Limited verification of identities to induce false-name-proofness

In open, anonymous environments such as the Internet, mechanism design is complicated by the fact that a single agent can participate in the mechanism under multiple identifiers. One way to address this is to design false-name-proof mechanisms, which choose the outcome in such a way that agents have no incentive to use more than one identifier. Unfortunately, there are inherent limitations on what can be achieved with false-name-proof mechanisms, and at least in some cases, these limitations are crippling. An alternative approach is to verify the identities of all agents. This imposes significant overhead and removes any benefits from anonymity. In this paper, we propose a middle ground. Based on the reported preferences, we check, for various subsets of the reports, whether the reports in the subset were all submitted by different agents. If they were not, then we discard some of them. We characterize when such a limited verification protocol induces false-name-proofness for a mechanism, that is, when the combination of the mechanism and the verification protocol gives the agents no incentive to use multiple identifiers. This characterization leads to various optimization problems for minimizing verification effort. We study how to solve these problems. Throughout, we use combinatorial auctions (using the Clarke mechanism) and majority voting as examples.

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

[2]  J. Håstad Clique is hard to approximate withinn1−ε , 1999 .

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

[4]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems , 1973, STOC.

[5]  Ronald M. Harstad,et al.  Computationally Manageable Combinational Auctions , 1998 .

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

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

[8]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Characterization of Satisfactory Mechanisms for the Revelation of Preferences for Public Goods , 1977 .

[9]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[10]  R. Myerson Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem , 1979 .

[11]  M. Satterthwaite Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions , 1975 .

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

[13]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Robust Combinatorial Auction Protocol against False-Name Bids , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[15]  Arild Stubhaug Acta Mathematica , 1886, Nature.

[16]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  False-name-proof combinatorial auction protocol: Groves Mechanism with SubModular Approximation , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[17]  Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.  Competitive auctions and digital goods , 2001, SODA '01.

[18]  David Levine,et al.  Changing the Game in Strategic Sourcing at Procter & Gamble: Expressive Competition Enabled by Optimization , 2006, Interfaces.

[19]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Expressive Commerce and Its Application to Sourcing , 2006, AAAI.

[20]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Anonymity-Proof Voting Rules , 2008, WINE.

[21]  Toramatsu Shintani,et al.  A robust combinatorial auction mechanism against shill bidders , 2006, AAMAS '06.