Mechanism design via correlation gap

For revenue and welfare maximization in single-dimensional Bayesian settings, Chawla et al. (STOC10) recently showed that sequential posted-price mechanisms (SPMs), though simple in form, can perform surprisingly well compared to the optimal mechanisms. In this paper, we give a theoretical explanation of this fact, based on a connection to the notion of correlation gap. Loosely speaking, for auction environments with matroid constraints, we can relate the performance of a mechanism to the expectation of a monotone submodular function over a random set. This random set corresponds to the winner set for the optimal mechanism, which is highly correlated, and corresponds to certain demand set for SPMs, which is independent. The notion of correlation gap of Agrawal et al. (SODA10) quantifies how much we "lose" in the expectation of the function by ignoring correlation in the random set, and hence bounds our loss in using certain SPM instead of the optimal mechanism. Furthermore, the correlation gap of a monotone and submodular function is known to be small, and it follows that certain SPM can approximate the optimal mechanism by a good constant factor. Exploiting this connection, we give tight analysis of a greedy-based SPM of Chawla et al. for several environments. In particular, we show that it gives an e/(e − 1)-approximation for matroid environments, gives asymptotically a 1/(1--1/√2πk)-approximation for the important sub-case of k-unit auctions, and gives a (p + 1)-approximation for environments with p-independent set system constraints.

[1]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Revenue submodularity , 2009, EC '09.

[2]  Jan Vondrák,et al.  Optimal approximation for the submodular welfare problem in the value oracle model , 2008, STOC.

[3]  Moshe Babaioff,et al.  Posting Prices with Unknown Distributions , 2017, ICS.

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

[5]  Sándor P. Fekete,et al.  Matching as the Intersection of Matroids , 2001, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[6]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Computationally feasible VCG mechanisms , 2000, EC '00.

[7]  James G. Oxley,et al.  Matroid theory , 1992 .

[8]  Jan Vondrák,et al.  Maximizing a Submodular Set Function Subject to a Matroid Constraint (Extended Abstract) , 2007, IPCO.

[9]  Amin Saberi,et al.  Correlation robust stochastic optimization , 2009, SODA '10.

[10]  Jeremy I. Bulow,et al.  The Simple Economics of Optimal Auctions , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  Jan Vondrák,et al.  Submodularity in Combinatorial Optimization , 2007 .

[12]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Simple versus optimal mechanisms , 2009, SECO.

[13]  Liad Blumrosen,et al.  Posted prices vs. negotiations: an asymptotic analysis , 2008, EC '08.

[14]  Shuchi Chawla,et al.  Sequential Posted Pricing and Multi-parameter Mechanism Design , 2010, ArXiv.

[15]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Revenue maximization with a single sample , 2010, EC '10.

[16]  E. H. Clarke Multipart pricing of public goods , 1971 .

[17]  Mukund Sundararajan,et al.  Robust mechanisms for risk-averse sellers , 2010, EC '10.

[18]  Theodore Groves,et al.  Incentives in Teams , 1973 .

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

[20]  William Vickrey,et al.  Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

[21]  Sudipto Guha,et al.  Approximation Schemes for Sequential Posted Pricing in Multi-unit Auctions , 2010, WINE.