A "Quantal Regret" Method for Structural Econometrics in Repeated Games

We suggest a general method for inferring players' values from their actions in repeated games. The method extends and improves upon the recent suggestion of (Nekipelov et al., EC 2015) and is based on the assumption that players are more likely to exhibit sequences of actions that have lower regret. We evaluate this "quantal regret" method on two different datasets from experiments of repeated games with controlled player values: those of (Selten and Chmura, AER 2008) on a variety of two-player 2x2 games and our own experiment on ad-auctions (Noti et al., WWW 2014). We find that the quantal regret method is consistently and significantly more precise than either "classic" econometric methods that are based on Nash equilibria, or the "min-regret" method of (Nekipelov et al., EC 2015)

Truthful approximation mechanisms for restricted combinatorial auctions

When attempting to design a truthful mechanism for a computationally hard problem such as combinatorial auctions, one is faced with the problem that most efficiently computable heuristics can not be embedded in any truthful mechanism (e.g. VCG-like payment rules will not ensure truthfulness). We develop a set of techniques that allow constructing efficiently computable truthful mechanisms for combinatorial auctions in the special case where each bidder desires a specific known subset of items and only the valuation is unknown by the mechanism (the single parameter case). For this case we extend the work of Lehmann, O'Callaghan, and Shoham, who presented greedy heuristics. We show how to use If-Then-Else constructs, perform a partial search, and use the LP relaxation. We apply these techniques for several canonical types of combinatorial auctions, obtaining truthful mechanisms with provable approximation ratios

Online Ascending Auctions for Gradually Expiring Items

In this paper we consider online auction mechanisms for the allocation of M items that are identical to each other except for the fact that they have different expiration times, and each item must be allocated before it expires. Players arrive at different times, and wish to buy one item before their deadline. The main difficulty is that players act "selfishly" and may mis-report their values, deadlines, or arrival times. We begin by showing that the usual notion of truthfulness (where players follow a single dominant strategy) cannot be used in this case, since any (deterministic) truthful auction cannot obtain better than an M-approximation of the social welfare. Therefore, instead of designing auctions in which players should follow a single strategy, we design two auctions that perform well under a wide class of selfish, "semi-myopic", strategies. For every combination of such strategies, the auction is associated with a different algorithm, and so we have a family of "semi-myopic" algorithms. We show that any algorithm in this family obtains a 3-approximation, and by this conclude that our auctions will perform well under any choice of such semi-myopic behaviors. We next turn to provide a game-theoretic justification for acting in such a semi-myopic way. We suggest a new notion of "Set-Nash" equilibrium, where we cannot pin-point a single best-response strategy, but rather only a set of possible best-response strategies. We show that our auctions have a Set-Nash equilibrium which is all semi-myopic, hence guarantees a 3-approximation. We believe that this notion is of independent interest

The Query Complexity of Correlated Equilibria

We consider the complexity of finding a correlated equilibrium of an $n$-player game in a model that allows the algorithm to make queries on players' payoffs at pure strategy profiles. Randomized regret-based dynamics are known to yield an approximate correlated equilibrium efficiently, namely, in time that is polynomial in the number of players $n$. Here we show that both randomization and approximation are necessary: no efficient deterministic algorithm can reach even an approximate correlated equilibrium, and no efficient randomized algorithm can reach an exact correlated equilibrium. The results are obtained by bounding from below the number of payoff queries that are needed

Communication Complexity of Cake Cutting

We study classic cake-cutting problems, but in discrete models rather than using infinite-precision real values, specifically, focusing on their communication complexity. Using general discrete simulations of classical infinite-precision protocols (Robertson-Webb and moving-knife), we roughly partition the various fair-allocation problems into 3 classes: "easy" (constant number of rounds of logarithmic many bits), "medium" (poly-logarithmic total communication), and "hard". Our main technical result concerns two of the "medium" problems (perfect allocation for 2 players and equitable allocation for any number of players) which we prove are not in the "easy" class. Our main open problem is to separate the "hard" from the "medium" classes.Comment: Added efficient communication protocol for the monotone crossing proble

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

Public projects, Boolean functions and the borders of Border's theorem

Border's theorem gives an intuitive linear characterization of the feasible interim allocation rules of a Bayesian single-item environment, and it has several applications in economic and algorithmic mechanism design. All known generalizations of Border's theorem either restrict attention to relatively simple settings, or resort to approximation. This paper identifies a complexity-theoretic barrier that indicates, assuming standard complexity class separations, that Border's theorem cannot be extended significantly beyond the state-of-the-art. We also identify a surprisingly tight connection between Myerson's optimal auction theory, when applied to public project settings, and some fundamental results in the analysis of Boolean functions.Comment: Accepted to ACM EC 201