We extend the seminal model of Pathak and Sönmez (2008) to a setting with multiple school districts, each running its own separate centralized match, and focus on the case of two districts. In our setting, in addition to each student being either sincere or sophisticated, she is also either constrained—able to apply only to schools within her own district of residence—or unconstrained—able to choose any single district within which to apply. We show that several key results from Pathak and Sönmez (2008) qualitatively flip: A sophisticated student may prefer for a sincere student to become sophisticated, and a sophisticated student may prefer for her own district to use Deferred Acceptance over the Boston Mechanism, irrespective of the mechanism used by the other district. We furthermore show that an unconstrained student may prefer for a constrained student to become unconstrained, regardless of the mechanisms used. Many of these phenomena appear abundantly in large random markets.

A powerful feature in mechanism design is the ability to irrevocably commit to the rules of a mechanism. Commitment is achieved by public declaration, which enables players to verify incentive properties in advance and the outcome in retrospect. However, public declaration can reveal superfluous information that the mechanism designer might prefer not to disclose, such as her target function or private costs. Avoiding this may be possible via a trusted mediator; however, the availability of a trustworthy mediator, especially if mechanism secrecy must be maintained for years, might be unrealistic. We propose a new approach to commitment, and show how to commit to, and run, any given mechanism without disclosing it, while enabling the verification of incentive properties and the outcome—all without the need for any mediators. Our framework is based on zero-knowledge proofs—a cornerstone of modern cryptographic theory. Applications include both private-type settings such as auctions and private-action settings such as contracts, as well as non-mediated bargaining with hidden yet binding offers.

We study a matching problem between agents and public goods, in settings without monetary transfers. Since goods are public, they have no capacity constraints. There is no exogenously defined budget of goods to be provided. Rather, each provided good must justify its cost by being utilized by sufficiently many agents, leading to strong complementarities in the "preferences" of goods. Furthermore, goods that are in high demand given other already-provided goods must also be provided. The question of the existence of a stable solution (a menu of public goods to be provided) exhibits a rich combinatorial structure. We uncover sufficient conditions and necessary conditions for guaranteeing the existence of a stable solution, and derive both positive and negative results for strategyproof stable matching.

We model the role of an online platform disrupting a market with unit-demand buyers and unit-supply sellers. Each seller can transact with a subset of the buyers whom she already knows, as well as with any additional buyers to whom she is introduced by the platform. Given these constraints on trade, prices and transactions are induced by a competitive equilibrium. The platform's revenue is proportional to the total price of all trades between platform-introduced buyers and sellers.

We conduct an incentivized lab experiment to test participants' ability to understand the DA matching mechanism and the strategyproofness property, conveyed in different ways. We find that while many participants can (using a novel GUI) learn DA's mechanics and calculate its outcomes, such understanding does not imply understanding of strategyproofness (as measured by specially designed tests). However, a novel menu description of strategyproofness conveys this property significantly better than other treatments. While behavioral effects are small on average, participants with levels of strategyproofness understanding above a certain threshold play the classical dominant strategy at very high rates.

For common knowledge to arise in dynamic settings, all players must simultaneously come to know it has arisen. Consequently, common knowledge cannot arise in many realistic settings with timing frictions. This counterintuitive observation of Halpern and Moses (1990) was discussed by Arrow et al. (1987) and Aumann (1989), was called a paradox by Morris (2014), and has evaded satisfactory resolution for four decades. We resolve this paradox by proposing a new definition for common knowledge, which coincides with the traditional one in static settings but is more permissive in dynamic settings. Under our definition, common knowledge can arise without simultaneity, particularly in canonical examples of the Haplern-Moses paradox. We demonstrate its usefulness by deriving for it an agreement theorem à la Aumann (1976), showing it arises in the setting of Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis (1982) with timing frictions added, and applying it to characterize equilibrium behavior in a dynamic coordination game.

We study mechanisms for selling a single item when buyers have private costs for participating in the mechanism. An agent's participation cost can also be interpreted as an outside option value that she must forego to participate. This substantially changes the revenue maximization problem, which becomes non- convex in the presence of participation costs. For multiple buyers, we show how to construct a (2 + ɛ)- approximately revenue-optimal mechanism in polynomial time. Our approach makes use of a many-buyers-to-single-buyer reduction, and in the single-buyer case our mechanism improves to an FPTAS. We also bound the menu size and the sample complexity for the optimal single-buyer mechanism. Moreover, we show that posting a single price in the single-buyer case is in fact optimal under the assumption that either (1) the participation cost is independent of the value, and the value distribution has decreasing marginal revenue or monotone hazard rate; or (2) the participation cost is a concave function of the value. When there are multiple buyers, we show that sequential posted pricing guarantees a large fraction of the optimal revenue under similar conditions.

