Calibration requires that predictions are conditionally unbiased and, therefore, reliably interpretable as probabilities. A calibration measure quantifies how far a predictor is from perfect calibration. A calibration measure is truthful if it is minimized in expectation when a predictor outputs the ground-truth probabilities. Predicting the true probabilities guarantees perfect calibration, but in reality, when calibration is evaluated on a random sample, all known calibration measures incentivize predictors to lie in order to appear more calibrated. This lack of truthfulness motivated approximately truthful calibration measures in the sequential prediction setting, but no perfectly truthful calibration measure was known to exist even in the more basic batch setting. We design a simple, perfectly and strictly truthful, sound, and complete calibration measure in the batch setting: Averaged Two-Bin Calibration Error (ATB). ATB is quadratically related to two existing calibration measures: the smooth calibration error and the lower distance to calibration. The simplicity of our definition of ATB makes it efficient and straightforward to compute, allowing us to give the first linear-time calibration testing algorithm. We also introduce a general recipe for constructing truthful measures based on the variance additivity of independent random variables, which proves the truthfulness of ATB as a special case and allows us to construct other truthful calibration measures, such as quantile-binned $\ell_2$ Expected Calibration Error (ECE).

This paper takes a game theoretic approach to the design and analysis of online algorithms and illustrates the approach on the finite-horizon ski-rental problem. This approach allows beyond worst-case analysis of online algorithms. First, we define "subgame optimality" which is stronger than worst case optimality in that it requires the algorithm to take advantage of an adversary not playing a worst case input. Algorithms only focusing on the worst case can be far from subgame optimal. Second, we consider prior-independent design and analysis of online algorithms, where rather than choosing a worst case input, the adversary chooses a worst case independent and identical distribution over inputs. Prior-independent online algorithms are generally analytically intractable; instead we give a fully polynomial time approximation scheme to compute them. Highlighting the potential improvement from these paradigms for the finite-horizon ski-rental problem, we empirically compare worst-case, subgame optimal, and prior-independent algorithms in the prior-independent framework.

Pen testing is the problem of selecting high-capacity resources when the only way to measure the capacity of a resource expends its capacity. We have a set of n pens with unknown amounts of ink and our goal is to select a feasible subset of pens maximizing the total ink in them. We are allowed to learn about the ink levels by writing with them, but this uses up ink that was previously in the pens. We identify optimal and near optimal pen testing algorithms by drawing analogues to auction theoretic frameworks of deferred-acceptance auctions and virtual values. Our framework allows the conversion of any near optimal deferred-acceptance mechanism into a near optimal pen testing algorithm. Moreover, these algorithms guarantee an additional overhead of at most (1+o(1)) ln n in the approximation factor to the omniscient algorithm that has access to the ink levels in the pens. We use this framework to give pen testing algorithms for various combinatorial constraints like matroid, knapsack, and general downward-closed constraints, and also for online environments.

Forecast aggregation combines the predictions of multiple forecasters to improve accuracy. However, the lack of knowledge about forecasters' information structure hinders optimal aggregation. Given a family of information structures, robust forecast aggregation aims to find the aggregator with minimal worst-case regret compared to the omniscient aggregator. Previous approaches for robust forecast aggregation rely on heuristic observations and parameter tuning. We propose an algorithmic framework for robust forecast aggregation. Our framework provides efficient approximation schemes for general information aggregation with a finite family of possible information structures. In the setting considered by Arieli et al. [2018] where two agents receive independent signals conditioned on a binary state, our framework also provides efficient approximation schemes by imposing Lipschitz conditions on the aggregator or discrete conditions on agents' reports. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by providing a nearly optimal aggregator in the setting considered by Arieli et al. [2018].

The prior independent framework for algorithm design considers how well an algorithm that does not know the distribution of its inputs approximates the expected performance of the optimal algorithm for this distribution. This paper gives a method that is agnostic to problem setting for proving lower bounds on the prior independent approximation factor of any algorithm. The method constructs a correlated distribution over inputs that can be described both as a distribution over i.i.d. good-for-algorithms distributions and as a distribution over i.i.d. bad-for-algorithms distributions. We call these two descriptions equivocal blends. Prior independent algorithms are upper-bounded by the optimal algorithm for the latter distribution even when the true distribution is the former. Thus, the ratio of the expected performances of the Bayesian optimal algorithms for these two decompositions is a lower bound on the prior independent approximation ratio. We apply this framework to give new lower bounds on canonical prior independent mechanism design problems. For one of these problems, we also exhibit a near-tight upper bound. Towards solutions for general problems, we give distinct descriptions of two large classes of correlated-distribution "solutions" for the technique, depending respectively on an order-statistic separability property and a paired inverse-distribution property. We exhibit that equivocal blends do not generally have a Blackwell ordering, which puts this paper outside of standard information design.

