In sponsored search, a number of advertising slots is available on a search results page, and have to be allocated among a set of advertisers competing to display an ad on the page. This gives rise to a bipartite matching market that is typically cleared by the way of an automated auction. Several auction mechanisms have been proposed, with variants of the Generalized Second Price (GSP) being widely used in practice. A rich body of work on bipartite matching markets builds upon the stable marriage model of Gale and Shapley and the assignment model of Shapley and Shubik. We apply insights from this line of research into the structure of stable outcomes and their incentive properties to advertising auctions. We model advertising auctions in terms of an assignment model with linear utilities, extended with bidder and item specific maximum and minimum prices. Auction mechanisms like the commonly used GSP or the well-known Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) are interpreted as simply computing a in this model, for a suitably defined set of bidder preferences. In our model, the existence of a stable matching is guaranteed, and under a non-degeneracy assumption a bidder-optimal stable matching exists as well. We give an algorithm to find such matching in polynomial time, and use it to design truthful mechanism that generalizes GSP, is truthful for profit-maximizing bidders, implements features like bidder-specific minimum prices and position-specific bids, and works for rich mixtures of bidders and preferences.
The assignment model @cite_25 , (see also @cite_20 @cite_6 ) differs in that each player derives a certain value from being matched to each person of the opposite sex, and side payments between partners are allowed. The goal of each player is to maximize his or her payoff which is the sum of partner's value and monetary payment (positive or negative negative) from the partner. The set of stable outcomes is non-empty by a linear programming argument. In fact, each stable outcome corresponds to a maximum-weight matching, and player payoffs correpond to dual variables of the maximum matching LP. A man-optimal outcome is guaranteed to exist, and its allocation and prices are identical to the VCG mechanism for maximum weight matchings @cite_19 @cite_13 .
@cite_6 @cite_19 @cite_13 @cite_25 @cite_20
2153644013 1992678640 1981192311 2522887313 2034600319 2091277030 2604958601 2130293309 2127508398 2005524240 2033101724 1137385233 2084685902 2083594366 2952139250 2126307323 2072113937 2156763099 2556732087 2130359158
Payoff-driven adjustment dynamics lead to stable and optimal outcomes in decentralized two-sided assignment markets. Pairs of agents from both sides of the market randomly encounter each other and match if profitable'. Very little information is available, in particular agents have no knowledge of others' preferences, their past actions and payoffs or the value of the different matches. This process implements optimal and stable - i.e. core - allocations even though agents interact asynchronously and randomly, and there is no central authority enforcing matchings or sharing rules. We consider a problem known as the restricted assignment version of the max-min allocation problem with indivisible goods. There are n items of various nonnegative values and m players. Every player is interested only in some of the items and has zero value for the other items. One has to distribute the items among the players in a way that maximizes a certain notion of fairness, namely, maximizes the minimum of the sum of values of items given to any player. Bansal and Sviridenko [STOC 2006] describe a linear programming relaxation for this problem, and present a rounding technique that recovers an allocation of value at least Ω(log log log m log log m) of the optimum. We show that the value of this LP relaxation in fact approximates the optimum value to within a constant factor. Our proof is not constructive and does not by itself provide an efficient algorithm for finding an allocation that is within constant factors of optimal. The set of optimal matchings in the assignment matrix allows to define a reflexive and symmetric binary relation on each side of the market, the equal-partner binary relation. The number of equivalence classes of the transitive closure of the equal-partner binary relation determines the dimension of the core of the assignment game. This result provides an easy procedure to determine the dimension of the core directly from the entries of the assignment matrix and shows that the dimension of the core is not as much determined by the number of optimal matchings as by their relative position. In many two-sided markets, each side has incomplete information about the other but has an opportunity to learn (some) relevant information before final matches are made. For instance, clients seeking workers to perform tasks often conduct interviews that require the workers to perform some tasks and thereby provide information to both sides. The performance of a worker in such an interview assessment - and hence the information revealed - depends both on the inherent characteristics of the worker and the task and also on the actions taken by the worker (e.g. the effort expended); thus there is both adverse selection (on both sides) and moral hazard (on one side). When interactions are ongoing, incentives for workers to expend effort in the current assessment can be provided by the payment rule used and also by the matching rule that assesses and determines the tasks to which the worker is assigned in the future; thus workers have career concerns. We derive mechanisms - payment, assessment and matching rules - that lead to final matchings that are stable in the long run and achieve close to the optimal performance (profit or social welfare maximizing) in equilibrium (unique) thus mitigating both adverse selection and moral hazard (in many settings). In citepapa, Papadimitriou formalized the notion of routing stability in BGP as the following coalitional game theoretic problem: Given a network with a multicommodity flow satisfying node capacity and demand constraints, the payoff of a node is the total flow originated or terminated at it. A payoff allocation is in the core if and only if there is no subset of nodes that can increase their payoff by seceding from the network. We answer one of the open problems in citepapa by proving that for any network, the core is non-empty in both the transferable (where the nodes can compensate each other with side payments) and the non-transferable case. In the transferable case we show that such an allocation can be computed in polynomial time. We also generalize this result to the case where a strictly concave utility function is associated with each commodity. We study the behavior of random walks along the edges of the stable marriage lattice for various restricted families of allowable preference sets. In the "k-attribute model," each man is valued in each of k attributes, and each woman's ranking of the men is determined by a linear function, representing her relative ranking of those attributes; men's rankings of the women are determined similarly. We show that sampling with a random walk on the marriage lattice can take exponential time, even when k = 2. Moreover, we show that the marriage lattices arising in the k-attribute model are more restrictive than in the general setting; previously such a restriction had only been shown for the sets of preference lists. The second model we consider is the "k-range model," where each person lies in a position in [i, i + k - 1], for some i, on every preference list of the opposite sex. When k = 1 there is a unique stable marriage. When k = 2 there already can be an exponential number of stable marriages, but we show that a random walk on the stable marriage lattice always converges quickly to equilibrium. However, when k ≥ 5, there are preference sets such that the random walk on the lattice will require exponential time to converge. Lastly, we show that in the extreme case where each gender's rankings of the other are restricted to one of just a constant k possible preference lists, there are still instances for which the Markov chain mixes exponentially slowly, even when k = 4. This oversimplification of the general model helps elucidate why Markov chains based on spouse-swapping are not good approaches to sampling, even in specialized scenarios. We analyze a sequential game between a Gambler and a Casino. The Gambler allocates bets from a limited budget over a fixed menu of gambling events that are offered at equal time intervals, and the Casino chooses a binary loss outcome for each of the events. We derive the optimal min-max strategies for both participants. We then prove that the minimum cumulative loss of the Gambler, assuming optimal play by the Casino, is exactly a well-known combinatorial quantity: the expected number of draws needed to complete a multiple set of “cards” in the generalized Coupon Collector’s Problem. We show that this quantity and the optimal strategy of the Gambler can be efficiently estimated from a simple random walk. Procuring multiple agents with different ability levels to independently solve the same task is common in labor markets, crowdsourcing environments and research and development projects due to two reasons: some agents may fail to provide a satisfactory solution, and the redundancy increases the quality of the best solution found. However, incentivizing large number of agents to compete for one task is difficult; agents need fair ex-ante guaranteed payoffs that consider their ability levels and failure rates to exert efforts. We model such domains as a cooperative game called the Max-Game, where each agent has a weight representing its ability level, and the value of an agent coalition is the maximal weight of the agents in the coalition. When agents may fail, we redefine the value of a coalition as the expected maximal weight of its surviving members. We analyze the core, the Shapley value, and the Banzhaf index as methods of payoff division. Surprisingly, the latter two, which are usually computationally hard, can be computed in polynomial time. Finally, we initiate the study of a new form of sabotage where agents may be incentivized to influence the failure probabilities of their peers, and show that no such incentive is present in a restricted case of Max-Games. We consider a task of