Truthful Facility Assignment with Resource Augmentation: An Exact Analysis of Serial Dictatorship

We study the truthful facility assignment problem, where a set of agents with private most-preferred points on a metric space are assigned to facilities that lie on the metric space, under capacity constraints on the facilities. The goal is to produce such an assignment that minimizes the social cost, i.e., the total distance between the most-preferred points of the agents and their corresponding facilities in the assignment, under the constraint of truthfulness, which ensures that agents do not misreport their most-preferred points. We propose a resource augmentation framework, where a truthful mechanism is evaluated by its worst-case performance on an instance with enhanced facility capacities against the optimal mechanism on the same instance with the original capacities. We study a well-known mechanism, Serial Dictatorship, and provide an exact analysis of its performance. Among other results, we prove that Serial Dictatorship has approximation ratio $$g/g-2$$g/g-2 when the capacities are multiplied by any integer $$g \ge 3$$gi¾?3. Our results suggest that even a limited augmentation of the resources can have wondrous effects on the performance of the mechanism and in particular, the approximation ratio goes to 1 as the augmentation factor becomes large. We complement our results with bounds oni¾?the approximation ratio of Random Serial Dictatorship, the randomized version of Serial Dictatorship, when there is no resource augmentation.

[1]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  The Efficiency of Fair Division , 2009, Theory of Computing Systems.

[2]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  Near-Optimal Asymmetric Binary Matrix Partitions , 2014, Algorithmica.

[3]  Mohammad Mahdian,et al.  Online bipartite matching with random arrivals: an approach based on strongly factor-revealing LPs , 2011, STOC '11.

[4]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  RANDOM SERIAL DICTATORSHIP AND THE CORE FROM RANDOM ENDOWMENTS IN HOUSE ALLOCATION PROBLEMS , 1998 .

[5]  Peter Bro Miltersen,et al.  Truthful Approximations to Range Voting , 2013, WINE.

[6]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Strategy-proof allocation of multiple items between two agents without payments or priors , 2010, AAMAS.

[7]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Responsive Lotteries , 2010, SAGT.

[8]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  Analysis of Approximation Algorithms for k-Set Cover Using Factor-Revealing Linear Programs , 2008, Theory of Computing Systems.

[9]  Peter Bowsher,et al.  Anarchy , 1967 .

[10]  P. Sedgwick Matching , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Social Welfare in One-Sided Matchings: Random Priority and Beyond , 2014, SAGT.

[12]  Yonatan Aumann,et al.  The Efficiency of Fair Division with Connected Pieces , 2010, WINE.

[13]  Samir Khuller,et al.  On-Line Algorithms for Weighted Bipartite Matching and Stable Marriages , 1991, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Kirk Pruhs,et al.  The Online Transportation Problem: On the Exponential Boost of One Extra Server , 2008, LATIN.

[15]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Approximate mechanism design without money , 2009, EC '09.

[16]  Elias Koutsoupias,et al.  The Online Matching Problem on a Line , 2003, WAOA.

[17]  David Manlove,et al.  Size versus truthfulness in the house allocation problem , 2014, EC.

[18]  Bala Kalyanasundaram,et al.  The Online Transportation Problem , 2000, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[19]  Elias Koutsoupias Weak adversaries for the k-server problem , 1999, 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039).

[20]  Lars-Gunnar Svensson Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods , 1999 .

[21]  Bala Kalyanasundaram,et al.  Online Weighted Matching , 1993, J. Algorithms.

[22]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem , 2001, J. Econ. Theory.

[23]  Kirk Pruhs,et al.  A o(n) -Competitive Deterministic Algorithm for Online Matching on a Line , 2014, WAOA.

[24]  Adam Meyerson,et al.  Randomized online algorithms for minimum metric bipartite matching , 2006, SODA '06.

[25]  Sven Seuken,et al.  An axiomatic approach to characterizing and relaxing strategyproofness of one-sided matching mechanisms , 2014, EC.

[26]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules , 1985, CACM.

[27]  Bala Kalyanasundaram,et al.  Speed is as powerful as clairvoyance , 2000, JACM.

[28]  Ioannis Caragiannis Wavelength Management in WDM Rings to Maximize the Number of Connections , 2007, STACS.

[29]  Nicholas Mattei,et al.  Egalitarianism of Random Assignment Mechanisms , 2015, ArXiv.

[30]  Haris Aziz,et al.  Egalitarianism of Random Assignment Mechanisms: (Extended Abstract) , 2016, AAMAS.

[31]  Chaitanya Swamy,et al.  Welfare maximization and truthfulness in mechanism design with ordinal preferences , 2013, ITCS.

[32]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Anarchy, stability, and utopia: creating better matchings , 2009, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[33]  Uriel Feige,et al.  Oblivious Algorithms for the Maximum Directed Cut Problem , 2013, Algorithmica.

[34]  Neal Young,et al.  The K-Server Dual and Loose Competitiveness for Paging , 1991, On-Line Algorithms.

[35]  Evangelos Markakis,et al.  Greedy facility location algorithms analyzed using dual fitting with factor-revealing LP , 2002, JACM.

[36]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Blind, Greedy, and Random: Algorithms for Matching and Clustering Using Only Ordinal Information , 2016, AAAI.

[37]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Matching, cardinal utility, and social welfare , 2010, SECO.

[38]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  The Efficient Allocation of Individuals to Positions , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[39]  Tobias Langner,et al.  The Price of Matching with Metric Preferences , 2015, ESA.