This paper studies the fundamental limits of availability and throughput for independent and heterogeneous demands of a limited resource. Availability is the probability that the demands are below the capacity of the resource. Throughput is the expected fraction of the resource that is utilized by the demands. We offer a concentration inequality generator that gives lower bounds on feasible availability and throughput pairs with a given capacity and independent but not necessarily identical distributions of up-to-unit demands. We show that availability and throughput cannot both be poor. These bounds are analogous to tail inequalities on sums of independent random variables, but hold throughout the support of the demand distribution. This analysis gives analytically tractable bounds supporting the unit-demand characterization of Chawla et al. [2023] and generalizes to up-to-unit demands. Our bounds also provide an approach towards improved multi-unit prophet inequalities [Hajiaghayi et al., 2007]. They have applications to transaction fee mechanism design (for blockchains) where high availability limits the probability of profitable user-miner coalitions [Chung and Shi, 2023].

Data-driven predictions are often perceived as inaccurate in hindsight due to behavioral responses. In this study, we explore the role of interface design choices in shaping individuals' decision-making processes in response to predictions presented on a shared information display in a strategic setting. We introduce a novel staged experimental design to investigate the effects of design features, such as visualizations of prediction uncertainty and error, within a repeated congestion game. In this game, participants assume the role of taxi drivers and use a shared information display to decide where to search for their next ride. Our experimental design endows agents with varying level-k depths of thinking, allowing some agents to possess greater sophistication in anticipating the decisions of others using the same information display. Through several extensive experiments, we identify trade-offs between displays that optimize individual decisions and those that best serve the collective social welfare of the system. We find that the influence of display characteristics varies based on an agent's strategic sophistication. We observe that design choices promoting individual-level decision-making can lead to suboptimal system outcomes, as manifested by a lower realization of potential social welfare. However, this decline in social welfare is offset by a reduction in the distribution shift, narrowing the gap between predicted and realized system outcomes, which potentially enhances the perceived reliability and trustworthiness of the information display post hoc. Our findings pave the way for new research questions concerning the design of effective prediction interfaces in strategic environments.

Understanding how helpful a visualization is from experimental results is difficult because the observed performance is confounded with aspects of the study design, such as how useful the information that is visualized is for the task. We develop a rational agent framework for designing and interpreting visualization experiments. Our framework conceives two experiments with the same setup: one with behavioral agents (human subjects), and the other one with a hypothetical rational agent. A visualization is evaluated by comparing the expected performance of behavioral agents to that of a rational agent under different assumptions. Using recent visualization decision studies from the literature, we demonstrate how the framework can be used to pre-experimentally evaluate the experiment design by bounding the expected improvement in performance from having access to visualizations, and post-experimentally to deconfound errors of information extraction from errors of optimization, among other analyses.

This paper develops a framework for the design of scoring rules to optimally incentivize an agent to exert a multi-dimensional effort. This framework is a generalization to strategic agents of the classical knapsack problem (cf. Briest, Krysta, and Vocking, 2005; Singer, 2010) and it is foundational to applying algorithmic mechanism design to the classroom. The paper identifies two simple families of scoring rules that guarantee constant approximations to the optimal scoring rule. The truncated separate scoring rule is the sum of single dimensional scoring rules that is truncated to the bounded range of feasible scores. The threshold scoring rule gives the maximum score if reports exceed a threshold and zero otherwise. Approximate optimality of one or the other of these rules is similar to the bundling or selling separately result of Babaioff, Immorlica, Lucier, and Weinberg (2014). Finally, we show that the approximate optimality of the best of those two simple scoring rules is robust when the agent’s choice of effort is made sequentially.

We show that economic conclusions derived from Bulow and Roberts (1989) for linear utility models approximately extend to non-linear utility models. Specifically, we quantify the extent to which agents with non-linear utilities resemble agents with linear utilities, and we show that the approximation of mechanisms for agents with linear utilities approximately extend for agents with non-linear utilities. We illustrate the framework for the objectives of revenue and welfare on non-linear models that include agents with budget constraints, agents with risk aversion, and agents with endogenous valuations. We derive bounds on how much these models resemble the linear utility model and combine these bounds with well-studied approximation results for linear utility models. We conclude that simple mechanisms are approximately optimal for these non-linear agent models. * The full version of the paper can be accessed at https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00545. This work is support by NSF CCF AF #1618502.

