Optimising Trade-offs Among Stakeholders in Ad Auctions

We examine trade-offs among stakeholders in ad auctions. Our metrics are the revenue for the utility of the auctioneer, the number of clicks for the utility of the users and the welfare for the utility of the advertisers. We show how to optimize linear combinations of the stakeholder utilities, showing that these can be tackled through a GSP auction with a per-click reserve price. We then examine constrained optimization of stakeholder utilities. We use simulations and analysis of real-world sponsored search auction data to demonstrate the feasible trade-offs, examining the effect of changing the allowed number of ads on the utilities of the stakeholders. We investigate both short term effects, when the players do not have the time to modify their behavior, and long term equilibrium conditions. Finally, we examine a combinatorially richer constrained optimization problem, where there are several possible allowed configurations (templates) of ad formats. This model captures richer ad formats, which allow using the available screen real estate in various ways. We show that two natural generalizations of the GSP auction rules to this domain are poorly behaved, resulting in not having a symmetric Nash equilibrium or having one with poor welfare. We also provide positive results for restricted cases.Comment: 18 pages, 10 figures, ACM Conference on Economics and Computation 201

Fast consensus for fully distributed multi-agent task allocation

In distributed multi-agent task allocation problems, the time to find a solution and a guarantee of reaching a solution, i.e. an execution plan, is critical to ensure a fast response. The problem is made more difficult by time constraints on tasks and on agents, which may prevent some tasks from being executed. This paper proposes a new distributed consensus-based task allocation algorithm that reduces convergence time with respect to previous methods, i.e. the time required for the network of agents to agree on a task allocation, while maximising the number of allocated tasks. The novel idea is to reduce the time to reach consensus among agents by using a hierarchy or rank-based conflict resolution among agents. Unlike other existing algorithms, this method enables different agents to construct their task schedules using any insertion heuristic, and still guarantee convergence. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed approach can allocate a greater number of tasks in a shorter time than an established baseline method. Additionally, the analysis delineates dependencies between optimal insertion strategies and number of tasks per agent, providing insights for further optimisation strategies

Distributed task allocation optimisation techniques in multi-agent systems

A multi-agent system consists of a number of agents, which may include software agents, robots, or even humans, in some application environment. Multi-robot systems are increasingly being employed to complete jobs and missions in various fields including search and rescue, space and underwater exploration, support in healthcare facilities, surveillance and target tracking, product manufacturing, pick-up and delivery, and logistics. Multi-agent task allocation is a complex problem compounded by various constraints such as deadlines, agent capabilities, and communication delays. In high-stake real-time environments, such as rescue missions, it is difficult to predict in advance what the requirements of the mission will be, what resources will be available, and how to optimally employ such resources. Yet, a fast response and speedy execution are critical to the outcome. This thesis proposes distributed optimisation techniques to tackle the following questions: how to maximise the number of assigned tasks in time restricted environments with limited resources; how to reach consensus on an execution plan across many agents, within a reasonable time-frame; and how to maintain robustness and optimality when factors change, e.g. the number of agents changes. Three novel approaches are proposed to address each of these questions. A novel algorithm is proposed to reassign tasks and free resources that allow the completion of more tasks. The introduction of a rank-based system for conflict resolution is shown to reduce the time for the agents to reach consensus while maintaining equal number of allocations. Finally, this thesis proposes an adaptive data-driven algorithm to learn optimal strategies from experience in different scenarios, and to enable individual agents to adapt their strategy during execution. A simulated rescue scenario is used to demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods compared with existing baseline methods

Economic and Institutional Reforms in French-speaking West Africa Impact on Efficiency and Growth

Economic reforms, West Africa, Institutions, Privatization

Applying Optimization to the Conservation Project Selection Process: A Case Study of Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

This study presents a thorough discussion of the efficiency and effectiveness improvement from optimization models (Binary Linear Programming and Goal Programming), as applied to the Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative. The OM models can yield 21% and 19.1% higher benefit scores respectively, spending $13,013,473 and$31,463,473 less total acquisition costs. To achieve the same level of conservation benefits for the current rank based approach, the REPI would spend additional $20.1 million and approximate 50% of the budget. A counterpart of OM- the cost-effective analysis is observed to be inefficient when the problem becomes complex. In a real world of political environment of the conservation programs, we suggest a hybrid method of current rank based approach and the OM as well as the GP to address incompatible goals of interests groups.Environmental Economics and Policy, C6, Q24,

Updating, Upgrading, Refining, Calibration and Implementation of Trade-Off Analysis Methodology Developed for INDOT

As part of the ongoing evolution towards integrated highway asset management, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), through SPR studies in 2004 and 2010, sponsored research that developed an overall framework for asset management. This was intended to foster decision support for alternative investments across the program areas on the basis of a broad range of performance measures and against the background of the various alternative actions or spending amounts that could be applied to the several different asset types in the different program areas. The 2010 study also developed theoretical constructs for scaling and amalgamating the different performance measures, and for analyzing the different kinds of trade-offs. The research products from the present study include this technical report which shows how theoretical underpinnings of the methodology developed for INDOT in 2010 have been updated, upgraded, and refined. The report also includes a case study that shows how the trade-off analysis framework has been calibrated using available data. Supplemental to the report is Trade-IN Version 1.0, a set of flexible and easy-to-use spreadsheets that implement the tradeoff framework. With this framework and using data at the current time or in the future, INDOT’s asset managers are placed in a better position to quantify and comprehend the relationships between budget levels and system-wide performance, the relationships between different pairs of conflicting or non-conflicting performance measures under a given budget limit, and the consequences, in terms of system-wide performance, of funding shifts across the management systems or program areas

Allocation Schemes in Analytic Evaluation: Applicant-Centric Holistic or Attribute-Centric Segmented?

Many applications such as hiring and university admissions involve evaluation and selection of applicants. These tasks are fundamentally difficult, and require combining evidence from multiple different aspects (what we term "attributes"). In these applications, the number of applicants is often large, and a common practice is to assign the task to multiple evaluators in a distributed fashion. Specifically, in the often-used holistic allocation, each evaluator is assigned a subset of the applicants, and is asked to assess all relevant information for their assigned applicants. However, such an evaluation process is subject to issues such as miscalibration (evaluators see only a small fraction of the applicants and may not get a good sense of relative quality), and discrimination (evaluators are influenced by irrelevant information about the applicants). We identify that such attribute-based evaluation allows alternative allocation schemes. Specifically, we consider assigning each evaluator more applicants but fewer attributes per applicant, termed segmented allocation. We compare segmented allocation to holistic allocation on several dimensions via theoretical and experimental methods. We establish various tradeoffs between these two approaches, and identify conditions under which one approach results in more accurate evaluation than the other