245 research outputs found
Efficiency of Truthful and Symmetric Mechanisms in One-sided Matching
We study the efficiency (in terms of social welfare) of truthful and
symmetric mechanisms in one-sided matching problems with {\em dichotomous
preferences} and {\em normalized von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences}. We are
particularly interested in the well-known {\em Random Serial Dictatorship}
mechanism. For dichotomous preferences, we first show that truthful, symmetric
and optimal mechanisms exist if intractable mechanisms are allowed. We then
provide a connection to online bipartite matching. Using this connection, it is
possible to design truthful, symmetric and tractable mechanisms that extract
0.69 of the maximum social welfare, which works under assumption that agents
are not adversarial. Without this assumption, we show that Random Serial
Dictatorship always returns an assignment in which the expected social welfare
is at least a third of the maximum social welfare. For normalized von
Neumann-Morgenstern preferences, we show that Random Serial Dictatorship always
returns an assignment in which the expected social welfare is at least
\frac{1}{e}\frac{\nu(\opt)^2}{n}, where \nu(\opt) is the maximum social
welfare and is the number of both agents and items. On the hardness side,
we show that no truthful mechanism can achieve a social welfare better than
\frac{\nu(\opt)^2}{n}.Comment: 13 pages, 1 figur
Cake Cutting Algorithms for Piecewise Constant and Piecewise Uniform Valuations
Cake cutting is one of the most fundamental settings in fair division and
mechanism design without money. In this paper, we consider different levels of
three fundamental goals in cake cutting: fairness, Pareto optimality, and
strategyproofness. In particular, we present robust versions of envy-freeness
and proportionality that are not only stronger than their standard
counter-parts but also have less information requirements. We then focus on
cake cutting with piecewise constant valuations and present three desirable
algorithms: CCEA (Controlled Cake Eating Algorithm), MEA (Market Equilibrium
Algorithm) and CSD (Constrained Serial Dictatorship). CCEA is polynomial-time,
robust envy-free, and non-wasteful. It relies on parametric network flows and
recent generalizations of the probabilistic serial algorithm. For the subdomain
of piecewise uniform valuations, we show that it is also group-strategyproof.
Then, we show that there exists an algorithm (MEA) that is polynomial-time,
envy-free, proportional, and Pareto optimal. MEA is based on computing a
market-based equilibrium via a convex program and relies on the results of
Reijnierse and Potters [24] and Devanur et al. [15]. Moreover, we show that MEA
and CCEA are equivalent to mechanism 1 of Chen et. al. [12] for piecewise
uniform valuations. We then present an algorithm CSD and a way to implement it
via randomization that satisfies strategyproofness in expectation, robust
proportionality, and unanimity for piecewise constant valuations. For the case
of two agents, it is robust envy-free, robust proportional, strategyproof, and
polynomial-time. Many of our results extend to more general settings in cake
cutting that allow for variable claims and initial endowments. We also show a
few impossibility results to complement our algorithms.Comment: 39 page
Social Welfare in One-sided Matching Markets without Money
We study social welfare in one-sided matching markets where the goal is to
efficiently allocate n items to n agents that each have a complete, private
preference list and a unit demand over the items. Our focus is on allocation
mechanisms that do not involve any monetary payments. We consider two natural
measures of social welfare: the ordinal welfare factor which measures the
number of agents that are at least as happy as in some unknown, arbitrary
benchmark allocation, and the linear welfare factor which assumes an agent's
utility linearly decreases down his preference lists, and measures the total
utility to that achieved by an optimal allocation. We analyze two matching
mechanisms which have been extensively studied by economists. The first
mechanism is the random serial dictatorship (RSD) where agents are ordered in
accordance with a randomly chosen permutation, and are successively allocated
their best choice among the unallocated items. The second mechanism is the
probabilistic serial (PS) mechanism of Bogomolnaia and Moulin [8], which
computes a fractional allocation that can be expressed as a convex combination
of integral allocations. The welfare factor of a mechanism is the infimum over
all instances. For RSD, we show that the ordinal welfare factor is
asymptotically 1/2, while the linear welfare factor lies in the interval [.526,
2/3]. For PS, we show that the ordinal welfare factor is also 1/2 while the
linear welfare factor is roughly 2/3. To our knowledge, these results are the
first non-trivial performance guarantees for these natural mechanisms
Pareto Optimal Matchings in Many-to-Many Markets with Ties
We consider Pareto-optimal matchings (POMs) in a many-to-many market of
applicants and courses where applicants have preferences, which may include
ties, over individual courses and lexicographic preferences over sets of
courses. Since this is the most general setting examined so far in the
literature, our work unifies and generalizes several known results.