scheduling with a common deadline on a single machine. Every player reports to a scheduler the length of his job and the scheduler needs to finish as many jobs as possible by the deadline. For this simple problem, there is a truthful mechanism that achieves maximum welfare in dominant strategies. The new aspect of our work is that in our setting players are uncertain about their own job lengths, and hence are incapable of providing truthful reports (in the strict sense of the word). For a probabilistic model for uncertainty we show that even with relatively little uncertainty, no mechanism can guarantee a constant fraction of the maximum welfare. To remedy this situation, we introduce a new measure of economic efficiency, based on a notion of a fair share of a player, and design mechanisms that are Ω(1)-fair. In addition to its intrinsic appeal, our notion of fairness implies good approximation of maximum welfare in several cases of interest. In our mechanisms the machine is sometimes left idle even though there are jobs that want to use it. We show that this unfavorable aspect is unavoidable, unless one gives up other favorable aspects (e.g., give up Ω(1)-fairness). We also consider a qualitative approach to uncertainty as an alternative to the probabilistic quantitative model. In the qualitative approach we break away from solution concepts such as dominant strategies (they are no longer well defined), and instead suggest an axiomatic approach, which amounts to listing desirable properties for mechanisms. We provide a mechanism that satisfies these properties. In this paper, we introduce a simple coalition formation game in the environment of bidding, which is a special case of the weighted majority game (WMG), and is named the weighted simple-majority game (WSMG). In WSMG, payoff is allocated to the winners proportional to the players’ powers, which can be measured in various ways. We define a new kind of stability: the counteraction-stability (C-stability), where any potential deviating players will confront counteractions of the other players. We show that C-stable coalition structures in WSMG always contains a minimal winning coalition of minimum total power. For the variant where powers are measured directly by their weights, we show that it is NP-hard to find a C-stable coalition structure and design a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm. Sensitivity analysis for this variant, which shows many interesting properties, is also done. We also prove that it is NP-hard to compute the Holler-Packel indices in WSMGs, and hence in WMGs as well. In sponsored search, a number of advertising slots is available on a search results page, and have to be allocated among a set of advertisers competing to display an ad on the page. This gives rise to a bipartite matching market that is typically cleared by the way of an automated auction. Several auction mechanisms have been proposed, with variants of the Generalized Second Price (GSP) being widely used in practice. There is a rich body of work on bipartite matching markets that builds upon the stable marriage model of Gale and Shapley and the assignment model of Shapley and Shubik. This line of research offers deep insights into the structure of stable outcomes in such markets and their incentive properties. In this paper, we model advertising auctions in terms of an assignment model with linear utilities, extended with bidder and item specific maximum and minimum prices. Auction mechanisms like the commonly used GSP or the well-known Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) can be interpreted as simply computing a bidder-optimal stable matching in this model, for a suitably defined set of bidder preferences, but our model includes much richer bidders and preferences. We prove that in our model the existence of a stable matching is guaranteed, and under a non-degeneracy assumption a bidder-optimal stable matching exists as well. We give an algorithm to find such matching in polynomial time, and use it to design truthful mechanism that generalizes GSP, is truthful for profit-maximizing bidders, correctly implements features like bidder-specific minimum prices and position-specific bids, and works for rich mixtures of bidders and preferences. Our main technical contributions are the existence of bidder-optimal matchings and strategyproofness of the resulting mechanism, and are proved by induction on the progress of the matching algorithm. The fairness notion of maximin share (MMS) guarantee underlies a deployed algorithm for allocating indivisible goods under additive valuations. Our goal is to understand when we can expect to be able to give each player his MMS guarantee. Previous work has shown that such an MMS allocation may not exist, but the counterexample requires a number of goods that is exponential in the number of players; we give a new construction that uses only a linear number of goods. On the positive side, we formalize the intuition that these counterexamples are very delicate by designing an algorithm that provably finds an MMS allocation with high probability when valuations are drawn at random. We revisit the classic problem of fair division from a mechanism design perspective