We analyze the computational complexity of market maker pricing algorithms for combinatorial prediction markets. We focus on Hanson's popular logarithmic market scoring rule market maker (LMSR). Our goal is to implicitly maintain correct LMSR prices across an exponentially large outcome space. We examine both permutation combinatorics, where outcomes are permutations of objects, and Boolean combinatorics, where outcomes are combinations of binary events. We look at three restrictive languages that limit what traders can bet on. Even with severely limited languages, we find that LMSR pricing is @math -hard, even when the same language admits polynomial-time matching without the market maker. We then propose an approximation technique for pricing permutation markets based on a recent algorithm for online permutation learning. The connections we draw between LMSR pricing and the vast literature on online learning with expert advice may be of independent interest.
@cite_17 study the computational complexity of finding acceptable trades among a set of bids in a Boolean combinatorial market. In their setting, the center is an who takes no risk, only matching together willing traders. They study a call market setting in which bids are collected together and processed once en masse. They show that the auctioneer matching problem is co-NP-complete when orders are divisible and @math -complete when orders are indivisible, but identify a tractable special case in which participants are restricted to bet on disjunctions of positive events or single negative events.
@cite_17
2072443840 2516752364 1982492546 2022427910 1977980414 2156296696 1846856248 2950351404 2146113145 2951660602 2019385392 2064287473 2074925781 2963146395 1543455987 2072113937 633128216 2226238611 2952233827 2950920780
We consider a permutation betting scenario, where people wager on the final ordering of n candidates: for example, the outcome of a horse race. We examine the auctioneer problem of risklessly matching up wagers or, equivalently, finding arbitrage opportunities among the proposed wagers. Requiring bidders to explicitly list the orderings that they'd like to bet on is both unnatural and intractable, because the number of orderings is n! and the number of subsets of orderings is 2n!. We propose two expressive betting languages that seem natural for bidders, and examine the computational complexity of the auctioneer problem in each case. Subset betting allows traders to bet either that a candidate will end up ranked among some subset of positions in the final ordering, for example, "horse A will finish in positions 4, 9, or 13-21", or that a position will be taken by some subset of candidates, for example "horse A, B, or D will finish in position 2". For subset betting, we show that the auctioneer problem can be solved in polynomial time if orders are divisible. Pair betting allows traders to bet on whether one candidate will end up ranked higher than another candidate, for example "horse A will beat horse B". We prove that the auctioneer problem becomes NP-hard for pair betting. We identify a sufficient condition for the existence of a pair betting match that can be verified in polynomial time. We also show that a natural greedy algorithm gives a poor approximation for indivisible orders. We study the computational challenge faced by a intermediary who attempts to profit from trade with a small number of buyers and sellers of some item. In the version of the problem that we study, the number of buyers and sellers is constant, but their joint distribution of the item’s value may be complicated. We consider discretized distributions, where the complexity parameter is the support size, or number of different prices that may occur. We show that maximizing the expected revenue is computationally tractable (via an LP) if we are allowed to use randomized mechanisms. For the deterministic case, we show how an optimal mechanism can be efficiently computed for the one-seller one-buyer case, but give a contrasting NP-completeness result for the one-seller two-buyer case. This paper deals with the design of efficiently computable incentive compatible, or truthful, mechanisms for combinatorial optimization problems with multi-parameter agents. We focus on approximation algorithms for NP-hard mechanism design problems. These algorithms need to satisfy certain monotonicity properties to ensure truthfulness. Since most of the known approximation techniques do not fulfill these properties, we study alternative techniques.Our first contribution is a quite general method to transform a pseudopolynomial algorithm into a monotone FPTAS. This can be applied to various problems like, e.g., knapsack, constrained shortest path, or job scheduling with deadlines. For example, the monotone FPTAS for the knapsack problem gives a very efficient, truthful mechanism for single-minded multi-unit auctions. The best previous result for such auctions was a 2-approximation. In addition, we present a monotone PTAS for the generalized assignment problem with any bounded number of parameters per agent.The most efficient way to solve packing integer programs (PIPs) is LP-based randomized rounding, which also is in general not monotone. We show that primal-dual greedy algorithms achieve almost the same approximation ratios for PIPs as randomized rounding. The advantage is that these algorithms are inherently monotone. This way, we can significantly improve the approximation ratios of truthful mechanisms for various fundamental mechanism design problems like single-minded combinatorial auctions (CAs), unsplittable flow routing and multicast routing. Our approximation algorithms can also be used for the winner determination in CAs with general bidders specifying their bids