Yang Cai Oct 08, 2014. An overview of today’s class Basic LP Formulation for Multiple Bidders Succinct LP: Reduced Form of an Auction The Structure of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Combinatorial Auction
Advertisements

(Single-item) auctions Vincent Conitzer v() = $5 v() = $3.
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.
Blackbox Reductions from Mechanisms to Algorithms.
Yang Cai Oct 01, An overview of today’s class Myerson’s Auction Recap Challenge of Multi-Dimensional Settings Unit-Demand Pricing.
CPSC 455/555 Combinatorial Auctions, Continued… Shaili Jain September 29, 2011.
CPS Bayesian games and their use in auctions Vincent Conitzer
USING LOTTERIES TO APPROXIMATE THE OPTIMAL REVENUE Paul W. GoldbergUniversity of Liverpool Carmine VentreTeesside University.
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.
Multi-item auctions with identical items limited supply: M items (M smaller than number of bidders, n). Three possible bidder types: –Unit-demand bidders.
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.
On Optimal Multi-dimensional Mechanism Design Constantinos Daskalakis EECS, MIT Joint work with Yang Cai, Matt Weinberg.
6.896: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 11 Constantinos Daskalakis.
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.
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.
Auction Algorithms for Market Equilibrium Rahul Garg IBM India Research Sanjiv Kapoor Illionis Institute of Technology.
Bundling Equilibrium in Combinatorial Auctions Written by: Presented by: Ron Holzman Rica Gonen Noa Kfir-Dahav Dov Monderer Moshe Tennenholtz.
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.
Ron Lavi Presented by Yoni Moses.  Introduction ◦ Combining computational efficiency with game theoretic needs  Monotonicity Conditions ◦ Cyclic Monotonicity.
Agent Technology for e-Commerce Chapter 10: Mechanism Design Maria Fasli
Sequences of Take-It-or-Leave-it Offers: Near-Optimal Auctions Without Full Valuation Revelation Tuomas Sandholm and Andrew Gilpin Carnegie Mellon University.
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.
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.
Computational Complexity in Economics Constantinos Daskalakis EECS, MIT.
Auction Theory Class 2 – Revenue equivalence 1. This class: revenue Revenue in auctions – Connection to order statistics The revelation principle The.
Yang Cai Sep 8, An overview of the class Broad View: Mechanism Design and Auctions First Price Auction Second Price/Vickrey Auction Case Study:
CPS 173 Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Multi-Unit Auctions with Budget Limits Shahar Dobzinski, Ron Lavi, and Noam Nisan.
Sequences of Take-It-or-Leave-it Offers: Near-Optimal Auctions Without Full Valuation Revelation Tuomas Sandholm and Andrew Gilpin Carnegie Mellon University.
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.
Chapter 4 Bayesian Approximation By: Yotam Eliraz & Gilad Shohat Based on Chapter 4 on Jason Hartline’s book Seminar in Auctions and Mechanism.
Econ 805 Advanced Micro Theory 1 Dan Quint Fall 2009 Lecture 4.
Algorithmic Mechanism Design: an Introduction Approximate (one-parameter) mechanisms, with an application to combinatorial auctions Guido Proietti Dipartimento.
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.
Auctions serve the dual purpose of eliciting preferences and allocating resources between competing uses. A less fundamental but more practical reason.
6.853: Topics in Algorithmic Game Theory Fall 2011 Constantinos Daskalakis Lecture 22.
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.
Truthful and near-optimal mechanism design via linear programming Chaitanya Swamy Caltech and U. Waterloo Joint work with Ron Lavi Caltech.
Non-LP-Based Approximation Algorithms Fabrizio Grandoni IDSIA
Bayesian Algorithmic Mechanism Design Jason Hartline Northwestern University Brendan Lucier University of Toronto.
Advanced Subjects in GT Prepared by Rina Talisman Introduction Revenue Equivalence The Optimal Auction (Myerson 1981) Auctions.
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 10
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 11
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 08
CPS Mechanism design Michael Albert and Vincent Conitzer
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 09
Comp/Math 553: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 13
Robust Mechanism Design with Correlated Distributions
Vincent Conitzer Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Vincent Conitzer CPS 173 Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Preference elicitation/ iterative mechanisms
Auctions Lirong Xia. Auctions Lirong Xia Sealed-Bid Auction One item A set of bidders 1,…,n bidder j’s true value vj bid profile b = (b1,…,bn) A sealed-bid.
Information, Incentives, and Mechanism Design
Vincent Conitzer CPS Mechanism design Vincent Conitzer
Class 2 – Revenue equivalence
Presentation transcript:

