New bounds for truthful scheduling on two unrelated selfish machines

We consider the minimum makespan problem for $n$ tasks and two unrelated parallel selfish machines. Let $R_n$ be the best approximation ratio of randomized monotone scale-free algorithms. This class contains the most efficient algorithms known for truthful scheduling on two machines. We propose a new $Min-Max$ formulation for $R_n$, as well as upper and lower bounds on $R_n$ based on this formulation. For the lower bound, we exploit pointwise approximations of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs). For the upper bound, we construct randomized algorithms using distributions with piecewise rational CDFs. Our method improves upon the existing bounds on $R_n$ for small $n$. In particular, we obtain almost tight bounds for $n=2$ showing that $|R_2-1.505996|<10^{-6}$.Comment: 28 pages, 3 tables, 1 figure. Theory Comput Syst (2019

Average-case Approximation Ratio of Scheduling without Payments

Apart from the principles and methodologies inherited from Economics and Game Theory, the studies in Algorithmic Mechanism Design typically employ the worst-case analysis and approximation schemes of Theoretical Computer Science. For instance, the approximation ratio, which is the canonical measure of evaluating how well an incentive-compatible mechanism approximately optimizes the objective, is defined in the worst-case sense. It compares the performance of the optimal mechanism against the performance of a truthful mechanism, for all possible inputs. In this paper, we take the average-case analysis approach, and tackle one of the primary motivating problems in Algorithmic Mechanism Design -- the scheduling problem [Nisan and Ronen 1999]. One version of this problem which includes a verification component is studied by [Koutsoupias 2014]. It was shown that the problem has a tight approximation ratio bound of (n+1)/2 for the single-task setting, where n is the number of machines. We show, however, when the costs of the machines to executing the task follow any independent and identical distribution, the average-case approximation ratio of the mechanism given in [Koutsoupias 2014] is upper bounded by a constant. This positive result asymptotically separates the average-case ratio from the worst-case ratio, and indicates that the optimal mechanism for the problem actually works well on average, although in the worst-case the expected cost of the mechanism is Theta(n) times that of the optimal cost

Makespan Minimization via Posted Prices

We consider job scheduling settings, with multiple machines, where jobs arrive online and choose a machine selfishly so as to minimize their cost. Our objective is the classic makespan minimization objective, which corresponds to the completion time of the last job to complete. The incentives of the selfish jobs may lead to poor performance. To reconcile the differing objectives, we introduce posted machine prices. The selfish job seeks to minimize the sum of its completion time on the machine and the posted price for the machine. Prices may be static (i.e., set once and for all before any arrival) or dynamic (i.e., change over time), but they are determined only by the past, assuming nothing about upcoming events. Obviously, such schemes are inherently truthful. We consider the competitive ratio: the ratio between the makespan achievable by the pricing scheme and that of the optimal algorithm. We give tight bounds on the competitive ratio for both dynamic and static pricing schemes for identical, restricted, related, and unrelated machine settings. Our main result is a dynamic pricing scheme for related machines that gives a constant competitive ratio, essentially matching the competitive ratio of online algorithms for this setting. In contrast, dynamic pricing gives poor performance for unrelated machines. This lower bound also exhibits a gap between what can be achieved by pricing versus what can be achieved by online algorithms

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

A deterministic truthful PTAS for scheduling related machines

Scheduling on related machines ($Q||C_{\max}$) is one of the most important problems in the field of Algorithmic Mechanism Design. Each machine is controlled by a selfish agent and her valuation can be expressed via a single parameter, her {\em speed}. In contrast to other similar problems, Archer and Tardos \cite{AT01} showed that an algorithm that minimizes the makespan can be truthfully implemented, although in exponential time. On the other hand, if we leave out the game-theoretic issues, the complexity of the problem has been completely settled -- the problem is strongly NP-hard, while there exists a PTAS \cite{HS88,ES04}. This problem is the most well studied in single-parameter algorithmic mechanism design. It gives an excellent ground to explore the boundary between truthfulness and efficient computation. Since the work of Archer and Tardos, quite a lot of deterministic and randomized mechanisms have been suggested. Recently, a breakthrough result \cite{DDDR08} showed that a randomized truthful PTAS exists. On the other hand, for the deterministic case, the best known approximation factor is 2.8 \cite{Kov05,Kov07}. It has been a major open question whether there exists a deterministic truthful PTAS, or whether truthfulness has an essential, negative impact on the computational complexity of the problem. In this paper we give a definitive answer to this important question by providing a truthful {\em deterministic} PTAS