through an oracle. In this article, we study the problem of online market clearing where there is one commodity in the market being bought and sold by multiple buyers and sellers whose bids arrive and expire at different times. The auctioneer is faced with an online clearing problem of deciding which buy and sell bids to match without knowing what bids will arrive in the future. For maximizing profit, we present a (randomized) online algorithm with a competitive ratio of ln(pmax − pmin) p 1, when bids are in a range [pmin, pmax], which we show is the best possible. A simpler algorithm has a ratio twice this, and can be used even if expiration times are not known. For maximizing the number of trades, we present a simple greedy algorithm that achieves a factor of 2 competitive ratio if no money-losing trades are allowed. We also show that if the online algorithm is allowed to subsidize matches---match money-losing pairs if it has already collected enough money from previous pairs to pay for them---then it can actually be 1-competitive with respect to the optimal offline algorithm that is not allowed subsidy. That is, for maximizing the number of trades, the ability to subsidize is at least as valuable as knowing the future. We also consider objectives of maximizing buy or sell volume and social welfare. We present all of these results as corollaries of theorems on online matching in an incomplete interval graph.We also consider the issue of incentive compatibility, and develop a nearly optimal incentive-compatible algorithm for maximizing social welfare. For maximizing profit, we show that no incentive-compatible algorithm can achieve a sublinear competitive ratio, even if only one buy bid and one sell bid are alive at a time. However, we provide an algorithm that, under certain mild assumptions on the bids, performs nearly as well as the best fixed pair of buy and sell prices, a weaker but still natural performance measure. This latter result uses online learning methods, and we also show how such methods can be used to improve our “optimal” algorithms to a broader notion of optimality. Finally, we show how some of our results can be generalized to settings in which the buyers and sellers themselves have online bidding strategies, rather than just each having individual bids. This paper deals with the design of efficiently computable incentive-compatible mechanisms for combinatorial optimization problems with single-minded agents each possibly having multiple private parameters. We focus on approximation algorithms for NP-hard mechanism design problems. These algorithms need to satisfy certain monotonicity properties to ensure truthfulness. Since most of the known approximation techniques do not fulfill these properties, we study alternative techniques. Our first contribution is a quite general method to transform a pseudopolynomial algorithm into a monotone fully polynomial time approximation scheme (FPTAS). This can be applied to various problems like, e.g., knapsack, constrained shortest path, or job scheduling with deadlines. For example, the monotone FPTAS for the knapsack problem gives a very efficient, truthful mechanism for single-minded multiunit auctions. The best previous result for such auctions was a 2-appro-xi-ma-tion. In addition, we present a monotone PTAS for the generalized assignment problem with any constant number of private parameters per agent. The most efficient way to solve packing integer programs (PIPs) is linear programming-based randomized rounding, which also is in general not monotone. We show that primal-dual greedy algorithms achieve almost the same approximation ratios for PIPs as randomized rounding. The advantage is that these algorithms are inherently monotone. This way, we can significantly improve the approximation ratios of truthful mechanisms for various fundamental mechanism design problems like single-minded combinatorial auctions (CAs), unsplittable flow routing, and multicast routing. Our primal-dual approximation algorithms can also be used for the winner determination in CAs with general bidders specifying their bids through an oracle. In this paper, we present a novel combinatorial auction (CA) based trading infrastructure to enable the supply and demand of Cloud services from different Cloud providers (CP). We propose a new auction policy that considers the relationship among CPs (mutual business relationship) in bidding mechanism. In our new auction-based market model, we allow the group of service providers to publish their bids collaboratively as a single bid to the auctioneer. It gives service providers a chance to autonomously find partners and make groups. Then they can use group strategy to increase their competitive power and compete for winning the bid (s). This will reduce conflicts, as well as collaboration cost and negotiation time, among participants as compare to existing CA-based market model. We implement our proposed market model of trading service in a simulated environment and study its economic efficiency with existing model. We study anonymous posted price mechanisms for combinatorial auctions in a Bayesian framework. In a posted price mechanism, item prices are posted, then the consumers approach the seller sequentially in an arbitrary order, each purchasing her favorite bundle from among the unsold items at the posted prices. These mechanisms are simple, transparent and trivially dominant strategy incentive compatible (DSIC). We show that when agent preferences are fractionally subadditive (which includes all submodular functions), there always exist prices that, in expectation, obtain at least half of the optimal welfare. Our result is constructive: given black-box access to a combinatorial auction algorithm A, sample access to