A principal delegates a project to a team S from a pool of n agents. The project's value if all agents in S exert costly effort is f(S). To incentivize the agents to participate, the principal assigns each agent i ∈ S a share ρi ∈ [0,1] of the project's final value (i.e., designs n linear contracts). The shares must be feasible—their sum should not exceed 1. It is well-understood how to design these contracts to maximize the principal's own expected utility, but what if the goal is to coordinate the agents toward maximizing social welfare?

We study a new class of contract design problems where a principal delegates the execution of multiple projects to a set of agents. The principal's expected reward from each project is a combinatorial function of the agents working on it. Each agent has limited capacity and can work on at most one project, and the agents are heterogeneous, with different costs and contributions for participating in different projects. The main challenge of the principal is to decide how to allocate the agents to projects when the number of projects grows in scale.

We study rental games—a single-parameter dynamic mechanism design problem, in which a designer rents out an indivisible asset over n days. Each day, an agent arrives with a private valuation per day of rental, drawn from that day's (known) distribution. The designer can either rent out the asset to the current agent for any number of remaining days, charging them a (possibly different) payment per day, or turn the agent away. Agents who arrive when the asset is not available are turned away. A defining feature of our dynamic model is that agents are stagewise-IR (individually rational), meaning they reject any rental agreement that results in temporary negative utility, even if their final utility is positive. We ask whether and under which economic objectives it is useful for the designer to exploit the stagewise-IR nature of the agents.

Algorithms with predictions are gaining traction across various domains, as a way to surpass traditional worst-case bounds through (machine-learned) advice. We study the canonical problem of $k$-facility location mechanism design, where the $n$ agents are strategic and might misreport their locations. We receive a prediction for each agent's location, and these predictions are crucially allowed to be only "mostly" and "approximately" correct (MAC for short): a $\delta$-fraction of the predicted locations are allowed to be arbitrarily incorrect, and the remainder of the predictions are required to be correct up to an $\varepsilon$-error. Moreover, we make no assumption on the independence of the errors. Can such "flawed" predictions allow us to beat the current best bounds for strategyproof facility location? We show how natural robustness of the $1$-median (also known as the geometric median) of a set of points leads to an algorithm for single-facility location with MAC predictions. We extend our results to a natural "balanced" variant of the $k$-facility case, and show that without balancedness, robustness completely breaks down even for $k=2$ facilities on a line. As our main result, for this "unbalanced" setting we devise a truthful random mechanism, which outperforms the best known mechanism (with no predictions) by Lu et al.~[2010]. En route, we introduce the problem of "second" facility location, in which the first facility location is already fixed. Our robustness findings may be of independent interest, as quantitative versions of classic breakdown-point results in robust statistics.

Real-life contractual relations typically involve repeated interactions between the principal and agent, where, despite theoretical appeal, players rarely use complex dynamic strategies and instead manage uncertainty through learning algorithms. In this paper, we initiate the study of repeated contracts with learning agents, focusing on those achieving no-regret outcomes. For the canonical setting where the agent’s actions result in success or failure, we present a simple, optimal solution for the principal: Initially provide a linear contract with scalar $\alpha > 0$, then switch to a zero-scalar contract. This shift causes the agent to “free-fall” through their action space, yielding non-zero rewards for the principal at zero cost. Interestingly, despite the apparent exploitation, there are instances where our dynamic contract can make \emph{both} players better off compared to the best static contract. We then broaden the scope of our results to general linearly-scaled contracts, and, finally, to the best of our knowledge, we provide the first analysis of optimization against learning agents with uncertainty about the time horizon.

While the success of large language models (LLMs) increases demand for machine-generated text, current pay-per-token pricing schemes create a misalignment of incentives known in economics as moral hazard: Text-generating agents have strong incentive to cut costs by preferring a cheaper model over the cutting-edge one, and this can be done “behind the scenes” since the agent performs inference internally. In this work, we approach this issue from an economic perspective, by proposing a pay-for-performance, contract-based framework for incentivizing quality. We study a principal-agent game where the agent generates text using costly inference, and the contract determines the principal’s payment for the text according to an automated quality evaluation. Since standard contract theory is inapplicable when internal inference costs are unknown, we introduce cost-robust contracts. As our main theoretical contribution, we characterize optimal cost-robust contracts through a direct correspondence to optimal composite hypothesis tests from statistics, generalizing a result of Saig et al. (NeurIPS’23). We evaluate our framework empirically by deriving contracts for a range of objectives and LLM evaluation benchmarks, and find that cost-robust contracts sacrifice only a marginal increase in objective value compared to their cost-aware counterparts.