In CS theory courses, NP reductions are a notorious source of pain for students and instructors alike. Invariably, students use pen and paper to write down reductions that “work” in many but not all cases. When instructors observe that a student’s reduction deviates from the expected one, they have to manually compute a counterexample that exposes the mistake. In other words, NP reductions are subtle yet, most of the time, unimplemented programs. And for a good reason: there exists no language tailored to NP reductions.

Firms engaged in electronic commerce increasingly rely on predictive analytics via machine-learning algorithms to drive a wide array of managerial decisions. The tuning of many standard machine learning algorithms can be understood as trading off bias (i.e., accuracy) with variance (i.e., precision) in the algorithm's predictions. The goal of this paper is to understand how competition between firms affects their strategic choice of such algorithms. To this end, we model the interaction of two firms choosing learning algorithms as a game and analyze its equilibria. Absent competition, players care only about the magnitude of predictive error and not its source. In contrast, our main result is that with competition, players prefer to incur error due to variance rather than due to bias, even at the cost of higher total error. In addition, we show that competition can have counterintuitive implications---for example, reducing the error incurred by a firm's algorithm can be harmful to that firm---but we provide conditions under which such phenomena do not occur. In addition to our theoretical analysis, we also validate our insights by applying our metrics to a publicly available data set.

This paper introduces an objective for optimizing proper scoring rules. The objective is to maximize the increase in payoff of a forecaster who exerts a binary level of effort to refine a posterior belief from a prior belief. In this framework we characterize optimal scoring rules in simple settings, give efficient algorithms for computing optimal scoring rules in complex settings, and identify simple scoring rules that are approximately optimal. In comparison, standard scoring rules in theory and practice -- for example the quadratic rule, scoring rules for the expectation, and scoring rules for multiple tasks that are averages of single-task scoring rules -- can be very far from optimal.

In many real-world strategic settings, people use information displays to make decisions. In these settings, an information provider chooses which information to provide to strategic agents and how to present it, and agents formulate a best response based on the information and their anticipation of how others will behave. We contribute the results of a controlled online experiment to examine how the provision and presentation of information impacts people's decisions in a congestion game. Our experiment compares how different visualization approaches for displaying this information, including bar charts and hypothetical outcome plots, and different information conditions, including where the visualized information is private versus public (i.e., available to all agents), affect decision making and welfare. We characterize the effects of visualization anticipation, referring to changes to behavior when an agent goes from alone having access to a visualization to knowing that others also have access to the visualization to guide their decisions. We also empirically identify the visualization equilibrium, i.e., the visualization for which the visualized outcome of agents' decisions matches the realized decisions of the agents who view it. We reflect on the implications of visualization equilibria and visualization anticipation for designing information displays for real-world strategic settings.

Mechanisms with money are commonly designed under the assumption that agents are quasi-linear, meaning they have linear disutility for spending money. We study the implications when agents with non-linear (specifically, convex) disutility for payments participate in mechanisms designed for quasi-linear agents. We first show that any mechanism that is truthful for quasi-linear buyers has a simple best response function for buyers with non-linear disutility from payments, in which each bidder simply scales down her value for each potential outcome by a fixed factor, equal to her target return on investment (ROI). We call such a strategy ROI-optimal. We prove the existence of a Nash equilibrium in which agents use ROI-optimal strategies for a general class of allocation problems. Motivated by online marketplaces, we then focus on simultaneous second-price auctions for additive bidders and show that all ROI-optimal equilibria in this setting achieve constant-factor approximations to suitable welfare and revenue benchmarks.

