Payment Rules through Discriminant-Based Classifiers

In mechanism design it is typical to impose incentive compatibility and then derive an optimal mechanism subject to this constraint. By replacing the incentive compatibility requirement with the goal of minimizing expected ex post regret, we are able to adapt statistical machine learning techniques to the design of payment rules. This computational approach to mechanism design is applicable to domains with multi-dimensional types and situations where computational efficiency is a concern. Specifically, given an outcome rule and access to a type distribution, we train a support vector machine with a specific structure imposed on the discriminant function, such that it implicitly learns a corresponding payment rule with desirable incentive properties. We extend the framework to adopt succinct k-wise dependent valuations, leveraging a connection with maximum a posteriori assignment on Markov networks to enable training to scale up to settings with a large number of items; we evaluate this construction in the case where k=2. We present applications to multiparameter combinatorial auctions with approximate winner determination, and the assignment problem with an egalitarian outcome rule. Experimental results demonstrate that the construction produces payment rules with low ex post regret, and that penalizing classification error is effective in preventing failures of ex post individual rationality.

[1]  Ben Taskar,et al.  Learning associative Markov networks , 2004, ICML.

[2]  Eric Budish,et al.  The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes , 2010, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  Xiaohui Bei,et al.  Bayesian incentive compatibility via fractional assignments , 2010, SODA '11.

[4]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Approximate Strategyproofness , 2012 .

[5]  Yang Cai,et al.  An algorithmic characterization of multi-dimensional mechanisms , 2011, STOC '12.

[6]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation , 2011 .

[7]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Revenue monotonicity in deterministic, dominant-strategy combinatorial auctions , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  The Lovely but Lonely Vickrey Auction , 2004 .

[9]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Complexity of Mechanism Design , 2002, UAI.

[10]  Sébastien Lahaie A Kernel Method for Market Clearing , 2009, IJCAI.

[11]  ConitzerVincent,et al.  The ACM transactions on economics and computation , 2013 .

[12]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Towards a characterization of truthful combinatorial auctions , 2003, 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[13]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  Comparing Mechanisms by their Vulernability to Manipulation , 2008 .

[14]  Aytek Erdil,et al.  A New Payment Rule for Core-Selecting Package Auctions , 2009 .

[15]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: new fraud in internet auctions , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[16]  D. Parkes,et al.  Quantifying the Strategyproofness of Mechanisms via Metrics on Payoff Distributions , 2009, UAI.

[17]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Cutting-plane training of structural SVMs , 2009, Machine Learning.

[18]  Y. Lequain An algorithmic characterization , 2007 .

[19]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  Weak monotonicity suffices for truthfulness on convex domains , 2005, EC '05.

[20]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Combinatorial Auctions with k-wise Dependent Valuations , 2005, AAAI.

[21]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Core-selecting package auctions , 2008, Int. J. Game Theory.

[22]  Robert D. Kleinberg,et al.  Bayesian incentive compatibility via matchings , 2011, SODA '11.

[23]  Gabriel D. Carroll A Quantitative Approach to Incentives: Application to Voting Rules (Job Market Paper) , 2011 .

[24]  Chaitanya Swamy,et al.  Truthful and Near-Optimal Mechanism Design via Linear Programming , 2005, FOCS.

[25]  Chaitanya Swamy,et al.  Truthful and near-optimal mechanism design via linear programming , 2005, 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'05).

[26]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computationally Feasible Automated Mechanism Design: General Approach and Case Studies , 2010, AAAI.

[27]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Achieving Budget-Balance with Vickrey-Based Payment Schemes in Exchanges , 2001, IJCAI.

[28]  D. Monderer,et al.  Monotonicity and Implementability , 2010 .

[29]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Combinatorial markets in theory and practice: mitigating incentives and facilitating elicitation , 2010 .

[30]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  Large Margin Methods for Structured and Interdependent Output Variables , 2005, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[31]  Shuchi Chawla,et al.  Bayesian algorithmic mechanism design , 2014, SECO.

[32]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Truth revelation in approximately efficient combinatorial auctions , 2002, EC '99.

[33]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Combinatorial auctions with restricted complements , 2012, EC '12.

[34]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[35]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[36]  Sébastien Lahaie,et al.  Stability and Incentive Compatibility in a Kernel-Based Combinatorial Auction , 2010, AAAI.