The literature on strategic communication originated with the influential cheap talk model, which precedes the Bayesian persuasion model by three decades. This model describes an interaction between two agents: sender and receiver. The sender knows some state of the world which the receiver does not know, and tries to influence the receiver's action by communicating a cheap talk message to the receiver.

We study a variant of the principal-agent problem in which the principal does not directly observe the agent's effort outcome; rather, she gets a signal about the agent's action according to a variable information structure designed by a regulator. We consider both the case of a risk-neutral and of a risk-averse agent, focusing mainly on a setting with a limited liability assumption. We ask the following question - which actions and utility profiles can be implemented by some information structure? Surprisingly, even though the principal-agent problem with unobserved outcomes has appeared in previous work, ours is the first work to study the implementability of utility profiles and expected transfers.

Contract design involves a principal who establishes contractual agreements about payments for outcomes that arise from the actions of an agent. In this paper, we initiate the study of deep learning for the automated design of optimal contracts. We introduce a novel representation: the Discontinuous ReLU (DeLU) network, which models the principal's utility as a discontinuous piecewise affine function of the design of a contract where each piece corresponds to the agent taking a particular action. DeLU networks implicitly learn closed-form expressions for the incentive compatibility constraints of the agent and the utility maximization objective of the principal, and support parallel inference on each piece through linear programming or interior-point methods that solve for optimal contracts. We provide empirical results that demonstrate success in approximating the principal's utility function with a small number of training samples and scaling to find approximately optimal contracts on problems with a large number of actions and outcomes.

When machine learning is outsourced to a rational agent, conflicts of interest might arise and severely impact predictive performance. In this work, we propose a theoretical framework for incentive-aware delegation of machine learning tasks. We model delegation as a principal-agent game, in which accurate learning can be incentivized by the principal using performance-based contracts. Adapting the economic theory of contract design to this setting, we define budget-optimal contracts and prove they take a simple threshold form under reasonable assumptions. In the binary-action case, the optimality of such contracts is shown to be equivalent to the classic Neyman-Pearson lemma, establishing a formal connection between contract design and statistical hypothesis testing. Empirically, we demonstrate that budget-optimal contracts can be constructed using small-scale data, leveraging recent advances in the study of learning curves and scaling laws. Performance and economic outcomes are evaluated using synthetic and real-world classification tasks.

We study a generalization of both the classic single-dimensional mechanism design problem, and the hidden-action principal-agent problem of contract theory [c.f., Alon et al. 2021]. In this setting, the principal seeks to incentivize an agent with a private Bayesian type to take a costly action. The goal is to design an incentive compatible menu of contracts which maximizes the expected revenue.

We study a setting with a decision maker making a binary decision by aggregating information from symmetric agents. Each agent provides the decision maker a recommendation depending on her private signal about the hidden state. We assume that agents are truthful - an agent recommends guessing the more likely state based on her information. This assumption is natural if the agents are unaware of how the decision-maker will aggregate their recommendations. While the decision maker has a prior distribution over the hidden state and knows the marginal distribution of each agent's private signal, the correlation between these signals is chosen adversarially. The decision maker's goal is choosing an information aggregation rule that is robustly optimal.

In the interdependent values (IDV) model introduced by Milgrom and Weber [1982], agents have private signals that capture their information about different social alternatives, and the valuation of every agent is a function of all agent signals. While interdependence has been mainly studied for auctions, it is extremely relevant for a large variety of social choice settings, including the canonical and practically important setting of public projects. The IDV model is much more realistic but also very challenging relative to the standard independent private values model. Welfare guarantees for IDV have been achieved mainly through two alternative conditions known as single-crossing and submodularity over signals (SOS). In either case, the existing theory falls short of solving the public projects setting. Our contribution is twofold: (i) We give a useful characterization of truthfulness for IDV public projects, parallel to the known characterization for independent private values, and identify the domain frontier for which this characterization applies; (ii) Using this characterization, we provide possibility and impossibility results for welfare approximation in public projects with SOS valuations. Our main impossibility result is that, in contrast to auctions, no universally truthful mechanism performs better for public projects with SOS valuations than choosing a project at random. Our main positive result applies to excludable public projects with SOS, for which we establish a constant factor approximation similar to auctions. Our results suggest that exclusion may be a key tool for achieving welfare guarantees in the IDV model. * The full version of the paper can be accessed at https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08044. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 866132), by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF grant nos. 317/17 and 336/18), by an Amazon Research Award, and by the NSF-BSF (grant no. 2020788).