Bidding dashboards are used in online marketplaces to aid a bidder in computing good bidding strategies, particularly when the auction used by the marketplace is constrained to have the winners-pay-bid payment format. A dashboard predicts the outcome a bidder can expect to get at each possible bid. To convince a bidder to best respond to the information published in a dashboard, a dashboard mechanism should ensure either (a) that best responding maximizes the bidder's utility (a weaker requirement) or (b) that the mechanism implements the outcome published in the dashboard (a stronger requirement that subsumes (a)). Recent work by Hartline et al. EC'19 formalized the notion of dashboard mechanisms and designed winners-pay-bid mechanisms that guaranteed epsilon-optimal utility (an epsilon-approximate version of (a)), but not (b). I.e., the mechanism could end up implementing arbitrarily different outcomes from what was promised. While this guarantee is sufficient from a purely technical perspective, it is far from enough in the real world: it is hard to convince bidders to best respond to information which could be arbitrarily inaccurate, regardless of the theoretical promise of near-optimality. In this paper we study guaranteed dashboard mechanisms, namely, ones that are guaranteed to implement what they publish, and obtain good welfare. We study this question in a repeated auction setting for general single-dimensional valuations and give tight characterizations of the loss in welfare as a function of natural parameters upper bounding the difference in valuation profile across the rounds. In particular, we give three different characterizations, bounding the loss in welfare in terms of the 0 norm, 1 norm and infinite norm of difference in valuation profile across rounds. All the characterizations generalize at least up to matroid feasibility constraints, and the infinite norm characterization extends to general downward-closed feasibility constraints. We bring to bear different techniques for each of these characterizations, including connections to differential privacy and online convex optimizations.

This paper considers prior-independent mechanism design, in which a single mechanism is designed to achieve approximately optimal performance on every prior distribution from a given class. Most results in this literature focus on mechanisms with truthtelling equilibria, a.k.a., truthful mechanisms. Feng and Hartline [FOCS 2018] introduce the revelation gap to quantify the loss of the restriction to truthful mechanisms. We solve a main open question left in Feng and Hartline [FOCS 2018]; namely, we identify a non-trivial revelation gap for revenue maximization.

We provide a polynomial time reduction from Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism design to Bayesian algorithm design for welfare maximization problems. Unlike prior results, our reduction achieves exact incentive compatibility for problems with multi-dimensional and continuous type spaces. The key technical barrier preventing exact incentive compatibility in prior black-box reductions is that repairing violations of incentive constraints requires understanding the distribution of the mechanism’s output, which is typically #P-hard to compute. Reductions that instead estimate the output distribution by sampling inevitably suffer from sampling error, which typically precludes exact incentive compatibility. We overcome this barrier by employing and generalizing the computational model in the literature on Bernoulli Factories . In a Bernoulli factory problem, one is given a function mapping the bias of an “input coin” to that of an “output coin,” and the challenge is to efficiently simulate the output coin given only sample access to the input coin. This is the key ingredient in designing an incentive compatible mechanism for bipartite matching, which can be used to make the approximately incentive compatible reduction of Hartline et al. [18] exactly incentive compatible.

A rich class of mechanism design problems can be understood as incomplete-information games between a principal who commits to a policy and an agent who responds, with payoffs determined by an unknown state of the world. Traditionally, these models require strong and often-impractical assumptions about beliefs (a common prior over the state). In this paper, we dispense with the common prior. Instead, we consider a repeated interaction where both the principal and the agent may learn over time from the state history. We reformulate mechanism design as a reinforcement learning problem and develop mechanisms that attain natural benchmarks without any assumptions on the state-generating process. Our results make use of novel behavioral assumptions for the agent - based on counterfactual internal regret - that capture the spirit of rationality without relying on beliefs.11For the full version of this paper, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.05518.

This paper compares two leading approaches for robust optimization in the models of online algorithms and mechanism design. Competitive analysis compares the performance of an online algorithm to an offline benchmark in worst-case over inputs, and prior-independent mechanism design compares the expected performance of a mechanism on an unknown distribution (of inputs, i.e., agent values) to the optimal mechanism for the distribution in worst case over distributions. For competitive analysis, a critical concern is the choice of benchmark. This paper gives a method for selecting a good benchmark. We show that optimal algorithm/mechanism for the optimal benchmark is equal to the prior-independent optimal algorithm/mechanism. We solve a central open question in prior-independent mechanism design, namely we identify the prior-independent revenue-optimal mechanism for selling a single item to two agents with i.i.d. and regularly distributed values. We use this solution to solve the corresponding benchmark design problem. Via this solution and the above equivalence of prior-independent mechanism design and competitive analysis (a.k.a. prior-free mechanism design) we show that the standard method for lower bounds of prior-free mechanisms is not generally tight for the benchmark design program.11For the full version of this work, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10157.

