Online platforms that rely on commission fees are vulnerable to disintermediation, where buyers and sellers transact off-platform to avoid fees. This phenomenon can significantly reduce platform revenue and, in extreme cases, threaten the platform's viability. For sellers, disintermediation involves giving up the platform's protections against risky buyers (e.g., payment delays or fraud). Sellers must therefore weigh the benefits of avoiding commissions against exposure to potentially risky buyers, with their decision primarily influenced by the quality (or accuracy) of buyer information provided by the platform (e.g., through a reputation system).

Renewable resources are starting to constitute a growing portion of the total generation mix of the power system. A key difference between renewables and traditional generators is that many renewable resources are managed by individuals, especially in the distribution system. In this paper, we study the capacity investment and pricing problem, where multiple renewable producers compete in a decentralized market. It is known that most deterministic capacity games tend to result in very inefficient equilibria, even when there are a large number of similar players. In contrast, we show that due to the inherent randomness of renewable resources, the equilibria in our capacity game becomes efficient as the number of players grows and coincides with the centralized decision from the social planner's problem. This result provides a new perspective on how to look at the positive influence of randomness in a game framework as well as its contribution to resource planning, scheduling, and bidding. We validate our results by simulation studies using real world data.

In many online platforms, customers' decisions are substantially influenced by product rankings as most customers only examine a few top-ranked products. Concurrently, such platforms also use the same data corresponding to customers' actions to learn how these products must be ranked or ordered. These interactions in the underlying learning process, however, may incentivize sellers to artificially inflate their position by employing fake users, as exemplified by the emergence of click farms. Motivated by such fraudulent behavior, we study the ranking problem of a platform that faces a mixture of real and fake users who are indistinguishable from one another. We first show that existing learning algorithms---that are optimal in the absence of fake users---may converge to highly sub-optimal rankings under manipulation by fake users. To overcome this deficiency, we develop efficient learning algorithms under two informational environments: in the first setting, the platform is aware of the number of fake users, and in the second setting, it is agnostic to the number of fake users. For both these environments, we prove that our algorithms converge to the optimal ranking, while being robust to the aforementioned fraudulent behavior; we also present worst-case performance guarantees for our methods, and show that they significantly outperform existing algorithms. At a high level, our work employs several novel approaches to guarantee robustness such as: (i) constructing product-ordering graphs that encode the pairwise relationships between products inferred from the customers' actions; and (ii) implementing multiple levels of learning with a judicious amount of bi-directional cross-learning between levels. Overall, our results indicate that online platforms can effectively combat fraudulent users without incurring large costs by designing new learning algorithms that guarantee efficient convergence even when the platform is completely oblivious to the number and identity of the fake users.

In the quest for market mechanisms that are easy to implement, yet close to optimal, few seem as viable as posted pricing. Despite the growing body of impressive results, the performance of most posted price mechanisms however, rely crucially on "price discrimination" when multiple copies of a good are available. For the more general case with non-linear production costs on each good, hardly anything is known for general multi-good markets. With this in mind, we study the problem of social welfare maximization in a Bayesian setting where the seller can produce any number of copies of a good but faces convex production costs for the same. Our central contribution is a structured framework for decision making and static item pricing in the face of uncertainty and production costs, i.e., the seller decides how much to produce and posts a single price per good that is common to all buyers, the buyers arrive sequentially and purchase utility maximizing bundles of goods. The framework yields constant factor approximations to the optimum welfare when buyer valuations are fractionally subadditive, extends to more general valuations and also settings where the seller is completely oblivious to buyer valuations. Our work presents the first known results for non-discriminatory pricing in environments with non-linear costs where we only have access to stochastic information regarding buyer preferences. At a high level, our results imply that it is often possible to obtain good guarantees without discriminating against buyers, i.e., charging them differently for the same good.

We study approximation algorithms for revenue maximization based on static item pricing, where a seller chooses prices for various goods in the market, and then the buyers purchase utility-maximizing bundles at these given prices. We formulate two somewhat general techniques for designing good pricing algorithms for this setting: Price Doubling and Item Halving. Using these techniques, we unify many of the existing results in the item pricing literature under a common framework, as well as provide several new bicriteria algorithms for approximating both revenue and social welfare simultaneously.