We study various novel complexity measures for two-sided matching mechanisms, applied to the two canonical strategyproof matching mechanisms, Deferred Acceptance (DA) and Top Trading Cycles (TTC). Our metrics are designed to capture the complexity of various structural (rather than computational) concerns, in particular ones of recent interest within economics. We consider a unified, flexible approach to formalizing our questions: Define a protocol or data structure performing some task, and bound the number of bits that it requires. Our main results apply this approach to four questions of general interest; for mechanisms matching applicants to institutions, our questions are: (1) How can one applicant affect the outcome matching? (2) How can one applicant affect another applicant's set of options? (3) How can the outcome matching be represented / communicated? (4) How can the outcome matching be verified? Holistically, our results show that TTC is more complex than DA, formalizing previous intuitions that DA has a simpler structure than TTC. For question (2), our result gives a new combinatorial characterization of which institutions are removed from each applicant's set of options when a new applicant is added in DA; this characterization may be of independent interest. For question (3), our result gives new tight lower bounds proving that the relationship between the matching and the priorities is more complex in TTC than in DA. We nonetheless showcase that this higher complexity of TTC is nuanced: By constructing new tight lower-bound instances and new verification protocols, we prove that DA and TTC are comparable in complexity under questions (1) and (4). This more precisely delineates the ways in which TTC is more complex than DA, and emphasizes that diverse considerations must factor into gauging the complexity of matching mechanisms.

In computational social choice, the distortion of a voting rule quantifies the degree to which the rule overcomes limited preference information to select a socially desirable outcome. This concept has been investigated extensively, but only through a worst-case lens. Instead, we study the expected distortion of voting rules with respect to an underlying distribution over voter utilities. Our main contribution is the design and analysis of a novel and intuitive rule, binomial voting, which provides strong distribution-independent guarantees for both expected distortion and expected welfare.

A menu description presents a mechanism to player i in two steps. Step (1) uses the reports of other players to describe i's menu: the set of i's potential outcomes. Step (2) uses i's report to select i's favorite outcome from her menu. Can menu descriptions better expose strategyproofness, without sacrificing simplicity? We propose a new, simple menu description of Deferred Acceptance. We prove that---in contrast with other common matching mechanisms---this menu description must differ substantially from the corresponding traditional description. We demonstrate, with a lab experiment on two elementary mechanisms, the promise and challenges of menu descriptions.

We consider the sample complexity of revenue maximization for multiple bidders in unrestricted multi-dimensional settings. Specifically, we study the standard model of additive bidders whose values for heterogeneous items are drawn independently. For any such instance and any , we show that it is possible to learn an -Bayesian Incentive Compatible auction whose expected revenue is within of the optimal -BIC auction from only polynomially many samples. Our fully nonparametric approach is based on ideas that hold quite generally and completely sidestep the difficulty of characterizing optimal (or near-optimal) auctions for these settings. Therefore, our results easily extend to general multi-dimensional settings, including valuations that are not necessarily even subadditive , and arbitrary allocation constraints. For the cases of a single bidder and many goods, or a single parameter (good) and many bidders, our analysis yields exact incentive compatibility (and for the latter also computational efficiency). Although the single-parameter case is already well understood, our corollary for this case extends slightly the state of the art.

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.

In a stable matching setting, we consider a query model that allows for an interactive learning algorithm to make precisely one type of query: proposing a matching, the response to which is either that the proposed matching is stable, or a blocking pair (chosen adversarially) indicating that this matching is unstable. For one-to-one matching markets, our main result is an essentially tight upper bound of O(n2 log n) on the deterministic query complexity of interactively learning a stable matching in this coarse query model, along with an efficient randomized algorithm that achieves this query complexity with high probability. For many-to-many matching markets in which participants have responsive preferences, we first give an interactive learning algorithm whose query complexity and running time are polynomial in the size of the market if the maximum quota of each agent is bounded; our main result for many-to-many markets is that the deterministic query complexity can be made polynomial (more specifically, O(n3 log n)) in the size of the market even for arbitrary (e.g., linear in the market size) quotas.