We revisit the well-studied problem of designing mechanisms for one-sided matching markets, where a set of n agents needs to be matched to a set of n heterogeneous items. Each agent i has a value νi,j for each item j, and these values are private information that the agents may misreport if doing so leads to a preferred outcome. Ensuring that the agents have no incentive to misreport requires a careful design of the matching mechanism, and mechanisms proposed in the literature mitigate this issue by eliciting only the ordinal preferences of the agents, i.e., their ranking of the items from most to least preferred. However, the efficiency guarantees of these mechanisms are based only on weak measures that are oblivious to the underlying values. In this paper we achieve stronger performance guarantees by introducing a mechanism that truthfully elicits the full cardinal preferences of the agents, i.e., all of the νi,j values. We evaluate the performance of this mechanism using the much more demanding Nash bargaining solution as a benchmark, and we prove that our mechanism significantly outperforms all ordinal mechanisms (even non-truthful ones). To prove our approximation bounds, we also study the population monotonicity of the Nash bargaining solution in the context of matching markets, providing both upper and lower bounds which are of independent interest.

Econometric inference allows an analyst to back out the values of agents in a mechanism from the rules of the mechanism and bids of the agents. This paper gives an algorithm to solve the problem of inferring the values of agents in a dominant-strategy mechanism from: the social choice function implemented by the mechanism and the per-unit prices paid by the agents (the agent bids are not observed). For single-dimensional agents, this inference problem is a multi-dimensional inversion of the payment identity and is feasible only if the payment identity is uniquely invertible. The inversion is unique for single-unit proportional weights social choice functions (common, for example, in bandwidth allocation); and its inverse can be found efficiently. This inversion is not unique for social choice functions that exhibit complementarities. Of independent interest, we extend a result of Rosen (1965), that the Nash equilbria of “concave games” are unique and pure, to an alternative notion of concavity based on Gale and Nikaido (1965).

This paper considers prior-independent mechanism design, namely identifying a single mechanism that has near optimal performance on every prior distribution. We show that mechanisms with truthtelling equilibria, a.k.a., revelation mechanisms, do not always give optimal prior-independent mechanisms and we define the revelation gap to quantify the non-optimality of revelation mechanisms. This study suggests that it is important to develop a theory for the design of non-revelation mechanisms. Our analysis focuses on welfare maximization by single-item auctions for agents with budgets and a natural regularity assumption on their distribution of values. The all-pay auction (a non-revelation mechanism) is the Bayesian optimal mechanism; as it is prior-independent it is also the prior-independent optimal mechanism (a 1-approximation). We prove a lower bound on the prior-independent approximation of revelation mechanisms of 1.013 and that the clinching auction (a revelation mechanism) is a prior-independent e ≈ 2.714 approximation. Thus the revelation gap for single-item welfare maximization with public budget agents is in [1.013, e]. Some of our analyses extend to the revenue objective, position environments, and irregular distributions.

As online ad offerings become increasingly complex, with multiple size configurations and layouts available to advertisers, the sale of web advertising space increasingly resembles a combinatorial auction with complementarities. Standard ad auction formats do not immediately extend to these settings, and truthful combinatorial auctions, such as the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves auction, can yield unacceptably low revenue. Core selecting auctions, which apply to combinatorial markets, boost revenue by setting prices so that no group of agents, including the auctioneer, can jointly improve their utilities by switching to a different allocation and payments. Among outcomes in the core, bidder-optimal core points have been the most widely studied due to their incentive properties, such as being implementable at natural equilibria.

We provide a polynomial-time reduction from Bayesian incentive-compatible mechanism design to Bayesian algorithm design for welfare maximization problems. Unlike prior results, our reduction achieves exact incentive compatibility for problems with multi-dimensional and continuous type spaces.

A common method in the practice of large scale auction design, e.g., in auctions placing advertisements on online media and Internet search engines, is A/B testing. In A/B testing, the auction house is running an incumbent mechanism A, and would like to determine if a novel mechanism B obtains higher revenue. This is done by splitting the traffic so that most of it goes to A and some of it, e.g., five to ten percent, goes to B. An issue with this approach is that if the bidders are unaware of which mechanism their bid will be considered in, the bid equilibrium is neither for A nor B but for a mechanism C that is a convex combination of A and B.