Yang Cai Oct 08, 2014

An overview of today’s class Basic LP Formulation for Multiple Bidders Succinct LP: Reduced Form of an Auction The Structure of the Optimal Auction

1 j n … … Items 1 i m … … Bidders Bidders:  have values on “items” and bundles of “items”.  Valuation aka type encodes that information.  Common Prior: Each is sampled independently from. Every bidder and the auctioneer knows  Additive: Values for bundles of items = sum of values for each item.  From now on,. Multi-item Multi-bidder Auctions: Set-up Auctioneer

Basic LP Formulation: single bidder  Variables: -Allocation rule: for each item j in [n], each valuation v in T, there is a variable x j (v): the probability that the buyer receives item j when his report is v. -Payment rule: for each valuation v in T, there is a variable p(v): the payment when the bid is v.  Objective function: max Σ v Pr[t = v] p(v)  Constraints: -incentive compatibility: Σ j v j x j (v) – p(v) ≥ Σ j v j x j (v’) – p(v’) for all v and v’ in T -individual rationality (non-negative utility): Σ j v j x j (v) – p(v) ≥ 0 for all v in T -feasibility: 0 ≤ x j (v) ≤ 1 for all j in [n] and v in T

Single Bidder Case  Once the LP is solved, we immediately have a mechanism.  Let x* and p* be the optimal solution of our LP. Then when the bid is v, give the buyer item j with prob. x j *(v) and charge him p*(v).  How long does it take to solve this LP?  # of variables = (n+1)|T|; # of constraints = |T| 2 +2n|T|  Both are polynomial in n and |T| (input size), we can solve this LP in time polynomial in the input size!

Multiple Bidders setting  m bidders and n items. All bidders are additive.  T i is the set of possible valuations of bidder i. It’s a subset of R n.  Random variable t i in R n represents i’s valuation. We assume t i is drawn independently from distribution D i, whose support is T i.  We know Pr[t i = v i ] for every v i in T i and Σ v Pr[t i = v i ] =1.  Some notations: -T = T 1 × T 2 ×... × T m -D = D 1 × D 2 ×... × D m -t = (t 1, t 2,..., t m )

Multiple Bidders: LP variables and objective  Allocation Rule: for every bidder i in [m], every item j in [n], every valuation profile v= (v 1, v 2,..., v m ) in T, there is a variable x ij (v): the probability that the buyer i receives item j when the reported valuation profile is v (bidder i reports v i ).  Payment Rule: for every bidder i in [m], every valuation profile v in T, there is a variable p i (v): the payment when the reported valuation profile is v.  Objective Function: max Σ v in T Pr t~D [t = v] Σ i p i (v)

Multiple Bidders: LP Constraints  With multiple bidders, there are two kinds of Incentive Compatibility  DSIC -Σ j v ij x ij (v) – p i (v) ≥ Σ j v j x ij (v’ i,v -i ) – p i (v’ i, v -i ) for every i, every v i and v’ i in T i and v -i in T -i  Bayesian Incentive Compatible (BIC) -If every one else is bidding her true valuation, bidding my own true valuation is the optimal strategy. -If everyone is bidding truthfully, we have a Nash equilibrium. -For every i, every v i and v’ i in T i

Multiple Bidders: LP Constraints  Similarly, we use the interim individual rationality (this doesn’t make much difference) -If every one else is bidding her true valuation, bidding my own true valuation always give me non-negative utility. -For every i, every v i in T i  Finally, the feasibility constraint -Since each item can be allocated to at most one bidder, we have the following -For all item j in [n] and valuation profile v in T: Σ i x ij (v) ≤ 1

Multiple bidders: Implementation  Let x* and p* be the optimal solution of our LP. Then when the bid is v, give the bidder i item j with prob. x ij *(v) and charge him p i *(v).  How long does it take to solve this LP?  What is the input size? Polynomial in m, n and Σ i |T i |.  # of variables = (n+1)|T| = (n+1) Π i |T i | (scales exponentially with the input)  # of constraints = Σ i |T i | 2 +2n|T| = Σ i |T i | 2 + 2n Π i |T i | (again scales exponentially with the input)  Takes exponential time to even write down, not mention solving it!!!

Any Solution for Multiple bidders?  The LP we discussed will only be useful if you have a small number of bidders.  Is there a more succinct LP for our problem: polynomial in the size of the input.  This is not only meaningful computationally.  A more succinct LP in fact provides conceptually insights about the structure of the optimal mechanism in multi-item settings.

