Strategic deliberation and truthful revelation: an impossibility result

In many market settings, agents do not know their preferences apriori. Instead, they may have to solve computationally complex optimization problems, query databases, or perform expensive searchesin order to determine their values for different outcomes. For such settings, we have introduced the deliberation equilibrium as the game-theoretic solution concept where the agents' deliberation actions are modeled aspart of their strategies.In this paper we lay out auction design principles for deliberative agents. We propose a set of intuitive properties which are desirable in auctions for deliberative agents. First, we propose that auctions should be non-deliberative: the auction should notactively do the deliberation for the agents. Second, auctions should be deliberation-proof: in equilibrium agents should not have anincentive to deliberate on each others' valuation problems. Third, the auction should be non-deceiving: agents should not have incentive to strategically misrepresent. We show that it is impossible to design interesting auctions which have these three properties.

[1]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  An Implementation of the Contract Net Protocol Based on Marginal Cost Calculations , 1993, AAAI.

[2]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Monitoring and control of anytime algorithms: A dynamic programming approach , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Eric Bennett Rasmusen,et al.  Strategic Implications of Uncertainty Over One's Own Private Value in Auctions , 2001 .

[4]  P. Jehiel,et al.  Auctions and Information acquisition: Sealed-bid or Dynamic Formats? , 2007 .

[5]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Bargaining with limited computation: Deliberation equilibrium , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[6]  N. Persico Information acquisition in auctions , 2000 .

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

[8]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Mechanism design for resource bounded agents , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[9]  Dirk Bergemann,et al.  Information Acquisition and Efficient Mechanism Design , 2000 .

[10]  P. Jehiel On the virtues of the ascending price auction : New insights in the private value setting , 2000 .

[11]  Stuart J. Russell,et al.  Principles of Metareasoning , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Algorithms, Games, and the Internet , 2001, ICALP.

[13]  A. Mas-Colell,et al.  Microeconomic Theory , 1995 .

[14]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Optimal Composition of Real-Time Systems , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Issues in Computational Vickrey Auctions , 2000, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[16]  Steven Minton,et al.  Minimizing Conflicts: A Heuristic Repair Method for Constraint Satisfaction and Scheduling Problems , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Mark S. Boddy,et al.  Deliberation Scheduling for Problem Solving in Time-Constrained Environments , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[18]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Optimal Auction Design for Agents with Hard Valuation Problems , 1999, Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce.

[19]  T. Sandholm,et al.  Costly valuation computation in auctions , 2001 .

[20]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Coalitions Among Computationally Bounded Agents , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Y. Shoham,et al.  Truth revelation in rapid, approximately efficient combinatorial auctions , 2001 .