We consider the problem of budget feasible mechanism design proposed by Singer, but in a Bayesian setting. A principal has a public value for hiring a subset of the agents and a budget, while the agents have private costs for being hired. We consider both additive and submodular value functions of the principal. We show that there are simple, practical, ex post budget balanced posted pricing mechanisms that approximate the value obtained by the Bayesian optimal mechanism that is budget balanced only in expectation. A main motivating application for this work is crowdsourcing, e.g., on Mechanical Turk, where workers are drawn from a large population and posted pricing is standard. Our analysis methods relate to contention resolution schemes in submodular optimization of Vondràk et al. and the correlation gap analysis of Yan.

For selling a single item to agents with independent but non-identically distributed values, the revenue optimal auction is complex. With respect to it, Hartline and Rough garden showed that the approximation factor of the second-price auction with an anonymous reserve is between two and four. We consider the more demanding problem of approximating the revenue of the ex ante relaxation of the auction problem by posting an anonymous price (while supplies last) and prove that their worst-case ratio is e. As a corollary, the upper-bound of anonymous pricing or anonymous reserves versus the optimal auction improves from four to e. We conclude that, up to an e factor, discrimination and simultaneity are unimportant for driving revenue in single-item auctions.

Recent price-of-anarchy analyses of games of complete information suggest that coarse correlated equilibria, which characterize outcomes resulting from no-regret learning dynamics, have near-optimal welfare. This work provides two main technical results that lift this conclusion to games of incomplete information, a.k.a., Bayesian games. First, near-optimal welfare in Bayesian games follows directly from the smoothness-based proof of near-optimal welfare in the same game when the private information is public. Second, no-regret learning dynamics converge to Bayesian coarse correlated equilibrium in these incomplete information games. These results are enabled by interpretation of a Bayesian game as a stochastic game of complete information.

Optimal mechanisms for agents with multi-dimensional preferences are generally complex. This complexity makes them challenging to solve for and impractical to run. In a typical mechanism design approach, a model is posited and then the optimal mechanism is designed for the model. Successful mechanism design gives mechanisms that one could at least imagine running. By this measure, multi-dimensional mechanism design has had only limited success. In this paper we take the opposite approach, which we term reverse mechanism design. We start by hypothesizing the optimality of a particular form of mechanism that is simple and reasonable to run, then we solve for sufficient conditions for the mechanism to be optimal (among all mechanisms). This paper has two main contributions. The first is in codifying the method of virtual values from single-dimensional auction theory and extending it to agents with multidimensional preferences. The second is in applying this method to two paradigmatic classes of multi-dimensional preferences. The first class is unit-demand preferences (e.g., a homebuyer who wishes to buy at most one house); for this class we give sufficient conditions under which posting a uniform price for each item is optimal. This result generalizes one of Alaei et al. [2013] for a consumer with values uniform on interval [0; 1], and contrasts with an example of Thanassoulis [2004] for a consumer with values uniform on interval [5; 6] where uniform pricing is not optimal. The second class is additive preferences, for this class we give sufficient conditions under which posting a price for the grand bundle is optimal. This result generalizes a recent result of Hart and Nisan [2012] and relates to work of Armstrong [1999]. Similarly to an approach of Alaei et al. [2013], these results for single-agent pricing problems can be generalized naturally to multi-agent auction problems.

The promise of data science is that if data from a system can be recorded and understood then this understanding can potentially be utilized to improve the system. Behavioral and economic data, however, is different from scientific data in that it is subjective to the system. Behavior changes when the system changes, and to predict behavior for any given system change or to optimize over system changes, the behavioral model that generates the data must be inferred from the data. The ease with which this inference can be performed generally also depends on the system. Trivially, a system that ignores behavior does not admit any inference of a behavior generating model that can be used to predict behavior in a system that is responsive to behavior.

Crémer and McLean [1985] showed that, when buyers' valuations are drawn from a correlated distribution, an auction with full knowledge on the distribution can extract the full social surplus. We study whether this phenomenon persists when the auctioneer has only incomplete knowledge of the distribution, represented by a finite family of candidate distributions, and has sample access to the real distribution. We show that the naive approach which uses samples to distinguish candidate distributions may fail, whereas an extended version of the Crémer-McLean auction simultaneously extracts full social surplus under each candidate distribution. With an algebraic argument, we give a tight bound on the number of samples needed by this auction, which is the difference between the number of candidate distributions and the dimension of the linear space they span.

