Learning Valuation Functions

In this paper we study the approximate learnability of valuations commonly used throughout economics and game theory for the quantitative encoding of agent preferences. We provide upper and lower bounds regarding the learnability of important subclasses of valuation functions that express no-complementarities. Our main results concern their approximate learnability in the distributional learning (PAC-style) setting. We provide nearly tight lower and upper bounds of $\tilde{\Theta}(n^{1/2})$ on the approximation factor for learning XOS and subadditive valuations, both widely studied superclasses of submodular valuations. Interestingly, we show that the $\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/2})$ lower bound can be circumvented for XOS functions of polynomial complexity; we provide an algorithm for learning the class of XOS valuations with a representation of polynomial size achieving an $O(n^{\eps})$ approximation factor in time $O(n^{1/\eps})$ for any $\eps > 0$. This highlights the importance of considering the complexity of the target function for polynomial time learning. We also provide new learning results for interesting subclasses of submodular functions. Our upper bounds for distributional learning leverage novel structural results for all these valuation classes. We show that many of these results provide new learnability results in the Goemans et al. model (SODA 2009) of approximate learning everywhere via value queries. We also introduce a new model that is more realistic in economic settings, in which the learner can set prices and observe purchase decisions at these prices rather than observing the valuation function directly. In this model, most of our upper bounds continue to hold despite the fact that the learner receives less information (both for learning in the distributional setting and with value queries), while our lower bounds naturally extend.

[1]  Shie Mannor,et al.  Bundle Selling by Online Estimation of Valuation Functions , 2011, ICML.

[2]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Sketching valuation functions , 2012, SODA.

[3]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Applying learning algorithms to preference elicitation , 2004, EC '04.

[4]  Vahab S. Mirrokni,et al.  Approximating submodular functions everywhere , 2009, SODA.

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

[6]  Lisa Fleischer,et al.  Submodular Approximation: Sampling-based Algorithms and Lower Bounds , 2008, 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[7]  Shahar Dobzinski,et al.  Two Randomized Mechanisms for Combinatorial Auctions , 2007, APPROX-RANDOM.

[8]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A theory of the learnable , 1984, STOC '84.

[9]  Peter L. Bartlett,et al.  Neural Network Learning - Theoretical Foundations , 1999 .

[10]  Satoru Iwata,et al.  Submodular Function Minimization under Covering Constraints , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[11]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Bidding Languages for Combinatorial Auctions , 2001, IJCAI.

[12]  Maria-Florina Balcan,et al.  Learning submodular functions , 2010, ECML/PKDD.

[13]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  Matroids, secretary problems, and online mechanisms , 2007, SODA '07.

[14]  Avrim Blum,et al.  On polynomial-time preference elicitation with value queries , 2003, EC '03.

[15]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Truthful randomized mechanisms for combinatorial auctions , 2006, STOC '06.

[16]  David C. Parkes,et al.  More on the Power of Demand Queries in Combinatorial Auctions: Learning Atomic Languages and Handling Incentives , 2005, IJCAI.

[17]  Michael Dinitz,et al.  Secretary problems: weights and discounts , 2009, SODA.

[18]  Gagan Goel,et al.  Approximability of Combinatorial Problems with Multi-agent Submodular Cost Functions , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[19]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Welfare guarantees for combinatorial auctions with item bidding , 2011, SODA '11.

[20]  Uriel Feige,et al.  On maximizing welfare when utility functions are subadditive , 2006, STOC '06.

[21]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .

[22]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  Inapproximability for VCG-based combinatorial auctions , 2010, SODA '10.

[23]  F. John Extremum Problems with Inequalities as Subsidiary Conditions , 2014 .

[24]  Faruk Gul,et al.  WALRASIAN EQUILIBRIUM WITH GROSS SUBSTITUTES , 1999 .

[25]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Statistical learning theory , 1998 .

[26]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding , 2002 .

[27]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Bidding Languages for Combinatorial Auctions , 2005 .

[28]  David Buchfuhrer,et al.  Computation and incentives in combinatorial public projects , 2010, EC '10.

[29]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory , 1994 .

[30]  Michel Gendreau,et al.  Combinatorial auctions , 2007, Ann. Oper. Res..

[31]  S. Raghavan,et al.  Assignment Preferences and Combinatorial Auctions , 2011, ICS 2011.

[32]  Yaron Singer,et al.  Budget Feasible Mechanisms , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[33]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Approximation algorithms for combinatorial auctions with complement-free bidders , 2005, STOC '05.

[34]  Kazuo Murota,et al.  Discrete convex analysis , 1998, Math. Program..

[35]  Daniel Lehmann,et al.  Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities , 2001, EC '01.

[36]  S. Fujishige,et al.  Submodular Function Minimization and Maximization in Discrete Convex Analysis , 2010 .

[37]  Daniel Lehmann,et al.  Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities , 2001, EC '01.