the prior distribution, and appropriate query access to the sampled valuations, one can compute, in polytime, prices that guarantee at least half of the expected welfare of A. As a corollary, we obtain the first polytime (in n and m) constant-factor DSIC mechanism for Bayesian submodular combinatorial auctions, given access to demand query oracles. Our results also extend to valuations with complements, where the approximation factor degrades linearly with the level of complementarity. We study anonymous posted price mechanisms for combinatorial auctions in a Bayesian framework. In a posted price mechanism, item prices are posted, then the consumers approach the seller sequentially in an arbitrary order, each purchasing her favorite bundle from among the unsold items at the posted prices. These mechanisms are simple, transparent and trivially dominant strategy incentive compatible (DSIC). We show that when agent preferences are fractionally subadditive (which includes all submodular functions), there always exist prices that, in expectation, obtain at least half of the optimal welfare. Our result is constructive: given black-box access to a combinatorial auction algorithm A, sample access to the prior distribution, and appropriate query access to the sampled valuations, one can compute, in polytime, prices that guarantee at least half of the expected welfare of A. As a corollary, we obtain the first polytime (in n and m) constant-factor DSIC mechanism for Bayesian submodular combinatorial auctions, given access to demand query oracles. Our results also extend to valuations with complements, where the approximation factor degrades linearly with the level of complementarity. We analyze a revenue management problem in which a seller facing a Poisson arrival stream of consumers operates an online multiunit auction. Consumers can get the product from an alternative list price channel. We consider two variants of this problem: In the first variant, the list price is an external channel run by another firm. In the second one, the seller manages both the auction and the list price channels. Each consumer, trying to maximize his own surplus, must decide either to buy at the posted price and get the item at no risk, or to join the auction and wait until its end, when the winners are revealed and the auction price is disclosed. Our approach consists of two parts. First, we study structural properties of the problem, and show that the equilibrium strategy for both versions of this game is of the threshold type, meaning that a consumer will join the auction only if his arrival time is above a function of his own valuation. This consumer's strategy can be computed using an iterative algorithm in a function space, provably convergent under some conditions. Unfortunately, this procedure is computationally intensive. Second, and to overcome this limitation, we formulate an asymptotic version of the problem, in which the demand rate and the initial number of units grow proportionally large. We obtain a simple closed-form expression for the equilibrium strategy in this regime, which is then used as an approximate solution to the original problem. Numerical computations show that this heuristic is very accurate. The asymptotic solution culminates in simple and precise recipes of how bidders should behave, as well as how the seller should structure the auction, and price the product in the dual-channel case. We study a central problem in Algorithmic Mechanism Design: constructing truthful mechanisms for welfare maximization in combinatorial auctions with submodular bidders. Dobzinski, Nisan, and Schapira provided the first mechanism that guarantees a non-trivial approximation ratio of @math [STOC'06], where @math is the number of items. This was subsequently improved to @math [Dobzinski, APPROX'07] and then to @math [Krysta and Vocking, ICALP'12]. In this paper we develop the first mechanism that breaks the logarithmic barrier. Specifically, the mechanism provides an approximation ratio of @math . Similarly to previous constructions, our mechanism uses polynomially many value and demand queries, and in fact provides the same approximation ratio for the larger class of XOS (a.k.a. fractionally subadditive) valuations. We also develop a computationally efficient implementation of the mechanism for combinatorial auctions with budget additive bidders. Although in general computing a demand query is NP-hard for budget additive valuations, we observe that the specific form of demand queries that our mechanism uses can be efficiently computed when bidders are budget additive. Bayesian equilibria of simultaneous auctions for individual items have been explored recently [ 2008; Bhawalkar and Roughgarden 2011; 2011; 2013] as an alternative to the well-known complexity issues plaguing combinatorial auctions with incomplete information, and some strong positive results have been shown about their performance. We point out some very serious complexity obstacles to this approach: Computing a Bayesian equilibrium in such auctions is hard for PP --- a complexity class between the polynomial hierarchy and PSPACE --- and even finding an approximate such equilibrium is as hard as NP, for some small approximation ratio (additive or multiplicative); therefore, the assumption that such equilibria will be arrived at by rational agents is quite problematic. In fact, even recognizing a Bayesian Nash equilibrium is intractable. Furthermore, these results hold even if bidder valuations are quite benign: Only one bidder valuation in our construction is unit demand or monotone submodular, while all others are additive. We also explore the possibility of favorable price of anarchy results for no-regret dynamics of the Bayesian simultaneous auctions