We introduce the Funding Game, in which @math identical resources are to be allocated among @math selfish agents. Each agent requests a number of resources @math and reports a valuation @math , which verifiably lower -bounds @math 's true value for receiving @math items. The pairs @math can be thought of as size-value pairs defining a knapsack problem with capacity @math . A publicly-known algorithm is used to solve this knapsack problem, deciding which requests to satisfy in order to maximize the social welfare. We show that a simple mechanism based on the knapsack highest ratio greedy algorithm provides a Bayesian Price of Anarchy of 2, and for the complete information version of the game we give an algorithm that computes a Nash equilibrium strategy profile in @math time. Our primary algorithmic result shows that an extension of the mechanism to @math rounds has a Price of Anarchy of @math , yielding a graceful tradeoff between communication complexity and the social welfare.
We study auctions with severe bounds on the communication allowed: each bidder may only transmit t bits of information to the auctioneer. We consider both welfare-maximizing and revenue-maximizing auctions under this communication restriction. For both measures, we determine the optimal auction and show that the loss incurred relative to unconstrained auctions is mild. We prove unsurprising properties of these kinds of auctions, e.g. that discrete prices are informationally efficient, as well as some surprising properties, e.g. that asymmetric auctions are better than symmetric ones. The literature on algorithmic mechanism design is mostly concerned with game-theoretic versions of optimization problems to which standard economic money-based mechanisms cannot be applied efficiently. Recent years have seen the design of various truthful approximation mechanisms that rely on payments. In this article, we advocate the reconsideration of highly structured optimization problems in the context of mechanism design. We explicitly argue for the first time that, in such domains, approximation can be leveraged to obtain truthfulness without resorting to payments. This stands in contrast to previous work where payments are almost ubiquitous and (more often than not) approximation is a necessary evil that is required to circumvent computational complexity. We present a case study in approximate mechanism design without money. In our basic setting, agents are located on the real line and the mechanism must select the location of a public facility; the cost of an agent is its distance to the facility. We establish tight upper and lower bounds for the approximation ratio given by strategyproof mechanisms without payments, with respect to both deterministic and randomized mechanisms, under two objective functions: the social cost and the maximum cost. We then extend our results in two natural directions: a domain where two facilities must be located and a domain where each agent controls multiple locations.  We study auctions in which bidders have severe constraints on the size of messages they are allowed to send to the auctioneer. In such auctions, each bidder has a set of k possible bids (i.e. he can send up to t=log(k) bits to the mechanism). This paper studies the loss of economic efficiency and revenue in such mechanisms, compared with the case of unconstrained communication. For any number of players, we present auctions that incur an efficiency loss and a revenue loss of (O( 1 k^2 ) ), and we show that this upper bound is tight. When we allow the players to send their bits sequentially, we can construct even more efficient mechanisms, but only up to a factor of 2 in the amount of communication needed. We also show that when the players’ valuations for the item are not independently distributed, we cannot do much better than a trivial mechanism. We consider the problem of locating facilities in a metric space to serve a set of selfish agents. The cost of an agent is the distance between her own location and the nearest facility. The social cost is the total cost of the agents. We are interested in designing strategy-proof mechanisms without payment that have a small approximation ratio for social cost. A mechanism is a (possibly randomized) algorithm which maps the locations reported by the agents to the locations of the facilities. A mechanism is strategy-proof if no agent can benefit from misreporting her location in any configuration. This setting was first studied by Procaccia and Tennenholtz [21]. They focused on the facility game where agents and facilities are located on the real line. studied the mechanisms for the facility games in a general metric space [1]. However, they focused on the games with only one facility. In this paper, we study the two-facility game in a general metric space, which extends both previous models. We first prove an Ω(n) lower bound of the social cost approximation ratio for deterministic strategy-proof mechanisms. Our lower bound even holds for the line metric space. This significantly improves the previous constant lower bounds [21, 17]. Notice that there is a matching linear upper bound in the line metric space [21]. Next, we provide the first randomized strategy-proof mechanism with a constant approximation ratio of 4. Our mechanism works in general metric spaces. For randomized strategy-proof mechanisms, the previous best upper bound is O(n) which works only in the line metric space. We study the design of truthful mechanisms that do not use payments for the generalized assignment problem (GAP) and its variants. An instance of the GAP consists of a bipartite graph with jobs on one side and machines on the other. Machines have capacities and edges have values and sizes; the goal is to construct a welfare maximizing feasible assignment. In our model of private valuations, motivated by impossibility results, the value and sizes on all job-machine pairs are public information; however, whether an edge exists or not in the bipartite graph is a job's private information. That is, the selfish agents in our model are the jobs, and their private information is their edge set. We want to design mechanisms that are truthful without money (henceforth strategyproof), and produce assignments whose welfare is a good approximation to the optimal omniscient