Expressive markets for donating to charities

When donating money to a (say, charitable) cause, it is possible to use the contemplated donation as a bargaining chip to induce other parties interested in the charity to donate more. Such negotiation is usually done in terms of matching offers, where one party promises to pay a certain amount if others pay a certain amount. However, in their current form, matching offers allow for only limited negotiation. For one, it is not immediately clear how multiple parties can make matching offers at the same time without creating circular dependencies. Also, it is not immediately clear how to make a donation conditional on other donations to multiple charities when the donor has different levels of appreciation for the different charities. In both these cases, the limited expressiveness of matching offers causes economic loss: it may happen that an arrangement that all parties (donors as well as charities) would have preferred cannot be expressed in terms of matching offers and will therefore not occur. In this paper, we introduce a bidding language for expressing very general types of matching offers over multiple charities. We formulate the corresponding clearing problem (deciding how much each bidder pays, and how much each charity receives), and show that it cannot be approximated to any ratio in polynomial time unless P=NP, even in very restricted settings. We give a mixed integer program formulation of the clearing problem, and show that for concave bids, the program reduces to a linear program. We then show that the clearing problem for a subclass of concave bids is at least as hard as the decision variant of linear programming. We also consider the case where each charity has a target amount, and [email protected]? willingness-to-pay functions are concave. Here, we show that the optimal surplus can be approximated to a ratio m, the number of charities, in polynomial time (and no significantly better approximation is possible in polynomial time unless P=NP); no polynomial-time approximation ratio is possible for maximizing the total donated, unless P=NP. Subsequently, we show that the clearing problem is much easier when bids are quasilinear-for maximizing surplus, the problem decomposes across charities, and for maximizing the total donated, a greedy approach is optimal if the bids are concave (although this latter problem is weakly NP-hard when the bids are not concave). For the quasilinear setting, we study the mechanism design question. We show that an ex-post efficient mechanism is impossible even with only one charity and a very restricted class of bids. We also show that there can be benefits to linking the charities from a mechanism design standpoint. Finally, we discuss an experiment in which we used this methodology to collect money for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.

[1]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Welfare Undominated Groves Mechanisms , 2008, WINE.

[2]  Mohammad Mahdian,et al.  Charity auctions on social networks , 2008, SODA '08.

[3]  David Zuckerman Linear Degree Extractors and the Inapproximability of Max Clique and Chromatic Number , 2007, Theory Comput..

[4]  M. Rothkopf,et al.  Why Are Vickrey Auctions Rare? , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Failures of the VCG mechanism in combinatorial auctions and exchanges , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[6]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Almost budget-balanced VCG mechanisms to assign multiple objects , 2009, J. Econ. Theory.

[7]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Some Simplified NP-Complete Graph Problems , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[8]  J Tagliabue Global AIDS Fund is given attention but not money. , 2003 .

[9]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Iterative Combinatorial Auctions , 2006 .

[10]  Ruggiero Cavallo,et al.  Efficiency and redistribution in dynamic mechanism design , 2008, EC '08.

[11]  Laurence A. Wolsey,et al.  Integer and Combinatorial Optimization , 1988 .

[12]  M. Bailey The demand revealing process: To distribute the surplus , 1997 .

[13]  T. Sandholm,et al.  Arbitrage in Combinatorial Exchanges ? , 2004 .

[14]  Ruggiero Cavallo,et al.  Optimal decision-making with minimal waste: strategyproof redistribution of VCG payments , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[15]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions , 2002, EC '01.

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

[17]  L. G. H. Cijan A polynomial algorithm in linear programming , 1979 .

[18]  Tuomas Sandholm Expressive Commerce and Its Application to Sourcing: How We Conducted $35 Billion of Generalized Combinatorial Auctions , 2007, AI Mag..

[19]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Special Section of Games and Economic Behavior dedicated to the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[20]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Fair imposition , 2001, J. Econ. Theory.

[21]  Subhash Suri,et al.  BOB: Improved winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations , 2003, Artif. Intell..

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

[23]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Combinatorial Auctions , 2005, Encyclopedia of Wireless Networks.

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

[25]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Optimal-in-expectation redistribution mechanisms , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Worst-case optimal redistribution of VCG payments in multi-unit auctions , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

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

[28]  K. Arrow The Property Rights Doctrine and Demand Revelation under Incomplete Information**This work was supported by National Science Foundation under Grant No. SOC75-21820 at the Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University. , 1979 .

[29]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Optimal-in-expectation redistribution mechanisms , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[30]  David Zuckerman,et al.  Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 100 (2005) Linear Degree Extractors and the Inapproximability of MAX CLIQUE and CHROMATIC NUMBER , 2005 .

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

[32]  T. Sandholm,et al.  Applications of Automated Mechanism Design , 2003 .

[33]  L. Khachiyan Polynomial algorithms in linear programming , 1980 .

[34]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Expressive commerce and its application to sourcing: how we conducted $35 billion of generalized combinatorial auctions , 2007, AI Mag..

[35]  M. Satterthwaite,et al.  Efficient Mechanisms for Bilateral Trading , 1983 .

[36]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions , 2001, AAMAS '02.

[37]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Stockmeyer: some simplified np-complete graph problems , 1976 .

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

[39]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Expressive Negotiation in Settings with Externalities , 2005, AAAI.

[40]  Zizhuo Wang,et al.  A unified framework for dynamic pari-mutuel information market design , 2009, EC '09.

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

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

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

[44]  C. d'Aspremont,et al.  Incentives and incomplete information , 1979 .