Humans have come to rely on machines for reducing excessive information to manageable representations. But this reliance can be abused – strategic machines might craft representations that manipulate their users. How can a user make good choices based on strategic representations? We formalize this as a learning problem, and pursue algorithms for decision-making that are robust to manipulation. In our main setting of interest, the system represents attributes of an item to the user, who then decides whether or not to consume. We model this interaction through the lens of strategic classification (Hardt et al. 2016), reversed: the user, who learns, plays first; and the system, which responds, plays second. The system must respond with representations that reveal ‘nothing but the truth’ but need not reveal the entire truth. Thus, the user faces the problem of learning set functions under strategic subset selection, which presents distinct algorithmic and statistical challenges. Our main result is a learning algorithm that minimizes error despite strategic representations, and our theoretical analysis sheds light on the trade-off between learning effort and susceptibility to manipulation.

The celebrated Bayesian persuasion model considers strategic communication between an informed agent (the sender) and uninformed decision makers (the receivers). The current rapidly-growing literature mostly assumes a dichotomy: either the sender is powerful enough to communicate separately with each receiver (a.k.a. private persuasion), or she cannot communicate separately at all (a.k.a. public persuasion). We study a model that smoothly interpolates between the two, by considering a natural multi-channel communication structure in which each receiver observes a subset of the sender's communication channels. This captures, e.g., receivers on a network, where information spillover is almost inevitable. We completely characterize when one communication structure is better for the sender than another, in the sense of yielding higher optimal expected utility universally over all prior distributions and utility functions. The characterization is based on a simple pairwise relation among receivers - one receiver information-dominates another if he observes at least the same channels. We prove that a communication structure $M_1$ is (weakly) better than $M_2$ if and only if every information-dominating pair of receivers in $M_1$ is also such in $M_2$. We also provide an additive FPTAS for the optimal sender's signaling scheme when the number of states is constant and the graph of information-dominating pairs is a directed forest. Finally, we prove that finding an optimal signaling scheme under multi-channel persuasion is, generally, computationally harder than under both public and private persuasion.

We study robust mechanism design for revenue maximization when selling a single item in an auction, assuming that only the mean of the value distribution and an upper bound on the bidders' valuations for the item are known. Robust mechanism design is a rising alternative to Bayesian mechanism design, which yields designs that do not rely on assumptions like full distributional knowledge, but rather only partial knowledge of the distributions. We seek a mechanism that maximizes revenue over the worst-case distribution compatible with the known parameters. Such a mechanism arises as an equilibrium of a zero-sum game between the seller and an adversary who chooses the distribution, and so can be referred to as the max-min mechanism.

Bayesian persuasion, as introduced by Kamenica and Gentzkow in 2011, is the study of information sharing policies among strategic agents. A prime example is signaling in online ad auctions: what information should a platform signal to an advertiser regarding a user when selling the opportunity to advertise to her? Practical considerations such as preventing discrimination, protecting privacy or acknowledging limited attention of the information receiver impose constraints on information sharing. We propose a simple way to mathematically model such constraints as restrictions on Receiver's admissible posterior beliefs. We consider two families of constraints - ex ante and ex post; the latter limits each instance of Sender-Receiver communication, while the former more general family can also pose restrictions in expectation. For the ex ante family, a result of Doval and Skreta (2018) establishes the existence of an optimal signaling scheme with a small number of signals - at most the number of constraints plus the number of states of nature - and we show this result is tight. For the ex post family, we tighten the previous bound of Vølund (2018), showing that the required number of signals is at most the number of states of nature, as in the original Kamenica-Gentzkow setting. As our main algorithmic result, we provide an additive bi-criteria FPTAS for an optimal constrained signaling scheme assuming a constant number of states of nature; we improve the approximation to single-criteria under a Slater-like regularity condition. The FPTAS holds under standard assumptions, and more relaxed assumptions yield a PTAS. We then establish a bound on the ratio between Sender's optimal utility under convex ex ante constraints and the corresponding ex post constraints. We demonstrate how this result can be applied to find an approximately welfare-maximizing constrained signaling scheme in ad auctions.

