Rigidity in Mechanism Design and its Applications

Shahar Dobzinski; Ariel Shaulker

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2212.09847

Rigidity in Mechanism Design and its Applications

Shahar Dobzinski·Ariel Shaulker

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We introduce the notion of rigidity in auction design and use it to analyze some fundamental aspects of mechanism design. We focus on single-item auctions where the values of the bidders are drawn from some (possibly correlated) distribution $\mathcal F$. Let $f$ be the allocation function of an optimal mechanism for $\mathcal F$. Informally, $S$ is (linearly) rigid in $\mathcal F$ if for every mechanism $M'$ with an allocation function $f'$ where $f$ and $f'$ agree on the allocation of at most $x$-fraction of the instances of $S$, the expected revenue of $M'$ is at most an $x$ fraction of the optimal revenue. We use rigidity to explain the singular success of Cremer and McLean's auction. Recall that the revenue of Cremer and McLean's auction is the optimal welfare if the distribution obeys a certain ``full rank'' condition, but no analogous constructions are known if this condition does not hold. Note that the Kolmogorov complexity of the allocation function of Cremer and McLean's auction is logarithmic, whereas we use rigidity to show that for some distributions that do not obey the full rank condition, the Kolmogorov complexity of the allocation function of every mechanism that provides a constant approximation is almost linear. We further investigate rigidity assuming different notions of individual rationality. Assuming ex-post individual rationality, if there is a rigid set, the structure of the optimal mechanism is simple: the player with the highest value ``usually'' wins the item and contributes most of the revenue. In contrast, assuming interim individual rationality, there are distributions with a rigid set $S$ where the optimal mechanism has no obvious allocation pattern (i.e., its Kolmogorov complexity is high). Our results help explain why we have little hope of developing good, simple and generic approximation mechanisms in the interim individual rationality world.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Shahar Dobzinski, Ariel Shaulker. 2022-12-19. Rigidity in Mechanism Design and its Applications. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09847

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