A New Succinct LP Formulation

Interim Allocation rule aka. “REDUCED FORM” : Variables: Interim Allocation rule aka. “REDUCED FORM” : New Decision Variables j i valuation v i i Pr : Pr ( ) E : E [ price i ] valuation v i i * * π ij (v i )

Example of a reduced form  Example: Suppose 1 item, 2 bidders  Consider auction that allocates item preferring A to C to B to D, and charges $2 dollars to whoever gets the item.  For comparison: x 11 (A,C) = 1, x 11 (A,D) = 1, x 11 (B,C) = 0 and x 11 (B,D) = 1  The reduced form: π 11 (A) = x 11 (A,C) × x 11 (A,D) × 0.5 = 1; p 1 (A) = 2× × 0.5 =2  Similarly, we can compute π 11 (B) = 1/2, π 21 (C) = 1/2, π 21 (D) = 0; p 1 (B) = 1, p 2 (C) = 1 and p 2 (D) = 0. bidder 1 A B ½ ½ bidder 2 C D ½ ½

A succinct LP  Variables: π ij (v i ): probability that item j is allocated to bidder i if her reported valuation (bid) is v i in expectation over every other bidders’ valuations (bids); p i (v i ) : price bidder i pays if her reported valuation (bid) is v i in expectation over every other bidder’s valuations (bids)  Constraints: BIC: for all v i and v’ i in T i IR: for all v i in T i Feasibility: exists an auction with this reduced form. Unclear?  Objective: Expected revenue:

 Easy setting: single item, two bidders with types uniformly distributed in T 1 ={A, B, C} and T 2 ={D, E, F} respectively  Question: Is the following interim allocation rule feasible? ( A, D/E/F)  A wins. π 11 (A) = 1 (B/C, D)  D wins. π 21 (D) = 2/3 bidder 1 A π 11 (A) = 1 B π 11 (B) = 0.5 ⅓ ⅓ C π 11 (C) = 0 ⅓ bidder 2 π 21 (D) = 2/3 D π 21 (E) = 5/9 E ⅓ ⅓ π 21 (F) = 0 F ⅓ (B, F)  B wins. π 11 (B) = 0.5 ≥ 1/3 (C, E)  E wins. π 21 (E) = 5/9 ≥1/3 (B, E)  B needs to win w.p. ½, E needs to win w.p. ⅔ Feasibility of Reduced Forms (example) infeasible ! ✔ ✔

BUT, BUT, too many subsets: need to check conditions !!!  [Border ’91, Border ’07, Che-Kim-Mierendorff ’11]: (*) is also a sufficient condition for feasibility. Previous work on algorithmic MD used proxies for the above losing various approximation factors. [C.-Daskalakis-Weinberg ’12]: We can check feasibility in time almost linear in Σ i |T i |, i.e. the total number of bidder types (but not type profiles). Feasibility of Reduced From (Cont’d)  A necessary condition for feasible single-item reduced form: Pr[ i whose type is in S i and gets the item] ≤ Pr[ i whose type is in S i ]

Feasibility for Multi-item Reduced Form Theorem [C.-Daskalakis-Weinberg ’12]: There is an poly-time algorithm that checks the feasibility of any multi-item reduced from.  Remark: With this we can solve our succinct LP! The proof uses the ellipsoid method, separation Ξ optimization and sampling etc. Have many extensions, e.g. accommodates any combinatorial allocation constraints (unit-demand, single-minded...)

Implementation of a Feasible Reduced Form  After solving the succinct LP, we find the optimal reduced form π* and p*.  Can you turn π* and p* into an auction whose reduced form is exactly π* and p*?  This is crucial, otherwise being able to solve the LP is meaningless.  Will show you a way to implement any feasible reduced form, and it reveals important structure of the revenue-optimal auction!

Implementation of a Feasible Reduced Form

Set of Feasible Reduced Forms Reduced form is collection ; Can view it as a vector ; Let’s call set of feasible reduced forms ;  Claim 1: F(D) is a convex polytope.  Proof: Easy!  A feasible reduced form is implemented by a feasible allocation rule M.  M is a distribution over deterministic feasible allocation rules, of which there is a finite number. So:, where is deterministic.  Easy to see:  So, F(D) = convex hull of reduced forms of feasible deterministic mechanisms

Set of Feasible Reduced Forms Q: simple Is there a simple allocation rule implementing the corners? ? ? F(D)