We expand the literature on the price of anarchy (PoA) of simultaneous item auctions by considering settings with correlated values; we do this via the fundamental economic model of interdependent values (IDV). It is well-known that in multi-item settings with private values, correlated values can lead to bad PoA, which can be polynomially large in the number of agents~n. In the more general model of IDV, we show that the PoA can be polynomially large even in single-item settings. On the positive side, we identify a natural condition on information dispersion in the market, which enables good PoA guarantees. Under this condition, we show that for single-item settings, the PoA of standard mechanisms degrades gracefully. For settings with multiple items we show a separation between two domains: If there are more buyers, we devise a new simultaneous item auction with good PoA, under limited information asymmetry. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first positive PoA result for correlated values in multi-item settings. The main technical difficulty in establishing this result is that the standard tool for establishing PoA results --- the smoothness framework --- is unsuitable for IDV settings, and so we must introduce new techniques to address the unique challenges imposed by such settings. In the domain of more items, we establish impossibility results even for surprisingly simple scenarios.

Strategic classification studies the interaction between a classification rule and the strategic agents it governs. Agents respond by manipulating their features, under the assumption that the classifier is known. However, in many real-life scenarios of high-stake classification (e.g., credit scoring), the classifier is not revealed to the agents, which leads agents to attempt to learn the classifier and game it too. In this paper we generalize the strategic classification model to such scenarios and analyze the effect of an unknown classifier. We define the ”price of opacity” as the difference between the prediction error under the opaque and transparent policies, characterize it, and give a sufficient condition for it to be strictly positive, in which case transparency is the recommended policy. Our experiments show how Hardt et al.’s robust classifier is affected by keeping agents in the dark.

Economic theory distinguishes between principal-agent settings in which the agent has a private type and settings in which the agent takes a hidden action. Many practical problems, however, involve aspects of both. For example, brand X may seek to hire an influencer Y to create sponsored content to be posted on social media platform Z. This problem has a hidden action component (the brand may not be able or willing to observe the amount of effort exerted by the influencer), but also a private type component (influencers may have different costs per unit-of-effort). This "effort" and "cost per unit-of-effort" perspective naturally leads to a principal-agent problem with hidden action and single-dimensional private type, which generalizes both the classic principal-agent hidden action model of contract theory a la Grossmann and Hart [1986] and the (procurement version) of single-dimensional mechanism design a la Myerson [1983]. A natural goal in this model is to design an incentive-compatible contract, which consist of an allocation rule that maps types to actions, and a payment rule that maps types to payments for the stochastic outcomes of the chosen action. Our main contribution is an LP-duality based characterization of implementable allocation rules for this model, which applies to both discrete and continuous types. This characterization shares important features of Myerson's celebrated characterization result, but also departs from it in significant ways. We present several applications, including a polynomial-time algorithm for finding the optimal contract with a constant number of actions. This in sharp contrast to recent work on hidden action problems with multi-dimensional private information, which has shown that the problem of computing an optimal contract for constant numbers of actions is APX-hard.

We study contract design for welfare maximization in the well-known "common agency" model of Bernheim and Whinston [1986]. This model combines the challenges of coordinating multiple principals with the fundamental challenge of contract design: that principals have incomplete information of the agent's choice of action. Motivated by the significant social inefficiency of standard contracts for such settings (which we formally quantify using a price of anarchy/stability analysis), we investigate whether and how a recent toolbox developed for the first set of challenges under a complete-information assumption - VCG contracts [Lavi and Shamash, 2019] - can be extended to incomplete information.

We study a Bayesian persuasion setting with binary actions (adopt and reject) for Receiver. We examine the following question - how well can Sender perform, in terms of persuading Receiver to adopt, when ignorant of Receiver's utility? We take a robust (adversarial) approach to study this problem; that is, our goal is to design signaling schemes for Sender that perform well for all possible Receiver's utilities. We measure performance of signaling schemes via the notion of (additive) regret: the difference between Sender's hypothetically optimal utility had she known Receiver's utility function and her actual utility induced by the given scheme. On the negative side, we show that if Sender has no knowledge at all about Receiver's utility, then Sender has no signaling scheme that performs robustly well. On the positive side, we show that if Sender only knows Receiver's ordinal preferences of the states of nature - i.e., Receiver's utility upon adoption is monotonic as a function of the state - then Sender can guarantee a surprisingly low regret even when the number of states tends to infinity. In fact, we exactly pin down the minimum regret value that Sender can guarantee in this case, which turns out to be at most 1/e. We further show that such positive results are not possible under the alternative performance measure of a multiplicative approximation ratio by proving that no constant ratio can be guaranteed even for monotonic Receiver's utility; this may serve to demonstrate the merits of regret as a robust performance measure that is not too pessimistic. Finally, we analyze an intermediate setting in between the no-knowledge and the ordinal-knowledge settings.

