arXiv subjects

Timo Mennle

Publications and source records attributed to Timo Mennle.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2020

Local Sufficiency for Partial Strategyproofness

In (Mennle and Seuken, 2017), we have introduced partial strategyproofness, a new, relaxed notion of strategyproofness, to study the incentive properties of non-strategyproof assignment mechanisms. In this paper, we present results pertaining to local sufficiency for partial strategyproofness: We show that, for any r in [0,1], r-local partial strategyproofness implies r^2-partial strategyproofness, and we show that this is the tightest polynomial bound for which a guarantee can be proven. Our results unify the two prior local sufficiency results for strategyproofness (Carroll, 2012) and lexicographic dominance-strategyproofness (Cho, 2012).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Two New Impossibility Results for the Random Assignment Problem

In this note, we prove two new impossibility results for random assignment mechanisms: Bogomolnaia and Moulin (2001) showed that no assignment mechanism can satisfy strategyproofness, ordinal efficiency, and symmetry at the same time, and Mennle and Seuken (2017) gave a decomposition of strategyproofness into the axioms swap monotonicity, upper invariance, and lower invariance. For our first impossibility result, we show that upper invariance, lower invariance, ordinal efficiency, and symmetry are incompatible. This refines the prior impossibility result because it relaxes swap monotonicity. For our second impossibility result, we show that no assignment mechanism satisfies swap monotonicity, lower invariance, ordinal efficiency, anonymity, neutrality, and non-bossiness. By contrasts, the Probabilistic Serial (PS) mechanism that Bogomolnaia and Moulin (2001) introduced, satisfies these axioms when lower invariance is replaced by upper invariance. It follows that there cannot exists a lower invariant counterpart to PS.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

An Axiomatic Decomposition of Strategyproofness for Ordinal Mechanism with Indifferences

We study mechanism which operate on ordinal preference information (i.e., rank ordered lists of alternatives) on the full domain of weak preferences that admits indifferences. We present a novel decomposition of strategyproofness into three axioms: separation monotonic, separation upper invariant, and separation lower invariant. Each axiom is a natural restriction on how mechanisms can react when agents change their opinion about the relative ranking of any two adjacently ranked groups of alternatives. Our result extends a result from (Mennle and Seuken, 2017), a decomposition of strategyproofness for strict preferences, to the full domain that includes weak preferences.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2015

The Pareto Frontier for Random Mechanisms

We study the trade-offs between strategyproofness and other desiderata, such as efficiency or fairness, that often arise in the design of random ordinal mechanisms. We use approximate strategyproofness to define manipulability, a measure to quantify the incentive properties of non-strategyproof mechanisms, and we introduce the deficit, a measure to quantify the performance of mechanisms with respect to another desideratum. When this desideratum is incompatible with strategyproofness, mechanisms that trade off manipulability and deficit optimally form the Pareto frontier. Our main contribution is a structural characterization of this Pareto frontier, and we present algorithms that exploit this structure to compute it. To illustrate its shape, we apply our results for two different desiderata, namely Plurality and Veto scoring, in settings with 3 alternatives and up to 18 agents.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Trade-offs in School Choice: Comparing Deferred Acceptance, the Naive and the Classic Boston Mechanism

The three most common school choice mechanisms are the Deferred Acceptance mechanism (DA), the classic Boston mechanism (BM), and a variant of the Boston mechanism where students automatically skip exhausted schools, which we call the adaptive Boston mechanism (ABM). Assuming truthful reporting, we compare student welfare under these mechanisms both from a conceptual and from a quantitative perspective: We first show that, BM rank dominates DA whenever they are comparable; and via limit arguments and simulations we show that ABM yields intermediate student welfare between BM and DA. Second, we perform computational experiments with preference data from the high school match in Mexico City. We find that student welfare (in terms of rank transitions) is highest under BM, intermediate under ABM, and lowest under DA. BM, ABM, and DA can thus be understood to form a hierarchy in terms of student welfare. In contrast, in (Mennle and Seuken, 2017), we have found that the same mechanisms also form a hierarchy in terms of incentives for truthtelling that points in the opposite direction. A decision between them therefore involves an implicit trade-off between incentives and student welfare.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Partial Strategyproofness: Relaxing Strategyproofness for the Random Assignment Problem

We present partial strategyproofness, a new, relaxed notion of strategyproofness for studying the incentive properties of non-strategyproof assignment mechanisms. Informally, a mechanism is partially strategyproof if it makes truthful reporting a dominant strategy for those agents whose preference intensities differ sufficiently between any two objects. We demonstrate that partial strategyproofness is axiomatically motivated and yields a parametric measure for "how strategyproof" an assignment mechanism is. We apply this new concept to derive novel insights about the incentive properties of the probabilistic serial mechanism and different variants of the Boston mechanism.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

Hybrid Mechanisms: Trading off Strategyproofness and Efficiency of Random Assignment Mechanisms

Severe impossibility results restrict the design of strategyproof random assignment mechanisms, and trade-offs are necessary when aiming for more demanding efficiency requirements, such as ordinal or rank efficiency. We introduce hybrid mechanisms, which are convex combinations of two component mechanisms. We give a set of conditions under which such hybrids facilitate a non-degenerate trade-off between strategyproofness (in terms of partial strategyproofness) and efficiency (in terms of dominance). This set of conditions is tight in the sense that trade-offs may become degenerate if any of the conditions are dropped. Moreover, we give an algorithm for the mechanism designer's problem of determining a maximal mixing factor. Finally, we prove that our construction can be applied to mix Random Serial Dictatorship with Probabilistic Serial, as well as with the adaptive Boston mechanism, and we illustrate the efficiency gains numerically.

cs.GT↗