Blackbox Reductions from Mechanisms to Algorithms.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Combinatorial Auction
Advertisements

Truthful Mechanisms for Combinatorial Auctions with Subadditive Bidders Speaker: Shahar Dobzinski Based on joint works with Noam Nisan & Michael Schapira.
Non-linear objectives in mechanism design Shuchi Chawla University of Wisconsin – Madison FOCS 2012.
Combinatorial Auctions with Complement-Free Bidders – An Overview Speaker: Michael Schapira Based on joint works with Shahar Dobzinski & Noam Nisan.
6.896: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 21 Yang Cai.
Slide 1 of 31 Noam Nisan Approximation Mechanisms: computation, representation, and incentives Noam Nisan Hebrew University, Jerusalem Based on joint works.
Algorithmic mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
6.896: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 20 Yang Cai.
Auction Theory Class 5 – single-parameter implementation and risk aversion 1.
Algorithmic Game Theory Uri Feige Robi Krauthgamer Moni Naor Lecture 10: Mechanism Design Lecturer: Moni Naor.
Pure and Bayes-Nash Price of Anarchy for GSP Renato Paes Leme Éva Tardos CornellCornell & MSR.
Yang Cai Oct 01, An overview of today’s class Myerson’s Auction Recap Challenge of Multi-Dimensional Settings Unit-Demand Pricing.
On Optimal Single-Item Auctions George Pierrakos UC Berkeley based on joint works with: Constantinos Daskalakis, Ilias Diakonikolas, Christos Papadimitriou,
Performance Evaluation Sponsored Search Markets Giovanni Neglia INRIA – EPI Maestro 4 February 2013.
Approximating optimal combinatorial auctions for complements using restricted welfare maximization Pingzhong Tang and Tuomas Sandholm Computer Science.
Seminar in Auctions and Mechanism Design Based on J. Hartline’s book: Approximation in Economic Design Presented by: Miki Dimenshtein & Noga Levy.
An Approximate Truthful Mechanism for Combinatorial Auctions An Internet Mathematics paper by Aaron Archer, Christos Papadimitriou, Kunal Talwar and Éva.
Auction Theory Class 3 – optimal auctions 1. Optimal auctions Usually the term optimal auctions stands for revenue maximization. What is maximal revenue?
Optimal auction design Roger Myerson Mathematics of Operations research 1981.
Preference Elicitation Partial-revelation VCG mechanism for Combinatorial Auctions and Eliciting Non-price Preferences in Combinatorial Auctions.
Part 1: Optimal Multi-Item Auctions Constantinos Daskalakis EECS, MIT Reference: Yang Cai, Constantinos Daskalakis and Matt Weinberg: An Algorithmic Characterization.
A Sufficient Condition for Truthfulness with Single Parameter Agents Michael Zuckerman, Hebrew University 2006 Based on paper by Nir Andelman and Yishay.
Seminar In Game Theory Algorithms, TAU, Agenda  Introduction  Computational Complexity  Incentive Compatible Mechanism  LP Relaxation & Walrasian.
Yang Cai Oct 15, Interim Allocation rule aka. “REDUCED FORM” : Variables: Interim Allocation rule aka. “REDUCED FORM” : New Decision Variables j.
6.853: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Fall 2011 Matt Weinberg Lecture 24.
Yang Cai Sep 17, An overview of today’s class Expected Revenue = Expected Virtual Welfare 2 Uniform [0,1] Bidders Example Optimal Auction.
Algorithmic Applications of Game Theory Lecture 8 1.
Limitations of VCG-Based Mechanisms Shahar Dobzinski Joint work with Noam Nisan.
Agent Technology for e-Commerce Chapter 10: Mechanism Design Maria Fasli
Mechanisms for a Spatially Distributed Market Moshe Babaioff, Noam Nisan and Elan Pavlov School of Computer Science and Engineering Hebrew University of.
Combinatorial Auction. Conbinatorial auction t 1 =20 t 2 =15 t 3 =6 f(t): the set X  F with the highest total value the mechanism decides the set of.
Bayesian Combinatorial Auctions Giorgos Christodoulou, Annamaria Kovacs, Michael Schapira האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Automated Mechanism Design: Complexity Results Stemming From the Single-Agent Setting Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm Computer Science Department.
Yang Cai Sep 15, An overview of today’s class Myerson’s Lemma (cont’d) Application of Myerson’s Lemma Revelation Principle Intro to Revenue Maximization.
Incentive-compatible Approximation Andrew Gilpin 10/25/07.
CPS 173 Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Auction Seminar Optimal Mechanism Presentation by: Alon Resler Supervised by: Amos Fiat.
More on Social choice and implementations 1 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAA A Using slides by Uri.
6.853: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Fall 2011 Constantinos Daskalakis Lecture 21.
Auction Theory תכנון מכרזים ומכירות פומביות Topic 7 – VCG mechanisms 1.
By: Amir Ronen, Department of CS Stanford University Presented By: Oren Mizrahi Matan Protter Issues on border of economics & computation, 2002.
Yang Cai Oct 08, An overview of today’s class Basic LP Formulation for Multiple Bidders Succinct LP: Reduced Form of an Auction The Structure of.
Chapter 4 Bayesian Approximation By: Yotam Eliraz & Gilad Shohat Based on Chapter 4 on Jason Hartline’s book Seminar in Auctions and Mechanism.
Market Design and Analysis Lecture 5 Lecturer: Ning Chen ( 陈宁 )
Algorithmic Mechanism Design: an Introduction Approximate (one-parameter) mechanisms, with an application to combinatorial auctions Guido Proietti Dipartimento.
Optimal mechanisms (part 2) seminar in auctions & mechanism design Presentor : orel levy.
Yang Cai Oct 06, An overview of today’s class Unit-Demand Pricing (cont’d) Multi-bidder Multi-item Setting Basic LP formulation.
Automated Mechanism Design Tuomas Sandholm Presented by Dimitri Mostinski November 17, 2004.
Mechanism Design II CS 886:Electronic Market Design Sept 27, 2004.
6.853: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Fall 2011 Constantinos Daskalakis Lecture 22.
Automated mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Combinatorial Auction. A single item auction t 1 =10 t 2 =12 t 3 =7 r 1 =11 r 2 =10 Social-choice function: the winner should be the guy having in mind.
Bayesian Algorithmic Mechanism Design Jason Hartline Northwestern University Brendan Lucier University of Toronto.
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 11
Automated mechanism design
Mechanism design for computationally limited agents (last lecture discussed the case where valuation determination was complex) Tuomas Sandholm Computer.
CPS Mechanism design Michael Albert and Vincent Conitzer
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 09
Combinatorial Prophet Inequalities
Chapter 4 Bayesian Approximation
Vincent Conitzer Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Vincent Conitzer CPS 173 Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Automated mechanism design
Combinatorial Auction
Combinatorial Auction
Combinatorial Auction
Combinatorial Auction
Normal Form (Matrix) Games
Information, Incentives, and Mechanism Design
Auction Theory תכנון מכרזים ומכירות פומביות
Presentation transcript:

Blackbox Reductions from Mechanisms to Algorithms

Feasibility constraints on outcome space Algorithm Design v1v1 v1v1 v2v2 v2v2 v3v3 v3v3 v4v4 v4v4 v5v5 v5v5 Input v Output x GOAL: maximize (or minimize) some function f(x,v)

Feasibility constraints on outcome space Mechanism Design Allocation x Payment p GOAL: maximize (or minimize) some function f(x,v) v1v1 v1v1 v2v2 v2v2 v3v3 v3v3 v4v4 v4v4 v5v5 v5v5 Input v b1b1 b1b1 b2b2 b2b2 b3b3 b3b3 b4b4 b4b4 b5b5 b5b5 Input b b i chosen to maximize utility = v i x i (b)-p i (b)

behind every great mechanism is a great algorithm computation

Black-Box Transformations Transformation Algorithm Input b Allocation x Payment p GOAL: for every algorithm, transformation preserves quality of solution in equilibrium. and is incentive compatible. Input v

Black-Box Transformations Transformation Algorithm Allocation x … and is incentive compatible (IC), i.e., monotone: Input v ex-post IC (truthful in expectation): allocation to agent i is increasing in i’s bid for all bid profiles of others Bayesian IC: allocation to agent i is increasing in i’s bid in expectation w.r.t. prior of over bid profiles of others

VCG Transformation Optimal Algorithm Input vAllocation x EXAMPLE: Vickrey-Clark-Groves auction transforms any optimal algorithm into an optimal ex-post IC mechanism for any monotone objective function.

