We investigate the problem of designing randomized obviously strategyproof (OSP) mechanisms in several canonical auction settings. Obvious strategyproofness, introduced by Li [American Economic Review 2017], strengthens the well-known concept of dominant-strategy incentive compatibility (DSIC). Loosely speaking, it ensures that even agents who struggle with contingent reasoning can identify that their dominant strategy is optimal. Thus, one would hope to design OSP mechanisms with good approximation guarantees. Unfortunately, Ron [SODA 2024] has showed that deterministic OSP mechanisms fail to achieve an approximation better than the minimum of the number of items and the number of bidders, even for the simple settings of additive and unit-demand bidders. We circumvent these impossibilities by showing that randomized mechanisms that are obviously strategy-proof in the universal sense obtain a constant factor approximation for these classes. We show that this phenomenon occurs also for the setting of a multi-unit auction with single-minded bidders. Thus, our results provide a more positive outlook on the design of OSP mechanisms and exhibit a stark separation between the power of randomized and deterministic OSP mechanisms. To complement the picture, we provide lower bounds on the performance of randomized OSP mechanisms in each setting. This further demonstrates that OSP mechanisms are significantly weaker than dominant-strategy mechanisms: it is well known that the deterministic VCG mechanism outputs an optimal allocation in dominant-strategies, whereas we show that even randomized OSP mechanisms cannot obtain more than 87.5% of the optimal welfare.

We provide the first analysis of (deferred acceptance) clock auctions in the learning-augmented framework. These auctions satisfy a unique list of very appealing properties, including obvious strategyproofness, transparency, and unconditional winner privacy, making them particularly well-suited for real-world applications. However, early work that evaluated their performance from a worst-case analysis perspective concluded that no deterministic clock auction with n bidders can achieve a O (log1-∈ n ) approximation of the optimal social welfare for a constant ∈ > 0, even in very simple settings. This overly pessimistic impossibility result heavily depends on the assumption that the designer has no information regarding the bidders’ values. Leveraging the learning-augmented framework, we instead consider a designer equipped with some (machine-learned) advice regarding the optimal solution; this advice can provide useful guidance if accurate, but it may be unreliable.

In a single-parameter mechanism design problem, a provider is looking to sell some service to a group of potential buyers. Each buyer i has a private value vi for receiving this service, and some feasibility constraint restricts which subsets of buyers can be served simultaneously. Recent work in economics introduced (deferred-acceptance) clock auctions as a superior class of auctions for this problem, due to their transparency, simplicity, and very strong incentive guarantees. Subsequent work in computer science focused on evaluating these auctions with respect to their social welfare approximation guarantees, leading to strong impossibility results: in the absence of prior information regarding the buyers' values, no deterministic clock auction can achieve a bounded approximation, even for simple feasibility constraints with only two maximal feasible sets.

We revisit the well-studied problem of budget-feasible procurement, where a buyer with a strict budget constraint seeks to acquire services from a group of strategic providers (the sellers). During the last decade, several strategyproof budget-feasible procurement auctions have been proposed, aiming to maximize the value of the buyer, while eliciting each seller's true cost for providing their service. These solutions predominantly take the form of randomized sealed-bid auctions: they ask the sellers to report their private costs and then use randomization to determine which subset of services will be procured and how much each of the chosen providers will be paid, ensuring that the total payment does not exceed the buyer's budget. Our main result in this paper is a novel method for designing budget-feasible auctions, leading to solutions that outperform the previously proposed auctions in multiple ways. First, our solutions take the form of descending clock auctions, and thus satisfy a list of very appealing properties, such as obvious strategyproofness, group strategyproofness, transparency, and unconditional winner privacy; this makes these auctions much more likely to be used in practice. Second, in contrast to previous results that heavily depend on randomization, our auctions are deterministic. As a result, we provide an affirmative answer to one of the main open questions in this literature, asking whether a deterministic strategyproof auction can achieve a constant approximation when the buyer's valuation function is submodular over the set of services. In addition to this, we also provide the first deterministic budget-feasible auction that matches the approximation bound of the best-known randomized auction for the class of subadditive valuations. Finally, using our method, we improve the best-known approximation factor for monotone submodular valuations, which has been the focus of most of the prior work.

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods and focus on the classic fairness notion of proportionality. The indivisibility of the goods is long known to pose highly non-trivial obstacles to achieving fairness, and a very vibrant line of research has aimed to circumvent them using appropriate notions of approximate fairness. Recent work has established that even approximate versions of proportionality (PROPx) may be impossible to achieve even for small instances, while the best known achievable approximations (PROP1) are much weaker. We introduce the notion of proportionality up to the maximin item (PROPm) and show how to reach an allocation satisfying this notion for any instance involving up to five agents with additive valuations. PROPm provides a well-motivated middle-ground between PROP1 and PROPx, while also capturing some elements of the well-studied maximin share (MMS) benchmark: another relaxation of proportionality that has attracted a lot of attention.

We study the classic problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods among a group of agents, and focus on the notion of approximate proportionality known as PROPm. Prior work showed that there exists an allocation that satisfies this notion of fairness for instances involving up to five agents, but fell short of proving that this is true in general. We extend this result to show that a PROPm allocation is guaranteed to exist for all instances, independent of the number of agents or goods. Our proof is constructive, providing an algorithm that computes such an allocation and, unlike prior work, the running time of this algorithm is polynomial in both the number of agents and the number of goods.