Many economic-theoretic models incorporate finiteness assumptions that, while introduced for simplicity, play a real role in the analysis. Such assumptions introduce a conceptual problem, as results that rely on finiteness are often implicitly nonrobust; for example, they may depend upon edge effects or artificial boundary conditions. Here, we present a unified method that enables us to remove finiteness assumptions, such as those on datasets, market sizes, and time horizons. We then apply our approach to a variety of revealed preference, matching, and exchange economy settings.

We consider the problem of welfare (and gains-from-trade) maximization in two-sided markets using simple mechanisms that are prior-independent. The seminal impossibility result of Myerson and Satterthwaite [1983] shows that even for bilateral trade, there is no feasible (individually rational, truthful, and budget balanced) mechanism that has welfare as high as the optimal-yet-infeasible VCG mechanism, which attains maximal welfare but runs a deficit. On the other hand, the optimal feasible mechanism needs to be carefully tailored to the Bayesian prior, and even worse, it is known to be extremely complex, eluding a precise description. In this paper we present Bulow-Klemperer-style results to circumvent these hurdles in double-auction market settings. We suggest using the Buyer Trade Reduction (BTR) mechanism, a variant of McAfee's mechanism, which is feasible and simple (in particular, it is deterministic, truthful, prior-independent, and anonymous). First, in the setting in which the values of the buyers and of the sellers are sampled independently and identically from the same distribution, we show that for any such market of any size, BTR with one additional buyer whose value is sampled from the same distribution has expected welfare at least as high as the optimal-yet-infeasible VCG mechanism in the original market. We then move to a more general setting in which the values of the buyers are sampled from one distribution, and those of the sellers from another, focusing on the case where the buyers' distribution first-order stochastically dominates the sellers' distribution. We present both upper bounds and lower bounds on the number of buyers that, when added, guarantees that BTR in the augmented market achieve welfare at least as high as the optimal in the original market. Our lower bounds extend to a large class of mechanisms, and all of our positive and negative results extend to adding sellers instead of buyers. In addition, we present positive results about the usefulness of pricing at a sample for welfare maximization (and more precisely, for gains-from-trade approximation) in two-sided markets under the above two settings, which to the best of our knowledge are the first sampling results in this context.

We consider the sample complexity of revenue maximization for multiple bidders in unrestricted multi-dimensional settings. Specifically, we study the standard model of n additive bidders whose values for m heterogeneous items are drawn independently. For any such instance and any ε>0, we show that it is possible to learn an ε-Bayesian Incentive Compatible auction whose expected revenue is within ε of the optimal ε-BIC auction from only polynomially many samples. Our approach is based on ideas that hold quite generally, and completely sidestep the difficulty of characterizing optimal (or near-optimal) auctions for these settings. Therefore, our results easily extend to general multi-dimensional settings, including valuations that aren't necessarily even subadditive, and arbitrary allocation constraints. For the cases of a single bidder and many goods, or a single parameter (good) and many bidders, our analysis yields exact incentive compatibility (and for the latter also computational efficiency). Although the single-parameter case is already well-understood, our corollary for this case extends slightly the state-of-the-art.

The seminal impossibility result of Myerson and Satterthwaite [1983] states that for bilateral trade, there is no mechanism that is individually rational (IR), incentive compatible (IC), weakly budget balanced, and efficient. This has led follow-up work on two-sided trade settings to weaken the efficiency requirement and consider approximately efficient simple mechanisms, while still demanding the other properties. The current state-of-the-art of such mechanisms for two-sided markets can be categorized as giving one (but not both) of the following two types of approximation guarantees on the gains from trade : a constant ex-ante guarantee, measured with respect to the second-best efficiency benchmark, or an asymptotically optimal ex-post guarantee, measured with respect to the first-best efficiency benchmark. Here the second-best efficiency benchmark refers to the highest gains from trade attainable by any IR, IC and weakly budget balanced mechanism, while the first-best efficiency benchmark refers to the maximum gains from trade (attainable by the VCG mechanism, which is not weakly budget balanced).

