Incremental Mechanism Design

Mechanism design has traditionally focused almost exclusively on the design of truthful mechanisms. There are several drawbacks to this: 1. in certain settings (e.g. voting settings), no desirable strategy proof mechanisms exist; 2. truthful mechanisms are unable to take advantage of the fact that computationally bounded agents may not be able to find the best manipulation, and 3. when designing mechanisms automatically, this approach leads to constrained optimization problems for which current techniques do not scale to very large instances. In this paper, we suggest an entirely different approach: we start with a naive (manipulable) mechanism, and incrementally make it more strategy proof over a sequence of iterations. We give examples of mechanisms that (variants of) our approach generate, including the VCG mechanism in general settings with payments, and the plurality-with-runoff voting rule. We also provide several basic algorithms for automatically executing our approach in general settings. Finally, we discuss how computationally hard it is for agents to find any remaining beneficial manipulation.

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

[2]  Anshul Kothar,et al.  Approximately-strategyproof and tractable multi-unit auctions , 2003 .

[3]  Éva Tardos,et al.  An approximate truthful mechanism for combinatorial auctions with single parameter agents , 2003, SODA '03.

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

[5]  Subhash Suri,et al.  Approximately-strategyproof and tractable multi-unit auctions , 2003, EC '03.

[6]  Inon Zuckerman,et al.  Universal Voting Protocol Tweaks to Make Manipulation Hard , 2003, IJCAI.

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

[8]  Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.  Envy-free auctions for digital goods , 2003, EC '03.

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

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

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

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

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

[14]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Empirical mechanism design: methods, with application to a supply-chain scenario , 2006, EC '06.

[15]  John J. Bartholdi,et al.  Single transferable vote resists strategic voting , 2015 .

[16]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  An analysis of the 2004 supply chain management trading agent competition , 2005, NAFIPS 2005 - 2005 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society.

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

[18]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Ranking systems: the PageRank axioms , 2005, EC '05.

[19]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Multi-agent Coordination using Local Search , 2005, IJCAI.