This paper develops tools for welfare and revenue analyses of Bayes-Nash equilibria in asymmetric auctions with single-dimensional agents. We employ these tools to derive price of anarchy results for social welfare and revenue. Our approach separates the standard smoothness framework [e.g., Syrgkanis and Tardos 2013] into two distinct parts. The first part, value covering, employs best-response analysis to individually relate each agent's expected price for allocation and welfare in any Bayes-Nash equilibrium. The second part, revenue covering, uses properties of an auction's rules and feasibility constraints to relate the revenue of the auction to the agents' expected prices for allocation (not necessarily in equilibrium). Because value covering holds for any equilibrium, proving an auction is revenue covered is a sufficient condition for approximating optimal welfare, and under the right conditions, the optimal revenue. In mechanisms with reserve prices, our welfare results show approximation with respect to the optimal mechanism with the same reserves.

The intuition that profit is optimized by maximizing marginal revenue is a guiding principle in microeconomics. In the classical auction theory for agents with quasi-linear utility and single-dimensional preferences, BR89 show that the optimal auction of M81 is in fact optimizing marginal revenue. In particular Myerson's virtual values are exactly the derivative of an appropriate revenue curve. This paper considers mechanism design in environments where the agents have multi-dimensional and non-linear preferences. Understanding good auctions for these environments is considered to be the main challenge in Bayesian optimal mechanism design. In these environments maximizing marginal revenue may not be optimal, and furthermore, there is sometimes no direct way to implement the marginal revenue maximization mechanism. Our contributions are three fold: we characterize the settings for which marginal revenue maximization is optimal (by identifying an important condition that we call revenue linearity), we give simple procedures for implementing marginal revenue maximization in general, and we show that marginal revenue maximization is approximately optimal. Our approximation factor smoothly degrades in a term that quantifies how far the environment is from an ideal one (i.e., where marginal revenue maximization is optimal). Because the marginal revenue mechanism is optimal for well-studied single-dimensional agents, our generalization immediately extends many approximation results for single-dimensional agents to more general preferences. Finally, one of the biggest open questions in Bayesian algorithmic mechanism design is in developing methodologies that are not brute-force in size of the agent type space (usually exponential in the dimension for multi-dimensional agents). Our methods identify a sub problem that, e.g., for unit-demand agents with values drawn from product distributions, enables approximation mechanisms that are polynomial in the dimension.

We study Bayes-Nash equilibria in a large class of anonymous order-based auctions. These include the generalized first-price auction for allocating positions to bidders, e.g., for sponsored search. We show that when bidders' values are independent and identically distributed the symmetric equilibrium is unique and efficient. Importantly, our proof is simple and structurally revealing. This uniqueness result for the generalized first-price auction is in stark contrast to the generalized second-price auction where there may be no efficient equilibrium. This result suggests, e.g., that first-price payment semantics may have advantages over second-price payment semantics. Our results extend also to certain models of risk aversion.

We consider prior-free auctions for revenue and welfare maximization when agents have a common budget. The abstract environments we consider are ones where there is a downward-closed and symmetric feasibility constraint on the probabilities of service of the agents. These environments include position auctions where slots with decreasing click-through rates are auctioned to advertisers. We generalize and characterize the envy-free benchmark from Hartline and Yan [2011] to settings with budgets and characterize the optimal envy-free outcomes for both welfare and revenue. We give prior-free mechanisms that approximate these benchmarks. A building block in our mechanism is a clinching auction for position auction environments. This auction is a generalization of the multi-unit clinching auction of Dobzinski et al. [2008] and a special case of the polyhedral clinching auction of Goel et al. [2012]. For welfare maximization, we show that this clinching auction is a good approximation to the envy-free optimal welfare for position auction environments. For profit maximization, we generalize the random sampling profit extraction auction from Fiat et al. [2002] for digital goods to give a 10.0-approximation to the envy-free optimal revenue in symmetric, downward-closed environments. Even without budgets this revenue maximization question is of interest and we obtain an improved approximation bound of 7.5 (from 30.4 by Ha and Hartline [2012]).

We study simple and approximately optimal auctions for agents with a particular form of risk-averse preferences. We show that, for symmetric agents, the optimal revenue (given a prior distribution over the agent preferences) can be approximated by the first-price auction (which is prior independent), and, for asymmetric agents, the optimal revenue can be approximated by an auction with simple form. These results are based on two technical methods. The first is for upper-bounding the revenue from a risk-averse agent. The second gives a payment identity for mechanisms with pay-your-bid semantics.