game, and identify complexity obstacles there as well. We introduce single-bid auctions as a new format for combinatorial auctions. In single-bid auctions, each bidder submits a single real-valued bid for the right to buy items at a fixed price. Contrary to other simple auction formats, such as simultaneous or sequential single-item auctions, bidders can implement no-regret learning strategies for single-bid auctions in polynomial time. Price of anarchy bounds for correlated equilibria concepts in single-bid auctions therefore have more bite than their counterparts for auctions and equilibria for which learning is not known to be computationally tractable (or worse, known to be computationally intractable [Cai and Papadimitriou 2014; 2015] this end, we show that for any subadditive valuations the social welfare at equilibrium is an O(log m)-approximation to the optimal social welfare, where @math is the number of items. We also provide tighter approximation results for several subclasses. Our welfare guarantees hold for Nash equilibria and no-regret learning outcomes in both Bayesian and complete information settings via the smooth-mechanism framework. Of independent interest, our techniques show that in a combinatorial auction setting, efficiency guarantees of a mechanism via smoothness for a very restricted class of cardinality valuations extend, with a small degradation, to subadditive valuations, the largest complement-free class of valuations. In a prediction market, agents trade assets whose value is tied to a future event, for example the outcome of the next presidential election. Asset prices determine a probability distribution over the set of possible outcomes. Typically, the outcome space is small, allowing agents to directly trade in each outcome, and allowing a market maker to explicitly update asset prices. Combinatorial markets, in contrast, work to estimate a full joint distribution of dependent observations, in which case the outcome space grows exponentially. In this paper, we consider the problem of pricing combinatorial markets for single-elimination tournaments. With @math competing teams, the outcome space is of size 2n-1. We show that the general pricing problem for tournaments is P-hard. We derive a polynomial-time algorithm for a restricted betting language based on a Bayesian network representation of the probability distribution. The language is fairly natural in the context of tournaments, allowing for example bets of the form "team i wins game k". We believe that our betting language is the first for combinatorial market makers that is both useful and tractable. We briefly discuss a heuristic approximation technique for the general case. An extensive body of recent work studies the welfare guarantees of simple and prevalent combinatorial auction formats, such as selling m items via simultaneous second price auctions (SiSPAs) [1], [2], [3]. These guarantees hold even when the auctions are repeatedly executed and the players use no-regret learning algorithms to choose their actions. Unfortunately, off-the-shelf no-regret learning algorithms for these auctions are computationally inefficient as the number of actions available to the players becomes exponential. We show that this obstacle is inevitable: there are no polynomial-time no-regret learning algorithms for SiSPAs, unless RP ⊆ NP, even when the bidders are unit-demand. Our lower bound raises the question of how good outcomes polynomially-bounded bidders may discover in such auctions. To answer this question, we propose a novel concept of learning in auctions, termed "no-envy learning." This notion is founded upon Walrasian equilibrium, and we show that it is both efficiently implementable and results in approximately optimal welfare, even when the bidders have valuations from the broad class of fractionally subadditive (XOS) valuations (assuming demand oracle access to the valuations) or coverage valuations (even without demand oracles). No-envy learning outcomes are a relaxation of no-regret learning outcomes, which maintain their approximate welfare optimality while endowing them with computational tractability. Our positive and negative results extend to several auction formats that have been studied in the literature via the smoothness paradigm. Our positive results for XOS valuations are enabled by a novel Follow-The-Perturbed-Leader algorithm for settings where the number of experts and states of nature are both infinite, and the payoff function of the learner is non-linear. We show that this algorithm has applications outside of auction settings, establishing significant gains in a recent application of no-regret learning in security games. Our efficient learning result for coverage valuations is based on a novel use of convex rounding schemes and a reduction to online convex optimization. Combinatorial auctions (CAs) are important mechanisms for allocating interrelated items. Unfortunately, winner determination is NP-complete unless there is special structure. We study the setting where there is a graph (with some desired property), with the items as vertices, and every bid bids on a connected set of items. Two computational problems arise: 1) clearing the auction when given the item graph, and 2) constructing an item graph (if one exists) with the desired property. 