In this paper we consider the pairwise kidney exchange game. This game naturally appears in situations that some service providers benefit from pairwise allocations on a network, such as the kidney exchanges between hospitals. present a @math -approximation randomized truthful mechanism for this problem. This is the best known result in this setting with multiple players. However, we note that the variance of the utility of an agent in this mechanism may be as large as @math , which is not desirable in a real application. In this paper we resolve this issue by providing a @math -approximation randomized truthful mechanism in which the variance of the utility of each agent is at most @math . Interestingly, we could apply our technique to design a deterministic mechanism such that, if an agent deviates from the mechanism, she does not gain more than @math . We call such a mechanism an almost truthful mechanism. Indeed, in a practical scenario, an almost truthful mechanism is likely to imply a truthful mechanism. We believe that our approach can be used to design low risk or almost truthful mechanisms for other problems.
Almost truthful mechanisms has been widely studied (See @cite_3 , @cite_2 and @cite_6 ) with slightly different definitions. However, all use the concept that an agent should not gain more than small amount by deviating from the truthful mechanism.
@cite_6 @cite_3 @cite_2
2084685902 1622653397 2126170153 2950990081
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. This manuscript presents an alternative implementation of the truthful-in-expectation mechanism of Dughmi, Roughgarden and Yan for combinatorial auctions with weighted-matroid-rank-sum valuations. The new implementation uses only value queries and is approximately truthful-in-expectation, in the sense that by reporting truthfully each agent maximizes his utility within a multiplicative 1-o(1) factor. It still provides an optimal (1-1 e-o(1))-approximation in social welfare. We achieve this by first presenting an approximately maximal-in-distributional-range allocation rule and then showing a black-box transformation to an approximately truthful-in-expectation mechanism. The authors show how to design truthful (dominant strategy) mechanisms for several combinatorial problems where each agent's secret data is naturally expressed by a single positive real number. The goal of the mechanisms we consider is to allocate loads placed on the agents, and an agent's secret data is the cost she incurs per unit load. We give an exact characterization for the algorithms that can be used to design truthful mechanisms for such load balancing problems using appropriate side payments. We use our characterization to design polynomial time truthful mechanisms for several problems in combinatorial optimization to which the celebrated VCG mechanism does not apply. For scheduling related parallel machines (Q spl par C sub max ), we give a 3-approximation mechanism based on randomized rounding of the optimal fractional solution. This problem is NP-complete, and the standard approximation algorithms (greedy load-balancing or the PTAS) cannot be used in truthful mechanisms. We show our mechanism to be frugal, in that the total payment needed is only a logarithmic factor more than the actual costs incurred by the machines, unless one machine dominates the total processing power. We also give truthful mechanisms for maximum flow, Q spl par spl Sigma C sub j (scheduling related machines to minimize the sum of completion times), optimizing an affine function over a fixed set, and special cases of uncapacitated facility location. In addition, for Q spl par spl Sigma w sub j C sub j (minimizing the weighted sum of completion times), we prove a lower bound of 2 spl radic 3 for the best approximation ratio achievable by truthful mechanism. We study mechanism design problems in the ordinal setting wherein the preferences of agents are described by orderings over outcomes, as opposed to specific numerical values associated with them. This setting is relevant when agents can compare outcomes, but aren't able to evaluate precise utilities for them. Such a situation arises in diverse contexts including voting and matching markets. Our paper addresses two issues that arise in ordinal mechanism design. To design social welfare maximizing mechanisms, one needs to be able to quantitatively measure the welfare of an outcome which is not clear in the ordinal setting. Second, since the impossibility results of Gibbard and Satterthwaite Gibbard73,Satterthwaite75 force one to move to randomized mechanisms, one needs a more nuanced notion of truthfulness. We propose rank approximation as a metric for measuring the quality of an outcome, which allows us to evaluate mechanisms based on worst-case performance, and lex-truthfulness as a notion of truthfulness for randomized ordinal mechanisms. Lex-truthfulness is stronger than notions studied in the literature, and yet flexible enough to admit a rich class of mechanisms circumventing classical impossibility results . We demonstrate the usefulness of the above notions by devising lex-truthful mechanisms achieving good rank-approximation factors, both in the general ordinal setting, as well as structured settings such as (one-sided) matching markets , and its generalizations, matroid and scheduling markets.