and provide an elegant truthful mechanism that yields surprisingly good approximation guarantees for the widely used solution of Proportional Fairness. This solution, which is closely related to Nash bargaining and the competitive equilibrium, is known to be not implementable in a truthful fashion, which has been its main drawback. To alleviate this issue, we propose a new mechanism, which we call the Partial Allocation mechanism, that discards a carefully chosen fraction of the allocated resources in order to incentivize the agents to be truthful in reporting their valuations. This mechanism introduces a way to implement interesting truthful outcomes in settings where monetary payments are not an option. For a multi-dimensional domain with an arbitrary number of agents and items, and for the very large class of homogeneous valuation functions, we prove that our mechanism provides every agent with at least a 1 e ≈ 0.368 fraction of her Proportionally Fair valuation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first result that gives a constant factor approximation to every agent for the Proportionally Fair solution. To complement this result, we show that no truthful mechanism can guarantee more than 0.5 approximation, even for the restricted class of additive linear valuations. In addition to this, we uncover a connection between the Partial Allocation mechanism and VCG-based mechanism design. We also ask whether better approximation ratios are possible in more restricted settings. In particular, motivated by the massive privatization auction in the Czech republic in the early 90s we provide another mechanism for additive linear valuations that works really well when all the items are highly demanded. We study a fingerprinting game in which the number of colluders and the collusion channel are unknown. The encoder embeds fingerprints into a host sequence and provides the decoder with the capability to trace back pirated copies to the colluders. Fingerprinting capacity has recently been derived as the limit value of a sequence of maximin games with mutual information as their payoff functions. However, these games generally do not admit saddle-point solutions and are very hard to solve numerically. Here under the so-called Boneh-Shaw marking assumption, we reformulate the capacity as the value of a single two-person zero-sum game, and show that it is achieved by a saddle-point solution. If the maximal coalition size is k and the fingerprinting alphabet is binary, we show that capacity decays quadratically with k. Furthermore, we prove rigorously that the asymptotic capacity is 1 (k221n2) and we confirm our earlier conjecture that Tardos' choice of the arcsine distribution asymptotically maximizes the mutual information payoff function while the interleaving attack minimizes it. Along with the asymptotics, numerical solutions to the game for small k are also presented. In communication systems where users share common resources, users' selfish behavior usually results in suboptimal resource utilization. There have been extensive works that model communication systems with selfish users as one-shot games and propose incentive schemes to achieve Pareto optimal action profiles as non-cooperative equilibria. However, in many communication systems, due to strong negative externalities among users, the sets of feasible payoffs in one-shot games are nonconvex. Thus, it is possible to expand the set of feasible payoffs by having users choose convex combinations of different payoffs. In this paper, we propose a repeated game model generalized by intervention. First, we use repeated games to convexify the set of feasible payoffs in one-shot games. Second, we combine conventional repeated games with intervention, originally proposed for one-shot games, to achieve a larger set of equilibrium payoffs and loosen requirements for users' patience to achieve it. We study the problem of maximizing a welfare function defined on users' equilibrium payoffs, subject to minimum payoff guarantees. Given the optimal equilibrium payoff, we derive the minimum intervention capability required and design corresponding equilibrium strategies. The proposed generalized repeated game model applies to various communication systems, such as power control and flow control. Combinatorial allocation problems require allocating items to players in a way that maximizes the total utility. Two such problems received attention recently, and were addressed using the same linear programming (LP) relaxation. In the Maximum Submodular Welfare (SMW) problem, utility functions of players are submodular, and for this case Dobzinski and Schapira [SODA 2006] showed an approximation ratio of 1 - 1 e. In the Generalized Assignment Problem (GAP) utility functions are linear but players also have capacity constraints. GAP admits a (1 - 1 e)- approximation as well, as shown by Fleischer, Goemans, Mirrokni and Sviridenko [SODA 2006]. In both cases, the approximation ratio was in fact shown for a more general version of the problem, for which improving 1 - 1 e is NPhard. In this paper, we show how to improve the 1 - 1 e approximation ratio, both for SMW and for GAP. A common theme in both improvements is the use of