We consider settings where agents are evaluated based on observed features, and assume they seek to achieve feature values that bring about good evaluations. Our goal is to craft evaluation mechanisms that incentivize the agents to invest effort in desirable actions; a notable application is the design of course grading schemes. Previous work has studied this problem in the case of a single agent. By contrast, we investigate the general, multi-agent model, and provide a complete characterization of its computational complexity.

We consider a robust version of the revenue maximization problem, where a single seller wishes to sell n items to a single unit-demand buyer. In this robust version, the seller knows the buyer's marginal value distribution for each item separately, but not the joint distribution, and prices the items to maximize revenue in the worst case over all compatible correlation structures. We devise a computationally efficient (polynomial in the support size of the marginals) algorithm that computes the worst-case joint distribution for any choice of item prices. And yet, in sharp contrast to the additive buyer case [Carroll, 2017], we show that it is NP-hard to approximate the optimal choice of prices to within any factor better than n1/2-ε. For the special case of marginal distributions that satisfy the monotone hazard rate property, we show how to guarantee a constant fraction of the optimal worst-case revenue using item pricing; this pricing equates revenue across all possible correlations and can be computed efficiently.

We initiate the study of computing (near-)optimal contracts in succinctly representable principal-agent settings. Here optimality means maximizing the principal's expected payoff over all incentive-compatible contracts—known in economics as “second-best” solutions. We also study a natural relaxation to approximately incentive-compatible contracts. We focus on principal-agent settings with succinctly described (and exponentially large) outcome spaces. We show that the computational complexity of computing a near-optimal contract depends fundamentally on the number of agent actions. For settings with a constant number of actions, we present a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) for the separation oracle of the dual of the problem of minimizing the principal's payment to the agent, and use this subroutine to efficiently compute a δ-incentive-compatible (δ-IC) contract whose expected payoff matches or surpasses that of the optimal IC contract. With an arbitrary number of actions, we prove that the problem is hard to approximate within any constant c. This inapproximability result holds even for δ-IC contracts where δ is a sufficiently rapidly-decaying function of c. On the positive side, we show that simple linear δ-IC contracts with constant δ are sufficient to achieve a constant-factor approximation of the “first-best” (full-welfare-extracting) solution, and that such a contract can be computed in polynomial time.

Set functions with convenient properties (such as submodularity) appear in application areas of current interest, such as algorithmic game theory, and allow for improved optimization algorithms. It is natural to ask (e.g., in the context of data driven optimization) how robust such properties are, and whether small deviations from them can be tolerated. We consider two such questions in the important special case of linear set functions. One question that we address is whether any set function that approximately satisfies the modularity equation (linear functions satisfy the modularity equation exactly) is close to a linear function. The answer to this is positive (in a precise formal sense) as shown by Kalton and Roberts [ Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 278 (1983), pp. 803--816] (and further improved by Bondarenko, Prymak, and Radchenko [ J. Math. Anal. Appl., 402 (2013), pp. 234--241]). We revisit their proof idea that is based on expander graphs and provide significantly stronger upper bounds by combining it with new techniques. Furthermore, we provide improved lower bounds for this problem. Another question that we address is that of how to learn a linear function $h$ that is close to an approximately linear function $f$, while querying the value of $f$ on only a small number of sets. We present a deterministic algorithm that makes only linearly many (in the number of items) nonadaptive queries, and thus improve upon a previous algorithm of Chierichetti, Das, Dasgupta, and Kumar [ Proceedings of the 56th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2015, pp. 1143--1162] that is randomized and makes more than a quadratic number of queries. Our learning algorithm is based on the Hadamard transform.

