Advertisement

Truthfulness on a budget: trading money for approximation through monitoring

  • Paolo SerafinoEmail author
  • Carmine Ventre
  • Angelina Vidali
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Albeit a pervasive desideratum when computing in the presence of selfish agents, truthfulness typically imposes severe limitations to what can be implemented. The price of these limitations is typically paid either economically, in terms of the financial resources needed to enforce truthfulness, or algorithmically, in terms of restricting the set of implementable objective functions, which often leads to renouncing optimality and resorting to approximate allocations. In this paper, with regards to utilitarian problems, we ask two fundamental questions: (i) what is the minimum sufficient budget needed by optimal truthful mechanisms, and (ii) whether it is possible to sacrifice optimality in order to achieve truthfulness with a lower budget. To answer these questions, we connect two streams of work on mechanism design and look at monitoring—a paradigm wherein agents’ actual costs are bound to their declarations. In this setting, we prove that the social cost is always a sufficient budget, even for collusion-resistant mechanisms, and, under mild conditions, also a necessary budget for a large class of utilitarian problems that encompass set system problems. Furthermore, for two well-studied problems outside of this class, namely facility location and obnoxious facility location, we draw a novel picture about the relationship between (additive) approximation and frugality. While for optimal mechanisms we prove that the social cost is always a sufficient and necessary budget for both problems, for approximate mechanisms we do have a dichotomy: for the facility location problem (i.e., agents want to be close to the facilities) we show that “good” approximations still need a budget equal to the social cost; on the contrary, for the obnoxious facility location problem (i.e. agents want to be as far away from the facilities as possible) we show that it is possible to trade approximation for frugality, thus obtaining truthfulness with a lower budget.