a new and optimal Fair Contention Resolution technique. However, each of the improvements involves a different rounding procedure for the above mentioned LP. In addition, we prove APX-hardness results for SMW (such results were known for GAP). An important feature of our hardness results is that they apply even in very restricted settings, e.g. when every player has nonzero utility only for a constant number of items. In the traffic assignment problem, first proposed by Wardrop in 1952, commuters select the shortest available path to travel from their origins to their destinations. We study a generalization of this problem in which competitors, who may control a nonnegligible fraction of the total flow, ship goods across a network. This type of games, usually referred to as atomic games, readily applies to situations in which the competing freight companies have market power. Other applications include intelligent transportation systems, competition among telecommunication network service providers, and scheduling with flexible machines. Our goal is to determine to what extent these systems can benefit from some form of coordination or regulation. We measure the quality of the outcome of the game without centralized control by computing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. The main conclusion is that although self-interested competitors will not achieve a fully efficient solution from the system's point of view, the loss is not too severe. We show how to compute several bounds for the worst-case inefficiency that depend on the characteristics of cost functions and on the market structure in the game. In addition, building upon the work of Catoni and Pallotino, we show examples in which market aggregation (or collusion) adversely impacts the aggregated competitors, even though their market power increases. For example, Nash equilibria of atomic network games may be less efficient than the corresponding Wardrop equilibria. When competitors are completely symmetric, we provide a characterization of the Nash equilibrium using a potential function, and prove that this counterintuitive phenomenon does not arise. Finally, we study a pricing mechanism that elicits more coordination from the players by reducing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. The authors study repeated games in which players observe a public outcome that imperfectly signals the actions played. They provide conditions guaranteeing that any feasible, individually rational payoff vector of the stage game can arise as a perfect equilibrium of the repeated game with sufficiently little discounting. The central condition requires that there exist action profiles with the property that, for any two players, no two deviations--one by either player--give rise to the same probability distribution over public outcomes. The results apply to principal-agent, partnership, oligopoly, and mechanism-design models, and to one-shot games with transferable utilities. Copyright 1994 by The Econometric Society. We study a setting where a set of players simultaneously invest in a shared resource. The resource has a probability of failure and a return on investment, both of which are functions of the total investment by all players. We use a simple reference dependent preference model to capture players with heterogeneous risk attitudes (risk seeking, risk neutral and risk averse). We show the existence and uniqueness of a pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this setting and examine the effect of different risk attitudes on players' strategies in the presence of uncertainty. In particular, we show that at the equilibrium, risk averse players are pushed out of the resource by risk seeking players. We compare the failure probabilities in the decentralized (game-theoretic) and centralized settings, and show that our proposed game belongs to the class of best response potential games, for which there are simple dynamics that allow all players to converge to the equilibrium. We study mechanism design in dynamic quasilinear environments where private information arrives over time and decisions are made over multiple periods. We make three contributions. First, we provide a necessary condition for incentive compatibility that takes the form of an envelope formula for the derivative of an agent's equilibrium expected payoff with respect to his current type. It combines the familiar marginal effect of types on payoffs with novel marginal effects of the current type on future ones that are captured by “impulse response functions.” The formula yields an expression for dynamic virtual surplus that is instrumental to the design of optimal mechanisms and to the study of distortions under such mechanisms. Second, we characterize the transfers that satisfy the envelope formula and establish a sense in which they are pinned down by the allocation rule (“revenue equivalence”). Third, we characterize perfect Bayesian equilibrium‐implementable allocation rules in Markov environments, which yields tractable sufficient conditions that facilitate novel applications. We illustrate the results by applying them to the design of optimal mechanisms for the sale of experience goods (“bandit auctions”).