Single Item Auction one item, agent i has value v i for item VCG Transformation Selection Algorithm Input vAllocation x Find agent w/max value (single-parameter)

i2i2 i2i2 Combinatorial Auction many items, agent i has value v ij for subset S j i1i1 i1i1 i2i2 i2i2 i3i3 i3i3 (multi-parameter)

Combinatorial Auction VCG Transformation ??? Input vAllocation x Find max value non-overlapping collection of sets many items, agent i has value v ij for subset S j (multi-parameter)

^ approximation

BIC Transformation Positive Result: Transform approximation algorithms into Bayesian IC mechs with small loss in social welfare. Single-parameter: (single private value for allocation) 1.Monotonization. For dist. F and algorithm A, there is a Bayesian IC transformation T A,F satisfying E[T A,F (v)] ≥ E[A(v)]. 2.Blackbox computation. T A,F can be computed in polytime with queries to A. 3.Payment computation. Payments can be computed with two queries to A.

x i (v i ) = E[alloc. to i | v i ] Not BIC BIC Monotonization Fact. There’re payments that make an alg. Bayesian IC if and only if for all i, expected allocation is monotone non-decreasing in value v i. vivi

Monotonization Goal: construct y i from x i s.t. 1.Monotonicity. y i (.) non-decreasing monotone 2.Surplus-preservation. E v i [v i y i (v i )] ≥ E v i [v i x i (v i )] 3.Distribution-preservation. (can apply construction independently to each j)

Monotonization Idea 1: remap values.

Monotonization Idea 2: resample values.

Monotonization Idea 3: resample values in region where cumulative allocation is not monotone. allocation cumulative curve

Monotonization Construction of y i (v i ) from x i (v i ) preserves: 1.Distribution-preservation. 2.Monotonicity. y i non-decreasing monotone x i (v i ) y i (v i )

Monotonization Construction of y i (v i ) from x i (v i ) preserves: 3.Surplus-preservation. E v i [v i (y i - x i )] ≥ 0 x i (v i ) y i (v i ) E[v(y-x)] = ∫ v(y-x) d f(v)(integration by parts) = v(Y-X)| – ∫ v’(Y-X) d f(v)(v, X dominates Y) = 0 – (non-neg.) x (non-pos.)(2 nd term non-pos.) ≥ 0 a b a b a b

BIC Transformation for Welfare Positive Result: Transform approximation algorithms into Bayesian IC mechs with small loss in social welfare. Single-parameter: (single private value for allocation) 1.Monotonization. For dist. F and algorithm A, there is a Bayesian IC transformation T A,F satisfying E[A(v)] ≥ E[T A,F (v)]. 2.Blackbox computation. T A,F can be computed in polytime with queries to A. 3.Payment computation. Payments can be computed with two queries to A.

Blackbox Computation

BIC Transformation for Welfare Positive Result: Transform approximation algorithms into Bayesian IC mechs with small loss in social welfare. Single-parameter: (single private value for allocation) 1.Monotonization. For dist. F and algorithm A, there is a Bayesian IC transformation T A,F satisfying E[A(v)] ≥ E[T A,F (v)]. 2.Blackbox computation. T A,F can be computed in polytime with queries to A. 3.Payment computation. Payments can be computed with two queries to A.

Payment Computation payment identity p(v) = v y(v) – ∫ y(z) dz v 0 Idea: compute random variable P with E[P] = p(v)

Payment Computation payment identity p(v) = v y(v) – ∫ y(z) dz v 0 Idea: compute random variable P with E[P] = p(v) 1. Y indicator random variable for whether agent wins in A (with y(v)) 2. z drawn uniformly from [0,v] 3. Y z indicator random variable for whether agent wins in A (with y(z)) 4. P = v (Y – Y z ) 1 st call to A 2 nd call to A const. # calls per agent