The literature on "mechanism design from samples," which has flourished in recent years at the interface of economics and computer science, offers a bridge between the classic computer-science approach of worst-case analysis (corresponding to "no samples") and the classic economic approach of average-case analysis for a given Bayesian prior (conceptually corresponding to the number of samples tending to infinity). Nonetheless, the two directions studied so far are two extreme and almost diametrically opposed directions: that of asymptotic results where the number of samples grows large, and that where only a single sample is available. In this paper, we take a first step toward understanding the middle ground that bridges these two approaches: that of a fixed number of samples greater than one. In a variety of contexts, we ask what is possibly the most fundamental question in this direction: are two samples really better than one sample?. We present a few surprising negative results, and complement them with our main result: showing that the worst-case, over all regular distributions, expected-revenue guarantee of the Empirical Revenue Maximization algorithm given two samples is greater than that of this algorithm given one sample. The proof is technically challenging, and provides the first result that shows that some deterministic mechanism constructed using two samples can guarantee more than one half of the optimal revenue.

The question of the minimum menu-size for approximate (i.e., up-to-ε) Bayesian revenue maximization when selling two goods to an additive risk-neutral quasilinear buyer was introduced by Hart and Nisan [2013], who give an upper bound of O(1/ε4) for this problem. Using the optimal-transport duality framework of Daskalakis, Deckelbaum, and Tzamos [2013, 2015], we derive the first lower bound for this problem — of Ω(1/∜ε), even when the values for the two goods are drawn i.i.d. from ”nice” distributions, establishing how to reason about approximately optimal mechanisms via this duality framework. This bound implies, for any fixed number of goods, a tight bound of Θ(log1/ε) on the minimum deterministic communication complexity guaranteed to suffice for running some approximately revenue-maximizing mechanism, thereby completely resolving this problem. As a secondary result, we show that under standard economic assumptions on distributions, the above upper bound of Hart and Nisan [2013] can be strengthened to O(1/ε2).

In this work we derive a variant of the classic Glivenko-Cantelli Theorem, which asserts uniform convergence of the empirical Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) to the CDF of the underlying distribution. Our variant allows for tighter convergence bounds for extreme values of the CDF. We apply our bound in the context of revenue learning, which is a well-studied problem in economics and algorithmic game theory. We derive sample-complexity bounds on the uniform convergence rate of the empirical revenues to the true revenues, assuming a bound on the k'th moment of the valuations, for any (possibly fractional) k > 1. For uniform convergence in the limit, we give a complete characterization and a zero-one law: if the first moment of the valuations is finite, then uniform convergence almost surely occurs; conversely, if the first moment is infinite, then uniform convergence almost never occurs.

The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Impossibility Theorem [Gibbard, 1973, Satterthwaite, 1975] holds that dictatorship is the only Pareto optimal and strategyproof social choice function on the full domain of preferences. Much of the work in mechanism design aims at getting around this impossibility theorem. Three grand success stories stand out. On the domains of single-peaked preferences, of object assignment, and of quasilinear preferences, there are appealing Pareto optimal and strategyproof social choice functions. We investigate whether these success stories are robust to strengthening strategyproofness to obvious strategyproofness, a stronger incentive property that was recently introduced by Li [2015] and has since garnered considerable attention.

We consider a monopolist that is selling n items to a single additive buyer, where the buyer's values for the items are drawn according to independent distributions F1,F2,…,Fn that possibly have unbounded support. It is well known that - unlike in the single item case - the revenue-optimal auction (a pricing scheme) may be complex, sometimes requiring a continuum of menu entries. It is also known that simple auctions with a finite bounded number of menu entries can extract a constant fraction of the optimal revenue. Nonetheless, the question of the possibility of extracting an arbitrarily high fraction of the optimal revenue via a finite menu size remained open.

We present a polynomial-time algorithm that, given samples from the unknown valuation distribution of each bidder, learns an auction that approximately maximizes the auctioneer's revenue in a variety of single-parameter auction environments including matroid environments, position environments, and the public project environment. The valuation distributions may be arbitrary bounded distributions (in particular, they may be irregular, and may differ for the various bidders), thus resolving a problem left open by previous papers. The analysis uses basic tools, is performed in its entirety in value-space, and simplifies the analysis of previously known results for special cases. Furthermore, the analysis extends to certain single-parameter auction environments where precise revenue maximization is known to be intractable, such as knapsack environments.

