subadditive valuations which reveals the worst-case price distribution, that is used as a building block for the matching lower bound construction. We generalize our results to a general class of item bidding auctions that we call bid-dependent auctions (including first-price auctions and all-pay auctions) where the winner is always the highest bidder and each bidder's payment depends only on his own bid. Finally, we apply our techniques to discriminatory price multi-unit auctions. We complement the results of [de Keijzer et al. 2013] for the case of subadditive valuations, by providing a matching lower bound of 2. For the case of submodular valuations, we provide a lower bound of 1.109. For the same class of valuations, we were able to reproduce the upper bound of e/(e-1) using our non-smooth approach.Comment: 37 pages, 5 figures, ACM Transactions on Economics and Computatio