Optimal false-name-proof single-item redistribution mechanisms

Although the celebrated Vickrey auction is strategy-proof and guaranteed to achieve an efficient allocation in a single-object auction, if there exists no outside party (i.e., a seller or an auctioneer) with the right to collect the payment, the collected payment will be wasted. Redistribution mechanisms try to redistribute the payment to participating agents as much as possible without violating strategy-proofness. However, when a losing agent can obtain part of the payment, she may have an incentive to participate under multiple identities and receive a greater share of the redistribution. Our goal is to develop false-name-proof redistribution mechanisms that are robust against such manipulations. First, we prove that no mechanism simultaneously satisfies false-name-proofness and allocative efficiency, except for the Vickrey auction. Next, we propose a class of false-name-proof redistribution mechanisms, which are characterized by several parameters. We show that each mechanism in the class is not dominated by any other false-name-proof mechanism in terms of social welfare. Precisely, by choosing these parameters appropriately, all instances of this class are guaranteed to achieve at least the same amount of social welfare obtained by any false-name-proof mechanism. Furthermore, we formalize an optimization problem that determines appropriate parameter values based on prior information about participating agents.

[1]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Undominated Groves Mechanisms , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[2]  Boi Faltings,et al.  A budget-balanced, incentive-compatible scheme for social choice , 2004, AAMAS'04.

[3]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Characterization of Satisfactory Mechanisms for the Revelation of Preferences for Public Goods , 1977 .

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

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

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

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

[8]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Destroy to save , 2009, EC '09.

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

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

[11]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Characterizing false-name-proof allocation rules in combinatorial auctions , 2009, AAMAS.

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

[13]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Redistribution in online mechanisms , 2013, AAMAS.

[14]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Better redistribution with inefficient allocation in multi-unit auctions with unit demand , 2008, EC '08.

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

[16]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Using Mechanism Design to Prevent False-Name Manipulations , 2010, AI Mag..