We study the communication complexity of welfare maximization in combinatorial auctions with m items and two players with subadditive valuations. We show that outperforming the trivial 1/2-approximation requires exponential communication, settling an open problem of Dobzinski, Nisan and Schapira [STOC’05, MOR’10] and Feige [STOC’06, SICOMP ’09]. To derive our results, we introduce a new class of subadditive functions that are “far from” fractionally subadditive (XOS) functions, and establish randomized communication lower bounds for a new “near-EQUALITY” problem, both of which may be of independent interest.

Computational and economic results suggest that social welfare maximization and combinatorial auction design are much easier when bidders' valuations satisfy the "gross substitutes" condition. The goal of this paper is to evaluate rigorously the folklore belief that the main take-aways from these results remain valid in settings where the gross substitutes condition holds only approximately. We show that for valuations that pointwise approximate a gross substitutes valuation (in fact even a linear valuation), optimal social welfare cannot be approximated to within a subpolynomial factor and demand oracles cannot be simulated using a subexponential number of value queries. We then provide several positive results by imposing additional structure on the valuations (beyond gross substitutes), using a more stringent notion of approximation, and/or using more powerful oracle access to the valuations. For example, we prove that the performance of the greedy algorithm degrades gracefully for near-linear valuations with approximately decreasing marginal values; that with demand queries, approximate welfare guarantees for XOS valuations degrade gracefully for valuations that are pointwise close to XOS; and that the performance of the Kelso-Crawford auction degrades gracefully for valuations that are close to various subclasses of gross substitutes valuations.

Recent literature on approximately optimal revenue maximization has shown that in settings where agent valuations for items are complement free, the better of selling the items separately and bundling them together guarantees a constant fraction of the optimal revenue. However, most real-world settings involve some degree of complementarity among items. The role that complementarity plays in the trade-off of simplicity versus optimality has been an obvious missing piece of the puzzle. In “A Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for a Buyer with Complements,” the authors show that the same simple selling mechanism—the better of selling separately and as a grand bundle—guarantees a $\Theta(d)$ fraction of the optimal revenue, where $d$ is a measure of the degree of complementarity. One key modeling contribution is a tractable notion of “degree of complementarity” that admits meaningful results and insights—they demonstrate that previous definitions fall short in this regard.

A seminal result of Bulow and Klemperer [1989] demonstrates the power of competition for extracting revenue: when selling a single item to n bidders whose values are drawn i.i.d. from a regular distribution, the simple welfare-maximizing VCG mechanism (in this case, a second price-auction) with one additional bidder extracts at least as much revenue in expectation as the optimal mechanism. The beauty of this theorem stems from the fact that VCG is a prior-independent mechanism, where the seller possesses no information about the distribution, and yet, by recruiting one additional bidder it performs better than any prior-dependent mechanism tailored exactly to the distribution at hand (without the additional bidder).

Set functions with convenient properties (such as submodularity) appear in application areas of current interest, such as algorithmic game theory, and allow for improved optimization algorithms. It is natural to ask (e.g., in the context of data driven optimization) how robust such properties are, and whether small deviations from them can be tolerated. We consider two such questions in the important special case of linear set functions.

Computational complexity has already had plenty to say about the computation of economic equilibria. However, understanding when equilibria are guaranteed to exist is a central theme in economic theory, seemingly unrelated to computation. In this talk we survey our main results presented at EC'15, which show that the existence of equilibria in markets is inextricably connected to the computational complexity of related optimization problems, such as revenue or welfare maximization. We demonstrate how this relationship implies, under suitable complexity assumptions, a host of impossibility results. We also suggest a complexity-theoretic explanation for the lack of useful extensions of the Walrasian equilibrium concept: such extensions seem to require the invention of novel polynomial-time algorithms for welfare maximization.

The following paradigm is often used for handling NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems. One first formulates the problem as an integer program, then one relaxes it to a linear program (LP, or more generally, a convex program), then one solves the LP relaxation in polynomial time, and finally one rounds the optimal LP solution, obtaining a feasible solution to the original problem. Many of the commonly used rounding schemes (such as randomized rounding, threshold rounding and others) are "oblivious" in the sense that the rounding is performed based on the LP solution alone, disregarding the objective function. The goal of our work is to better understand in which cases oblivious rounding suffices in order to obtain approximation ratios that match the integrality gap of the underlying LP. Our study is information theoretic - the rounding is restricted to be oblivious but not restricted to run in polynomial time. In this information theoretic setting we characterize the approximation ratio achievable by oblivious rounding. It turns out to equal the integrality gap of the underlying LP on a problem that is the closure of the original combinatorial optimization problem. We apply our findings to the study of the approximation ratios obtainable by oblivious rounding for the maximum welfare problem, showing that when valuation functions are submodular oblivious rounding can match the integrality gap of the configuration LP (though we do not know what this integrality gap is), but when valuation functions are gross substitutes oblivious rounding cannot match the integrality gap (which is 1).