Specifically, we characterize POMs and introduce the \emph{Generalized Serial
Dictatorship Mechanism with Ties (GSDT)} that effectively handles ties via
properties of network flows. We show that GSDT can generate all POMs using
different priority orderings over the applicants, but it satisfies truthfulness
only for certain such orderings. This shortcoming is not specific to our
mechanism; we show that any mechanism generating all POMs in our setting is
prone to strategic manipulation. This is in contrast to the one-to-one case
(with or without ties), for which truthful mechanisms generating all POMs do
exist
Social welfare in one-sided matchings: Random priority and beyond
We study the problem of approximate social welfare maximization (without
money) in one-sided matching problems when agents have unrestricted cardinal
preferences over a finite set of items. Random priority is a very well-known
truthful-in-expectation mechanism for the problem. We prove that the
approximation ratio of random priority is Theta(n^{-1/2}) while no
truthful-in-expectation mechanism can achieve an approximation ratio better
than O(n^{-1/2}), where n is the number of agents and items. Furthermore, we
prove that the approximation ratio of all ordinal (not necessarily
truthful-in-expectation) mechanisms is upper bounded by O(n^{-1/2}), indicating
that random priority is asymptotically the best truthful-in-expectation
mechanism and the best ordinal mechanism for the problem.Comment: 13 page
Efficient Equilibria in Polymatrix Coordination Games
We consider polymatrix coordination games with individual preferences where
every player corresponds to a node in a graph who plays with each neighbor a
separate bimatrix game with non-negative symmetric payoffs. In this paper, we
study -approximate -equilibria of these games, i.e., outcomes where
no group of at most players can deviate such that each member increases his
payoff by at least a factor . We prove that for these
games have the finite coalitional improvement property (and thus
-approximate -equilibria exist), while for this
property does not hold. Further, we derive an almost tight bound of
on the price of anarchy, where is the number of
players; in particular, it scales from unbounded for pure Nash equilibria ( to for strong equilibria (). We also settle the complexity
of several problems related to the verification and existence of these
equilibria. Finally, we investigate natural means to reduce the inefficiency of
Nash equilibria. Most promisingly, we show that by fixing the strategies of
players the price of anarchy can be reduced to (and this bound is tight)
Precise Complexity of the Core in Dichotomous and Additive Hedonic Games
Hedonic games provide a general model of coalition formation, in which a set
of agents is partitioned into coalitions, with each agent having preferences
over which other players are in her coalition. We prove that with additively
separable preferences, it is -complete to decide whether a core- or
strict-core-stable partition exists, extending a result of Woeginger (2013).
Our result holds even if valuations are symmetric and non-zero only for a
constant number of other agents. We also establish -completeness of
deciding non-emptiness of the strict core for hedonic games with dichotomous
preferences. Such results establish that the core is much less tractable than
solution concepts such as individual stability.Comment: ADT-2017, 15 pages in LNCS styl
Truthful Facility Assignment with Resource Augmentation: An Exact Analysis of Serial Dictatorship
We study the truthful facility assignment problem, where a set of agents with
private most-preferred points on a metric space are assigned to facilities that
lie on the metric space, under capacity constraints on the facilities. The goal
is to produce such an assignment that minimizes the social cost, i.e., the
total distance between the most-preferred points of the agents and their
corresponding facilities in the assignment, under the constraint of
truthfulness, which ensures that agents do not misreport their most-preferred
points.
We propose a resource augmentation framework, where a truthful mechanism is
evaluated by its worst-case performance on an instance with enhanced facility
capacities against the optimal mechanism on the same instance with the original
capacities. We study a very well-known mechanism, Serial Dictatorship, and
provide an exact analysis of its performance. Although Serial Dictatorship is a
purely combinatorial mechanism, our analysis uses linear programming; a linear
program expresses its greedy nature as well as the structure of the input, and
finds the input instance that enforces the mechanism have its worst-case
performance. Bounding the objective of the linear program using duality
arguments allows us to compute tight bounds on the approximation ratio. Among
other results, we prove that Serial Dictatorship has approximation ratio
when the capacities are multiplied by any integer . Our
results suggest that even a limited augmentation of the resources can have
wondrous effects on the performance of the mechanism and in particular, the
approximation ratio goes to 1 as the augmentation factor becomes large. We
complement our results with bounds on the approximation ratio of Random Serial
Dictatorship, the randomized version of Serial Dictatorship, when there is no
resource augmentation
A Game of Attribute Decomposition for Software Architecture Design
Attribute-driven software architecture design aims to provide decision
support by taking into account the quality attributes of softwares. A central
question in this process is: What architecture design best fulfills the
desirable software requirements? To answer this question, a system designer
needs to make tradeoffs among several potentially conflicting quality
attributes. Such decisions are normally ad-hoc and rely heavily on experiences.
We propose a mathematical approach to tackle this problem. Game theory
naturally provides the basic language: Players represent requirements, and
strategies involve setting up coalitions among the players. In this way we
propose a novel model, called decomposition game, for attribute-driven design.
We present its solution concept based on the notion of cohesion and
expansion-freedom and prove that a solution always exists. We then investigate
the computational complexity of obtaining a solution. The game model and the
algorithms may serve as a general framework for providing useful guidance for
software architecture design. We present our results through running examples
and a case study on a real-life software project.Comment: 23 pages, 5 figures, a shorter version to appear at 12th
International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC 2015
Social Welfare in One-Sided Matching Mechanisms
We study the Price of Anarchy of mechanisms for the well-known problem of
one-sided matching, or house allocation, with respect to the social welfare
objective. We consider both ordinal mechanisms, where agents submit preference
lists over the items, and cardinal mechanisms, where agents may submit
numerical values for the items being allocated. We present a general lower
bound of on the Price of Anarchy, which applies to all
mechanisms. We show that two well-known mechanisms, Probabilistic Serial, and
Random Priority, achieve a matching upper bound. We extend our lower bound to
the Price of Stability of a large class of mechanisms that satisfy a common
proportionality property, and show stronger bounds on the Price of Anarchy of
all deterministic mechanisms
- …