Payment Computation goal: given A, find an alg. A’ that computes allocation and payments with just 1 call to A 1. Pick agent k uniformly at random and draw w k from F k 2. Calculate outcome y’ for A(w k, v -k ) 3. For each agent i ≠ k, set p’ i = v i y’ i 4. For agent k, set p’ k = 0 if w k > v k and p’ k = -(n – 1)y’ k /f k (w k ) otherwise 5. Output (y’, p’) only call to A

Payment Computation Thm. Algorithm A’ is Bayesian IC. Proof. 1.Monotone. y’ linear transformation of y. y’(v) = (1 - 1/n) y(v) + 1/n E[y(w)] 2.Payment Identity. p’(v) = v y’(v) – ∫ y’(z) dz v 0 p’(v) = (1 - 1/n) vy(v) – (1/n)(n - 1)∫ y(z) dz v 0 payment for i ≠ k payment for i = k (see ugly formula)

Payment Computation Thm. Welfare is E[A’(v)] ≥ E[A(v) – max(v)] Proof. 1.Each buyer has welfare ≥ (1 - 1/n) vy(v) 2.Since y(v) is a probability, vy(v) ≤ max(v) 3.Lose at most max(v) in total buyer welfare 4.Expected payments are the same, so lose nothing in seller welfare Finds (alloc, payments) with 1 call to monotone alg. [Babaioff, Kleinberg, Slivkins’10]

Transformation Approx. Algorithm Input v POSSIBILITY: can transform any approximation algorithm into a Bayesian IC mech. with small loss for f(x,v) = Σ i x i v i. [Hartline-Lucier’10] Dist. of values (drawn from known dist.) Allocation x Payment p

Multi-parameter Transformation Goal: construct allocation from algorithm s.t. 1.“Monotonicity”. 2.Surplus-preservation. 3.Distribution-preservation. By mapping types of an agent to surrogates in a way that preserves above properties.

Replicas and Surrogates replicas (drawn from F) surrogates (drawn from F) surrogate allocations v(t,x(t’)) max-weight matching original type t surrogate type t’ x(t’) Set payment equal to VCG payment for type t. Set allocation equal to output on surrogate type profile.

Replicas and Surrogates Thm. Transformation is distribution-preserving. Thm. Transformation is Bayesian IC. Thm. Transformation doesn’t lose much welfare. Prf. Because replicas are “close” to matched surrogates in values for outcomes. [Hartline, Kleinberg, Malekian’11] [Bei, Huang’11]

Strengthening the Result Solution concept: black-box transformations for social welfare that preserve approximation and are truthful in expectation? Social objective: black-box transformations that preserve approximation, are Bayesian IC, and work for other social objectives?

Multi-parameter Transformations Thm. There’s no truthful in expectation mech. for combinatorial auctions with submodular valuations that guarantees a sub-linear approx. Note: there is a (1-1/e)-approximation alg. [Dughmi, Vondrak’11]

Single-parameter Transformations Truthful in Expectation. For all algorithms A, T A is truthful in expectation, i.e., expected allocation is monotone for all i. Worst-case approximation preserving. For all values vectors v and algorithms A, expected welfare of transformation is close to expected welfare of algorithm.

Proof Outline 1.Define welfare instance (feasible allocations, values of agents). 2.Find algorithm with high welfare. 3.Use monotonicity to show any ex-post transformation has low worst-case welfare.

Intuition (.5,.5) v1v1 v2v2 (x 1,x 2 ) Bayesian IC column ave. of x 2 increasing row ave. of x 1 increasing

Intuition (.7,.9) (.6,.2) (.6,.3)(.3,.4)(.5,.5)(.1,.6)(.7,.7) (.4,.1) (.3,.9) (.2,.7) v1v1 v2v2 Ex-post IC

Intuition Transformation must fix non-monotonicities in every row and column. Query Input vector (.1,.3)(.2,.2)(.3,.4)(.8,.7)(.5,.5) v1v1 v2v2

Intuition (.6,.2) (.2,.6) Idea: hide non-monotonicity on high-dim. diagonal. Make all allocations constant on these agents. (.5,.5) (.3,.3) 2 1

Truthful in Expectation Thm. Any truthful-in-expectation transformation loses a polynomial factor in welfare approximation. [Chawla, Immorlica, Lucier’12]

Thank You