The set consensus problem has played an important role in the study of distributed systems for over two decades. Indeed, the search for lower bounds and impossibility results for this problem spawned the topological approach to distributed computing, which has given rise to new techniques in the design and analysis of protocols. The design of efficient solutions to set consensus has also proven to be challenging. In the synchronous crash failure model, the literature contains a sequence of solutions to set consensus, each improving upon the previous ones. This paper presents an unbeatable protocol for nonuniform k-set consensus in the synchronous crash failure model. This is an efficient protocol whose decision times cannot be improved upon. Moreover, the description of our protocol is extremely succinct. Proving unbeatability of this protocol is a nontrivial challenge. We provide two proofs for its unbeatability: one is a subtle constructive combinatorial proof, and the other is a topological proof of a new style. These two proofs provide new insight into the connection between topological reasoning and combinatorial reasoning about protocols, which has long been a subject of interest. In particular, our topological proof reasons in a novel way about subcomplexes of the protocol complex, and sheds light on an open question posed by Guerraoui and Pochon (2009). Finally, using the machinery developed in the design of this unbeatable protocol, we propose a protocol for uniform k-set consensus that beats all known solutions by a large margin.

Drawing intuition from a (physical) hydraulic system, we present a novel framework, constructively showing the existence of a strong Nash equilibrium in resource selection games (i.e., asymmetric singleton congestion games) with nonatomic players, the coincidence of strong equilibria and Nash equilibria in such games, and the uniqueness of the cost of each given resource across all Nash equilibria. Our proofs allow for explicit calculation of Nash equilibrium and for explicit and direct calculation of the resulting (unique) costs of resources, and do not hinge on any fixed-point theorem, on the Minimax theorem or any equivalent result, on linear programming, or on the existence of a potential (though our analysis does provide powerful insights into the potential, via a natural concrete physical interpretation). A generalization of resource selection games, called resource selection games with I.D.-dependent weighting, is defined, and the results are extended to this family, showing the existence of strong equilibria, and showing that while resource costs are no longer unique across Nash equilibria in games of this family, they are nonetheless unique across all strong Nash equilibria, drawing a novel fundamental connection between group deviation and I.D.-congestion. A natural application of the resulting machinery to a large class of constraint-satisfaction problems is also described.

The Gale-Shapley algorithm for the Stable Marriage Problem is known to take Θ(n2) steps to find a stable marriage in the worst case, but only Θ(n log n) steps in the average case (with n women and n men). In 1976, Knuth asked whether the worst-case running time can be improved in a model of computation that does not require sequential access to the whole input. A partial negative answer was given by Ng and Hirschberg, who showed that Θ(n2) queries are required in a model that allows certain natural random-access queries to the participants' preferences. A significantly more general — albeit slightly weaker — lower bound follows from Segal's elaborate analysis of communication complexity, namely that Ω(n2) Boolean queries are required in order to find a stable marriage, regardless of the set of allowed Boolean queries. Using a reduction to the communication complexity of the disjointness problem, we give a far simpler, yet significantly more powerful argument showing that Ω(n2) Boolean queries of any type are indeed required. Notably, unlike Segal's lower bound, our lower bound generalizes also to (A) randomized algorithms, (B) finding approximately-stable marriages (C) verifying the stability (or the approximate stability) of a proposed marriage, (D) allowing arbitrary separate preprocessing of the women's preferences profile and of the men's preferences profile, and (E) several variants of the basic problem, such as whether a given pair is married in every/some stable marriage.

Gale and Sotomayor [1985] have shown that in the Gale-Shapley matching algorithm [1962], the proposed-to side W (referred to as women there) can strategically force the W-optimal stable matching as the M-optimal one by truncating their preference lists, each woman possibly blacklisting all but one man. As Gusfield and Irving have already noted in 1989, no results are known regarding achieving this feat by means other than such preference-list truncation, i.e. by also permuting preference lists.

A protocol P is Pareto-optimal if no protocol Q can decide as fast as P for all adversaries, while allowing at least one process to decide strictly earlier, in at least one instance. Pareto optimal protocols cannot be improved upon. We present the first Pareto-optimal solutions to consensus and k-set consensus for synchronous message-passing with crashes failures. Our k-set consensus protocol strictly dominates all known solutions, and our results expose errors in [1, 7, 8, 12]. Our proofs of Pareto optimality are completely constructive, and are devoid of any topological arguments or reductions.