1 was previously solved for the case of a tree or a cycle, and 2 for the case of a line graph or a cycle. We generalize the first result by showing that given an item graph with bounded treewidth, the clearing problem can be solved in polynomial time (and every CA instance has some treewidth; the complexity is exponential in only that parameter). We then give an algorithm for constructing an item tree (treewidth 1) if such a tree exists, thus closing a recognized open problem. We show why this algorithm does not work for treewidth greater than 1, but leave open whether item graphs of (say) treewidth 2 can be constructed in polynomial time. We show that finding the item graph with the fewest edges is NP-complete (even when a graph of treewidth 2 exists). Finally, we study how the results change if a bid is allowed to have more than one connected component. Even for line graphs, we show that clearing is hard even with 2 components, and constructing the line graph is hard even with 5. 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. We present an extensive analysis of the key problem of learning optimal reserve prices for generalized second price auctions. We describe two algorithms for this task: one based on density estimation, and a novel algorithm benefiting from solid theoretical guarantees and with a very favorable running-time complexity of @math , where @math is the sample size and @math the number of slots. Our theoretical guarantees are more favorable than those previously presented in the literature. Additionally, we show that even if bidders do not play at an equilibrium, our second algorithm is still well defined and minimizes a quantity of interest. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to apply learning algorithms to the problem of reserve price optimization in GSP auctions. Finally, we present the first convergence analysis of empirical equilibrium bidding functions to the unique symmetric Bayesian-Nash equilibrium of a GSP. A line of recent work provides welfare guarantees of simple combinatorial auction formats, such as selling m items via simultaneous second price auctions (SiSPAs) ( 2008, Bhawalkar and Roughgarden 2011, 2013). These guarantees hold even when the auctions are repeatedly executed and players use no-regret learning algorithms. Unfortunately, off-the-shelf no-regret algorithms for these auctions are computationally inefficient as the number of actions is exponential. We show that this obstacle is insurmountable: there are no polynomial-time no-regret algorithms for SiSPAs, unless RP @math NP, even when the bidders are unit-demand. Our lower bound raises the question of how good outcomes polynomially-bounded bidders may discover in such auctions. To answer this question, we propose a novel concept of learning in auctions, termed "no-envy learning." This notion is founded upon Walrasian equilibrium, and we show that it is both efficiently implementable and results in approximately optimal welfare, even when the bidders have fractionally subadditive (XOS) valuations (assuming demand oracles) or coverage valuations (without demand oracles). No-envy learning outcomes are a relaxation of no-regret outcomes, which maintain their approximate welfare optimality while endowing them with computational tractability. Our results extend to other auction formats that have been studied in the literature via the smoothness paradigm. Our results for XOS valuations are enabled by a novel Follow-The-Perturbed-Leader algorithm for settings where the number of experts is infinite, and the payoff function of the learner is non-linear. This algorithm has applications outside of auction settings, such as in security games. Our result for coverage valuations is based on a novel use of convex rounding schemes and a reduction to online convex optimization. We exhibit a property of the VCG mechanism that can help explain the surprising rarity with which it is used even in settings with unit demand: a relative lack of robustness to inaccuracies in the choice of its parameters. For a standard position auction environment in which the auctioneer may not know the precise relative values of the positions, we show that under both complete and incomplete information a non-truthful mechanism supports the truthful outcome of the VCG mechanism for a wider range of these values than the VCG mechanism itself. The result for complete information concerns the generalized second-price mechanism and lends additional theoretical support to the use of this mechanism in practice. Particularly interesting from a technical perspective is the case of incomplete information, where a surprising combinatorial equivalence helps us to avoid confrontation with an unwieldy differential equation. We study the communication complexity of combinatorial auctions via interpolation mechanisms that interpolate between non-truthful and truthful protocols. Specifically, an interpolation mechanism has two phases. In the first phase, the bidders participate in some non-truthful protocol whose output is itself a truthful protocol. In the second phase, the bidders participate in the truthful protocol selected during phase one. Note that virtually all existing auctions have either a non-existent first phase (and are therefore truthful mechanisms), or a non-existent second phase (and are therefore just traditional protocols, analyzed via the Price of Anarchy Stability). The goal of this paper is to understand the benefits of interpolation mechanisms versus truthful mechanisms or traditional protocols, and develop the necessary tools to formally study them. Interestingly, we exhibit settings where interpolation mechanisms greatly outperform the optimal traditional and truthful protocols. Yet, we also exhibit settings where interpolation mechanisms are provably no better than truthful ones. Finally, we apply our new machinery to prove that the recent single-bid mechanism of Devanur et. al. DevanurMSW15 (the only pre-existing interpolation mechanism in the literature) achieves the optimal price of anarchy among a wide class of protocols, a claim that simply can't be addressed by appealing just to machinery from communication complexity or the study of truthful mechanisms.