We study the Maximum Weighted Matching problem in a partial information setting where the agents' utilities for being matched to other agents are hidden and the mechanism only has access to ordinal preference information. Our model is motivated by the fact that in many settings, agents cannot express the numerical values of their utility for different outcomes, but are still able to rank the outcomes in their order of preference. Specifically, we study problems where the ground truth exists in the form of a weighted graph, and look to design algorithms that approximate the true optimum matching using only the preference orderings for each agent (induced by the hidden weights) as input. If no restrictions are placed on the weights, then one cannot hope to do better than the simple greedy algorithm, which yields a half optimal matching. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that by imposing a little structure on the weights, we can improve upon the trivial algorithm significantly: we design a 1.6-approximation algorithm for instances where the hidden weights obey the metric inequality. Our algorithm is obtained using a simple but powerful framework that allows us to combine greedy and random techniques in unconventional ways. These results are the first non-trivial ordinal approximation algorithms for such problems, and indicate that we can design robust matchings even when we are agnostic to the precise agent utilities.

We study the efficiency of allocations in large markets with a network structure where every seller owns an edge in a graph and every buyer desires a path connecting some nodes. While it is known that stable allocations can be very inefficient, the exact properties of equilibria in markets with multiple sellers are not fully understood, even in single-source single-sink networks. In this work, we show that for a large class of buyer demand functions, equilibrium always exists and allocations can often be close to optimal. In the process, we characterize the structure and properties of equilibria using techniques from min-cost flows, and obtain tight bounds on efficiency in terms of the various parameters governing the market, especially the number of monopolies M. Although monopolies can cause large inefficiencies in general, our main results for single-source single-sink networks indicate that for several natural demand functions the efficiency only drops linearly with M. For example, for concave demand we prove that the efficiency loss is at most a factor $$1+\frac{M}{2}$$ from the optimum, for demand with monotone hazard rate it is at most $$1+M$$ , and for polynomial demand the efficiency decreases logarithmically with M. In contrast to previous work that showed that monopolies may adversely affect welfare, our main contribution is showing that monopolies may not be as ‘evil’ as they are made out to be. Finally, we consider more general, multiple-source networks and show that in the absence of monopolies, mild assumptions on the network topology guarantee an equilibrium that maximizes social welfare.

Consider a setting where selfish agents are to be assigned to coalitions or projects from a set $$\mathcal {P}$$ . Each project $$k\in \mathcal {P}$$ is characterized by a valuation function; $$v_k(S)$$ is the value generated by a set S of agents working on project k. We study the following classic problem in this setting: “how should the agents divide the value that they collectively create?”. One traditional approach in cooperative game theory is to study core stability with the implicit assumption that there are infinite copies of one project, and agents can partition themselves into any number of coalitions. In contrast, we consider a model with a finite number of non-identical projects; this makes computing both high-welfare solutions and core payments highly non-trivial. The main contribution of this paper is a black-box mechanism that reduces the problem of computing a near-optimal core stable solution to the well-studied algorithmic problem of welfare maximization; we apply this to compute an approximately core stable solution that extracts one-fourth of the optimal social welfare for the class of subadditive valuations. We also show much stronger results for several popular sub-classes: anonymous, fractionally subadditive, and submodular valuations, as well as provide new approximation algorithms for welfare maximization with anonymous functions. Finally, we establish a connection between our setting and simultaneous auctions with item bidding; we adapt our results to compute approximate pure Nash equilibria for these auctions.

We study techniques to incentivize self-interested agents to form socially desirable solutions in scenarios where they benefit from mutual coordination. Towards this end, we consider coordination games where agents have different intrinsic preferences but they stand to gain if others choose the same strategy as them. For non-trivial versions of our game, stable solutions like Nash Equilibrium may not exist, or may be socially inefficient even when they do exist. This motivates us to focus on designing efficient algorithms to compute (almost) stable solutions like Approximate Equilibrium that can be realized if agents are provided some additional incentives. Our results apply in many settings like adoption of new products, project selection, and group formation, where a central authority can direct agents towards a strategy but agents may defect if they have better alternatives. We show that for any given instance, we can either compute a high quality approximate equilibrium or a near-optimal solution that can be stabilized by providing small payments to some players. Our results imply that a little influence is necessary in order to ensure that selfish players coordinate and form socially efficient solutions.