Keywords

Budget-feasible mechanisms Auctions Frugality Set systems Facility location Obnoxious facility location 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Alon, N., Feldman, M., Procaccia, A. D., & Tennenholtz, M. (2010). Strategyproof approximation of the minimax on networks. Mathematics of Operations Research, 3, 513–526.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amanatidis, G., Birmpas, G., & Markakis, E. (2017) On budget-feasible mechanism design for symmetric submodular objectives. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on Web and internet economics, WINE 2017, Bangalore, India, December 17-20, 2017 (pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amanatidis, G., Kleer, P., & Schäfer, G. (2019) Budget-feasible mechanism design for non-monotone submodular objectives: Offline and online. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM conference on economics and computation, EC 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 24-28, 2019. (pp. 901–919).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anastasiadis, E., & Deligkas, A. (2018). Heterogeneous facility location games. AAMAS, pp. 623–631.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Augustine, J., Caragiannis, I., Fanelli, A., & Kalaitzis, C. (2015). Enforcing efficient equilibria in network design games via subsidies. Algorithmica, 72(1), 44–82.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Babaioff, M., Feldman, M., & Tennenholtz, M. (2016). Mechanism design with strategic mediators. ACM Transations on Economics and Computation, 4(2), 7.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bei, X., Chen, N., Gravin, N., & Lu, P. (2017). Worst-case mechanism design via bayesian analysis. SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(4), 1428–1448.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchbinder,N., Lewin-Eytan, L., Naor, J., & Orda, A. (2008) Non-cooperative cost sharing games via subsidies. In B. Monien and U.-P. Schroeder (Eds.), Algorithmic Game Theory (pp. 337–349). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calinescu, G. (2015). Bounding the payment of approximate truthful mechanisms. Theoretical Computer Science, 562, 419–435.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caragiannis, I., Chatzigeorgiou, X., Kanellopoulos, P., Krimpas, G. A., Protopapas, N., & Voudouris, A. A. (2017). Efficiency and complexity of price competition among single-product vendors. Artificial Intelligence, 248, 9–25.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caragiannis, I., & Voudouris, A. A. (2018) The efficiency of resource allocation mechanisms for budget-constrained users. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on economics and computation, Ithaca, NY, USA, June 18-22, 2018 (pp. 681–698).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, N., Elkind, E., Gravin, N., & Petrov, F. (2010) Frugal mechanism design via spectral techniques. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 51st annual symposium on foundations of computer science, FOCS ’10 (pp. 755–764). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng, Y., Gravin, N., Munagala, K., & Wang, K., (2018) A simple mechanism for a budget-constrained buyer. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on web and internet economics, WINE 2018, Oxford, UK, December 15-17, 2018 (pp. 96–110).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng, Y., Yu, W., & Zhang, G. (2011) Mechanisms for obnoxious facility game on a path (pp. 262–271). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng, Y., Yu, W., & Zhang, G. (2013). Strategy-proof approximation mechanisms for an obnoxious facility game on networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 497, 154–163. Combinatorial Algorithms and Applications.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dobzinski, S., Papadimitriou, C. H., & Singer, Y. (2011) Mechanisms for complement-free procurement. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on electronic commerce, EC ’11 (pp. 273–282). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dokow, E., Feldman, M., Meir, R., & Nehama, I. (2012). Mechanism design on discrete lines and cycles. ACM EC, pp. 423–440.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elkind, E., Goldberg, L. A., & Goldberg, P. W. (2007) Frugality ratios and improved truthful mechanisms for vertex cover. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on electronic commerce, EC ’07 (pp. 336–345). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elkind, E., Sahai, A., & Steiglitz, K. (2004). Frugality in path auctions. SODA, pp. 701–709.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferraioli, D., Serafino, P., & Ventre, C. (2016) What to verify for optimal truthful mechanisms without money. In Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on autonomous agents & multiagent systems, Singapore, May 9-13, 2016, pp. 68–76.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fotakis, D., Krysta, P., & Ventre, C. Equal-cost mechanism design with monitoring. Submitted.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fotakis, D., & Tzamos, C. (2013) On the power of deterministic mechanisms for facility location games. In Proceedings of 40th international colloquium automata, languages, and programming, ICALP 2013, Riga, Latvia, July 8–12, 2013, Part I (pp. 449–460).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giannakopoulos, Y., Koutsoupias, E., & Kyropoulou, M. (2016). The anarchy of scheduling without money. SAGT (pp. 302–314).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Golomb, I., & Tzamos, C., (2017) Truthful facility location with additive errors. CoRR, arXiv:1701.00529.
  25. 25.
    Gravin, N., Jin, Y., Lu, P., & Zhang, C. (2019) Optimal budget-feasible mechanisms for additive valuations. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM conference on economics and computation, EC 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 24-28, 2019 (pp. 887–900).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hajiaghayi, M., Khani, M. R., & Seddighin, S. (2018) Frugal auction design for set systems: Vertex cover and knapsack. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on economics and computation, EC ’18, (pp. 645–662.) New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibara, K., & Nagamochi, H. (2012) Characterizing mechanisms in obnoxious facility game. In Proceedings of 6th international conference on combinatorial optimization and applications, COCOA 2012, Banff, AB, Canada, August 5-9, 2012 (pp. 301–311).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karlin, A. R., Kempe, D., & Tamir, T. (2005) Beyond VCG: frugality of truthful mechanisms. In Proceedings of 46th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS 2005), 23-25 October 2005, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (pp. 615–626).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kempe, D., Salek, M., & Moore, C. (2010) Frugal and truthful auctions for vertex covers, flows and cuts. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 51st annual symposium on foundations of computer science, FOCS ’10 (pp. 745–754), Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khalilabadi, P. J., & Tardos, É. (2018) Simple and efficient budget feasible mechanisms for monotone submodular valuations. In Proceedings of 14th international conference web and internet economics, WINE 2018, Oxford, UK, December 15-17, 2018 (pp. 246–263).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kos, N., & Messner, M. (2012). Extremal incentive compatible transfers. Journal of Economic Theory, 148, 134–164.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koutsoupias, E., (2011) Scheduling without payments. In Proceedings of SAGT, volume 6982 of LNCS (pp. 143–153).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kovács, A., Meyer, U., & Ventre, C. (2015) Mechanisms with monitoring for truthful RAM allocation. In WINE, volume 9470 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 398–412). Springer.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kyropoulou, M., Ventre, C., & Zhang, X. (2019) Mechanism design for constrained heterogeneous facility location. In SAGT 2019 (in press).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lu, P., Sun, X., Wang, Y., & Zhu, Z. A. (2010). Asymptotically optimal strategy-proof mechanisms for two-facility games. ACM EC, pp. 315–324.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lu, P., Wang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2009). Tighter bounds for facility games. WINE, pp. 137–148.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meir, R., Procaccia, A. D., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2012). Algorithms for strategyproof classification. Artificial Intelligence, 186, 123–156.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moulin, H. (1980). On strategy-proofness and single-peakedness. Public Choice, 35, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nisan, N., & Ronen, A. (2001). Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 35, 166–196.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., & Vazirani, V. V. (Eds.). (2007). Algorithmic game theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Penna, P., & Ventre, C. (2014). Optimal collusion-resistant mechanisms with verification. Games and Economic Behavior, 86, 491–509.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Procaccia, A. D., & Tennenholtz, M. (2013). Approximate mechanism design without money. ACM Transations on Economics and Computation, 1(4), 18.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schummer, J., & Vohra, R. V. (2002). Strategy-proof location on a network. Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 405–428.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Serafino, P., & Ventre, C. (2014). Heterogeneous facility location without money on the line. ECAI - Including PAIS (pp. 807–812).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Serafino, P., & Ventre, C. (2015). Truthful mechanisms without money for non-utilitarian heterogeneous facility location. AAAI (pp. 1029–1035).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Serafino, P., & Ventre, C. (2016). Heterogeneous facility location without money. Theoretical Computer Science, 636, 27–46.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singer, Y. (2010). Budget feasible mechanisms. FOCS (pp. 765–774).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Talwar, K. (2003) The price of truth: Frugality in truthful mechanisms. In Proceedings of 20th annual symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science STACS 2003, Berlin, Germany, February 27–March 1, 2003 (pp. 608–619).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zou, S., & Li, M., (2015). Facility location games with dual preference. AAMAS (pp. 615–623).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gran Sasso Science InstituteL’AquilaItaly
  2. 2.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations