Computationally Feasible Automated Mechanism Design: General Approach and Case Studies

In many multiagent settings, a decision must be made based on the preferences of multiple agents, and agents may lie about their preferences if this is to their benefit. In mechanism design, the goal is to design procedures (mechanisms) for making the decision that work in spite of such strategic behavior, usually by making untruthful behavior suboptimal. In automated mechanism design, the idea is to computationally search through the space of feasible mechanisms, rather than to design them analytically by hand. Unfortunately, the most straightforward approach to automated mechanism design does not scale to large instances, because it requires searching over a very large space of possible functions. In this paper, we describe an approach to automated mechanism design that is computationally feasible. Instead of optimizing over all feasible mechanisms, we carefully choose a parameterized subfamily of mechanisms. Then we optimize over mechanisms within this family, and analyze whether and to what extent the resulting mechanism is suboptimal outside the subfamily. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach with two case studies.

[1]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Evolution of market mechanism through a continuous space of auction-types , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[2]  David C. Parkes,et al.  On Revenue-Optimal Dynamic Auctions for Bidders with Interdependent Values , 2007, AMEC/TADA.

[3]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Minimum payments that reward honest reputation feedback , 2006, EC '06.

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

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

[6]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Undominated VCG redistribution mechanisms , 2008, AAMAS.

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

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

[9]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Approximating Revenue-Maximizing Combinatorial Auctions , 2005, AAAI.

[10]  Andrew Byde,et al.  Applying evolutionary game theory to auction mechanism design , 2003, EEE International Conference on E-Commerce, 2003. CEC 2003..

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

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

[13]  Victor Naroditskiy,et al.  Destroy to save , 2009, EC '09.

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

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

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

[17]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computational aspects of preference aggregation , 2006 .

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

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