welfare. We study several variants of the GAP starting with matching. For the unweighted version, we give an optimal strategyproof mechanism. For maximum weight bipartite matching, we show that no strategyproof mechanism, deterministic or randomized, can be optimal, and present a 2-approximate strategyproof mechanism along with a matching lowerbound. Next we study knapsack-like problems, which, unlike matching, are NP-hard. For these problems, we develop a general LP-based technique that extends the ideas of Lavi and Swamy [14] to reduce designing a truthful approximate mechanism without money to designing such a mechanism for the fractional version of the problem. We design strategyproof approximate mechanisms for the fractional relaxations of multiple knapsack, size-invariant GAP, and value-invariant GAP, and use this technique to obtain, respectively, 2, 4 and 4-approximate strategyproof mechanisms for these problems. We then design an O(log n)-approximate strategyproof mechanism for the GAP by reducing, with logarithmic loss in the approximation, to our solution for the value-invariant GAP. Our technique may be of independent interest for designing truthful mechanisms without money for other LP-based problems. Winner determination in combinatorial auctions has received significant interest in the AI Community in the last 3 years. Another difficult problem in combinatorial auctions is that of eliciting the bidders' preferences. We introduce a progressive, partial-revelation mechanism that determines an efficient allocation and the Vickrey payments. The mechanism is based on a family of algorithms that explore the natural lattice structure of the bidders' combined preferences. The mechanism elicits utilities in a natural sequence, and aims at keeping the amount of elicited information and the effort to compute the information minimal. We present analytical results on the amount of elicitation. We show that no value-querying algorithm that is constrained to querying feasible bundles can save more elicitation than one of our algorithms. We also show that one of our algorithms can determine the Vickrey payments as a costless by-product of determining an optimal allocation. We consider the special case of approval voting when the set of agents and the set of alternatives coincide. This captures situations in which the members of an organization want to elect a president or a committee from their ranks, as well as a variety of problems in networked environments, for example in internet search, social networks like Twitter, or reputation systems like Epinions. More precisely, we look at a setting where each member of a set of n agents approves or disapproves of any other member of the set and we want to select a subset of k agents, for a given value of k, in a strategyproof and approximately efficient way. Here, strategyproofness means that no agent can improve its own chances of being selected by changing the set of other agents it approves. A mechanism is said to provide an approximation ratio of α for some α ≥ 1 if the ratio between the sum of approval scores of any set of size k and that of the set selected by the mechanism is always at most α. We show that for k ∈ 1, 2,..., n − 1 , no deterministic strategyproof mechanism can provide a finite approximation ratio. We then present a randomized strategyproof mechanism that provides an approximation ratio that is bounded from above by four for any value of k, and approaches one as k grows. We investigate the problem of allocating items (private goods) among competing agents in a setting that is both prior-free and payment-free. Specificall, we focus on allocating multiple heterogeneous items between two agents with additive valuation functions. Our objective is to design strategy-proof mechanisms that are competitive against the most efficien (first-best allocation. We introduce the family of linear increasing-price (LIP) mechanisms. The LIP mechanisms are strategy-proof, prior-free, and payment-free, and they are exactly the increasing-price mechanisms satisfying a strong responsiveness property. We show how to solve for competitive mechanisms within the LIP family. For the case of two items, we fin a LIP mechanism whose competitive ratio is near optimal (the achieved competitive ratio is 0.828, while any strategy-proof mechanism is at most 0.841-competitive). As the number of items goes to infinit, we prove a negative result that any increasing-price mechanism (linear or nonlinear) has a maximal competitive ratio of 0.5. Our results imply that in some cases, it is possible to design good allocation mechanisms without payments and without priors. Mechanism design without money has a rich history in social choice literature. Due to the strong impossibility theorem by Gibbard and Satterthwaite, exploring domains in which there exist dominant strategy mechanisms is one of the central questions in the field. We propose a general framework, called the generalized packing problem ( ), to study the mechanism design questions without payment. The possesses a rich structure and comprises a number of well-studied models as special cases, including, e.g., matroid, matching, knapsack, independent set, and the generalized assignment problem. We adopt the agenda of approximate mechanism design where the objective is to design a truthful (or strategyproof) mechanism without money that can be implemented in polynomial time and yields a good approximation to the socially optimal solution. We study several special cases of , and give constant approximation mechanisms for matroid, matching, knapsack, and the generalized assignment problem. Our result for generalized assignment problem solves an open problem proposed in DG10 . Our main technical contribution is in exploitation of the approaches from stable matching, which is a fundamental solution concept in the context of matching marketplaces, in application to mechanism design. Stable matching, while conceptually simple, provides a set of powerful tools to manage and analyze self-interested behaviors of participating agents. Our mechanism uses a stable matching algorithm as a critical component and adopts other approaches like random sampling and online mechanisms. Our work also enriches the stable matching theory with a new knapsack constrained matching model.