Understanding when equilibria are guaranteed to exist is a central theme in economic theory, seemingly unrelated to computation. This paper shows that the existence of pricing equilibria is inextricably connected to the computational complexity of related optimization problems: demand oracles, revenue-maximization, and welfare-maximization. This relationship implies, under suitable complexity assumptions, a host of impossibility results. We also suggest a complexity-theoretic explanation for the lack of useful extensions of the Walrasian equilibrium concept: such extensions seem to require the invention of novel polynomial-time algorithms for welfare-maximization.

Competitive equilibrium, the central equilibrium notion in markets with indivisible goods, is based on pricing each good such that the demand for goods equals their supply and the market clears. This equilibrium notion is not guaranteed to exist beyond the narrow case of substitute goods, might result in zero revenue even when consumers value the goods highly, and overlooks the widespread practice of pricing bundles rather than individual goods. Alternative equilibrium notions proposed to address these shortcomings have either made a strong assumption on the ability to withhold supply in equilibrium, or have allowed an exponential number of prices. In this paper we study the notion of competitive bundling equilibrium – a competitive equilibrium over the market induced by partitioning the goods into bundles. Such an equilibrium is guaranteed to exist, is succinct, and satisfies the fundamental economic condition of market clearance. We establish positive welfare and revenue guarantees for this solution concept: For welfare we show that in markets with homogeneous goods, there always exists a competitive bundling equilibrium that achieves a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare. We also extend this result to establish nontrivial welfare guarantees for markets with heterogeneous goods. For revenue we show that in a natural class of markets for which competitive equilibrium does not guarantee positive revenue, there always exists a competitive bundling equilibrium that extracts as revenue a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare. Both results are tight. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Designing double auctions is a complex problem, especially when there are restrictions on the sets of buyers and sellers that may trade with one another. The goal of this paper is to develop ``black-box reductions'' from double-auction design to the exhaustively-studied problem of designing single-sided mechanisms.

Given a capacitated graph $G = (V,E)$ and a set of terminals $K \subseteq V$, how should we produce a graph $H$ only on the terminals $K$ so that every (multicommodity) flow between the terminals in $G$ could be supported in $H$ with low congestion, and vice versa? (Such a graph $H$ is called a flow sparsifier for $G$.) What if we want $H$ to be a “simple” graph? What if we allow $H$ to be a convex combination of simple graphs? Improving on results of Moitra [Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 2009, pp. 3--12] and Leighton and Moitra [Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM, New York, 2010, pp. 47--56], we give efficient algorithms for constructing (a) a flow sparsifier $H$ that maintains congestion up to a factor of $O(\frac{\log k}{\log \log k})$, where $k = |K|$; (b) a convex combination of trees over the terminals $K$ that maintains congestion up to a factor of $O(\log k)$; (c) for a planar graph $G$, a convex combination of planar graphs that maintains congestion up to a constant factor. This requires us to give a new algorithm for the 0-extension problem, the first one in which the preimages of each terminal are connected in $G$. Moreover, this result extends to minor-closed families of graphs. Our bounds immediately imply improved approximation guarantees for several terminal-based cut and ordering problems.

We study optimal and approximately-optimal mechanism design questions in the interdependent values model, which generalizes the standard setting of independent and private values. We focus our attention on ex post incentive compatible and individually rational mechanisms, and develop an analog of Myerson's optimal auction theory that applies to many interdependent settings of interest. We demonstrate two applications for specific interdependent settings: First, a parallel result to the well-known optimality of the second-price auction with reserve for i.i.d.~bidders, where the English auction replaces the second-price one. Second, we identify good prior-independent auctions --- auctions with near-optimal expected revenue across a wide range of priors --- for certain interdependent value settings.

Most results in revenue-maximizing auction design hinge on "getting the price right" --- offering goods to bidders at a price low enough to encourage a sale, but high enough to garner non-trivial revenue. Getting the price right can be hard work, especially when the seller has little or no a priori information about bidders' valuations.