We study black-box reductions from mechanism design to algorithm design for welfare maximization in settings of incomplete information. Given oracle access to an algorithm for an underlying optimization problem, the goal is to simulate an incentive compatible mechanism. The mechanism will be evaluated on its expected welfare, relative to the algorithm provided, and its complexity is measured by the time (and queries) needed to simulate the mechanism on any input. While it is known that black-box reductions are not possible in many prior-free settings, settings with priors appear more promising: there are known reductions for Bayesian incentive compatible (BIC) mechanism design for general classes of welfare maximization problems. This dichotomy begs the question: which mechanism design problems admit black-box reductions, and which do not? Our main result is that black-box mechanism design is impossible under two of the simplest settings not captured by known positive results. First, for the problem of allocating @math goods to a single buyer whose valuation is additive and independent across the goods, subject to a downward-closed constraint on feasible allocations, we show that there is no polytime (in @math ) BIC black-box reduction for expected welfare maximization. Second, for the setting of multiple single-parameter agents---where polytime BIC reductions are known---we show that no polytime reductions exist when the incentive requirement is tightened to Max-In-Distributional-Range. In each case, we show that achieving a sub-polynomial approximation to the expected welfare requires exponentially many queries, even when the set of feasible allocations is known to be downward-closed.
Our negative result for BIC black-box reductions for an additive bidder applies in a setting with a downward-closed feasibility constraint on the allocations. This is closely related to models of agent valuations that are additive subject to a downward-closed constraint, such as @math -additive valuations or additivity subject to a matroid constraint. These models have recently attracted interest in the literature on revenue maximization; for example, it is known that simple pricing methods can achieve a constant fraction of the optimal revenue in any such environment @cite_4 . Our impossibility result shows that even for the conceptually simpler goal of maximizing expected welfare, no general reduction is possible when the downward-closed constraint is not known to the transformation.
@cite_4
2168069490 1495768673 2951767300 2964216027
We provide a computationally efficient black-box reduction from mechanism design to algorithm design in very general settings. Specifically, we give an approximation-preserving reduction from truthfully maximizing any objective under arbitrary feasibility constraints with arbitrary bidder types to (not necessarily truthfully) maximizing the same objective plus virtual welfare (under the same feasibility constraints). Our reduction is based on a fundamentally new approach: we describe a mechanism's behavior indirectly only in terms of the expected value it awards bidders for certain behavior, and never directly access the allocation rule at all. Applying our new approach to revenue, we exhibit settings where our reduction holds both ways. That is, we also provide an approximation-sensitive reduction from (non-truthfully) maximizing virtual welfare to (truthfully) maximizing revenue, and therefore the two problems are computationally equivalent. With this equivalence in hand, we show that both problems are NP-hard to approximate within any polynomial factor, even for a single monotone sub modular bidder. We further demonstrate the applicability of our reduction by providing a truthful mechanism maximizing fractional max-min fairness. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for reducing the k-item n-bidder auction with additive valuation to k-item 1-bidder auctions. This approach, called the Best-Guess reduction, can be applied to address several central questions in optimal revenue auction theory such as the relative strength of simple versus complex mechanisms, the power of randomization, and Bayesian versus dominant-strategy implementations. First, when the items have independent valuation distributions, we present a deterministic mechanism called Deterministic Best-Guess that yields at least a constant fraction of the optimal revenue by any randomized mechanism. This also gives the first simple mechanism that achieves constant fraction optimal revenue for such multi-buyer multi-item auctions. Second, if all the nk valuation random variables are independent, the optimal revenue achievable in dominant strategy incentive compatibility (DSIC) is shown to be at least a constant fraction of that achievable in Bayesian incentive compatibility (BIC). Third, when all the nk values are identically distributed according to a common one-dimensional distribution F, the optimal revenue is shown to be expressible in the closed form Θ(k(r + ∫0mr(1 − F(x)n)dx)) where r = supx≥0 x(1 − F(x)n) and m = lk nr; this revenue is achievable by a simple mechanism called 2nd-Price Bundling. All our results apply to arbitrary distributions, regular or irregular. We study the revenue maximization problem of a seller with n heterogeneous items for sale to a single buyer whose valuation function for sets of items is unknown and drawn from some distribution D. We show that if D is a distribution over subadditive valuations with independent items, then the better of pricing each item separately or pricing only the grand bundle achieves a constant-factor approximation to the revenue of the optimal mechanism. This includes buyers who are k-demand, additive up to a matroid constraint, or additive up to constraints of any downwards-closed set system (and whose values for the individual items are sampled independently), as well as buyers who are fractionally subadditive with item multipliers drawn independently. Our proof makes use of the core-tail decomposition framework developed in prior work showing similar results for the significantly simpler class of additive buyers [LY13, BILW14]. In the second part of the paper, we develop a connection between approximately optimal simple mechanisms and approximate revenue monotonicity with respect to buyers' valuations. Revenue non-monotonicity is the phenomenon that sometimes strictly increasing buyers' values for every set can strictly decrease the revenue of the optimal mechanism [HR12]. Using our main result, we derive a bound on how bad this degradation can be (and dub such a bound a proof of approximate revenue monotonicity); we further show that better bounds on approximate monotonicity imply a better analysis of our simple mechanisms. In this paper, we consider the problem of designing incentive compatible auctions for multiple (homogeneous) units of a good, when bidders have private valuations and private budget constraints. When only the valuations are private and the budgets are public, [8] show that the adaptive clinching auction is the unique incentive-compatible auction achieving Pareto-optimality. They further show that this auction is not truthful with private budgets, so that there is no deterministic Pareto-optimal auction with private budgets. Our main contribution is to show the following Budget Monotonicity property of this auction: When there is only one infinitely divisible good, a bidder cannot improve her utility by reporting a budget smaller than the truth. This implies that the adaptive clinching auction is incentive compatible when over-reporting the budget is not possible (for instance, when funds must be shown upfront). We can also make reporting larger budgets suboptimal with a small randomized modification to the auction. In either case, this makes the modified auction Pareto-optimal with private budgets. We also show that the Budget Monotonicity property does not hold for auctioning indivisible units of the good, showing a sharp contrast between the divisible and indivisible cases. The Budget Monotonicity property also implies other improved results in this context. For revenue maximization, the same auction improves the best-known competitive ratio due to Abrams [1] by a factor of 4, and asymptotically approaches the performance of the optimal single-price auction. Finally, we consider the problem of revenue maximization (or social welfare) in a Bayesian setting. We allow the bidders have public size constraints (on the amount of good they are willing to buy) in addition to private budget constraints. We show a simple poly-time computable 5.83-approximation to the optimal Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism, that is implementable in dominant strategies. Our technique again crucially needs the ability to prevent bidders from over-reporting budgets via randomization. We show the approximation result via designing a rounding scheme for an LP relaxation of the problem, which may be of independent interest.