We study the makespan minimization problem with unrelated selfish machines under the assumption that job sizes are stochastic. We design simple truthful mechanisms that under different distributional assumptions provide constant and sublogarithmic approximations to expected makespan. Our mechanisms are prior-independent in that they do not rely on knowledge of the job size distributions. Prior-independent approximations were previously known only for the revenue maximization objective [13, 11, 26]. In contrast to our results, in prior-free settings no truthful anonymous deterministic mechanism for the makespan objective can provide a sublinear approximation [3].

We study an abstract optimal auction problem for selecting a subset of self-interested agents to whom to provide a service. A feasibility constraint governs which subsets can be simultaneously served; however, the mechanism may additionally choose to bundle unconstrained attributes such as payments or add-ons with the service. An agent's preference over service and attributes is given by her private type and may be multi-dimensional and non-linear. A single-agent problem is to optimizes a menu to offer an agent subject to constraints on the probabilities with which each of the agent's types is served. We give computationally tractable reductions from multi-agent auction problems to these single-agent problems. Our discussion focuses on maximizing revenue, but our results can be applied to other objectives (e.g., welfare).

We study the design and approximation of optimal crowdsourcing contests. Crowdsourcing contests can be modeled as all-pay auctions because entrants must exert effort up-front to enter. Unlike all-pay auctions where a usual design objective would be to maximize revenue, in crowdsourcing contests, the principal only benefits from the submission with the highest quality. We give a theory for optimal crowdsourcing contests that mirrors the theory of optimal auction design: the optimal crowdsourcing contest is a virtual valuation optimizer (the virtual valuation function depends on the distribution of contestant skills and the number of contestants). We also compare crowdsourcing contests with more conventional means of procurement. In this comparison, crowdsourcing contests are relatively disadvantaged because the effort of losing contestants is wasted. Nonetheless, we show that crowdsourcing contests are 2-approximations to conventional methods for a large family of “regular” distributions, and 4-approximations, otherwise.

There is only one technique for prior-free optimal mechanism design that generalizes beyond the structurally benevolent setting of digital goods. This technique uses random sampling to estimate the distribution of agent values and then employs the Bayesian optimal mechanism for this estimated distribution on the remaining players. Though quite general, even for digital goods, this random sampling auction has a complicated analysis and is known to be suboptimal. To overcome these issues we generalize the profit extraction and consensus techniques from [5] to structurally rich environments that include, e.g., single-minded combinatorial auctions.

We consider profit maximizing (incentive compatible) mechanism design in general environments that include, e.g., position auctions (for selling advertisements on Internet search engines) and single-minded combinatorial auctions. We analyze optimal envy-free pricings in these settings, and give economic justification for using the optimal revenue of envyfree pricings as a benchmark for prior-free mechanism design and analysis. Moreover, we show that envy-free pricing has a simple nice structure and a strong connection to incentive compatible mechanism design, and we exploit this connection to design prior-free mechanisms with strong approximation guarantees.

We give a simple reduction from Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism design to algorithm design in settings where the agents’ private types are multidimensional. The reduction preserves performance up to an additive loss that can be made arbitrarily small in polynomial time in the number of agents and the size of the agents’ type spaces.

We study the classic mathematical economics problem of Bayesian optimal mechanism design where a principal aims to optimize expected revenue when allocating resources to self-interested agents with preferences drawn from a known distribution. In single parameter settings (i.e., where each agent's preference is given by a single private value for being served and zero for not being served) this problem is solved [20]. Unfortunately, these single parameter optimal mechanisms are impractical and rarely employed [1], and furthermore the underlying economic theory fails to generalize to the important, relevant, and unsolved multi-dimensional setting (i.e., where each agent's preference is given by multiple values for each of the multiple services available) [25].

The principal problem in algorithmic mechanism design is in merging the incentive constraints imposed by selfish behavior with the algorithmic constraints imposed by computational intractability. This field is motivated by the observation that the preeminent approach for designing incentive compatible mechanisms, namely that of Vickrey, Clarke, and Groves; and the central approach for circumventing computational obstacles, that of approximation algorithms, are fundamentally incompatible: natural applications of the VCG approach to an approximation algorithm fails to yield an incentive compatible mechanism. We consider relaxing the desideratum of (ex post) incentive compatibility (IC) to Bayesian incentive compatibility (BIC), where truthtelling is a Bayes-Nash equilibrium (the standard notion of incentive compatibility in economics). For welfare maximization in single-parameter agent settings, we give a general black-box reduction that turns any approximation algorithm into a Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism with essentially the same approximation factor.

We study online pricing problems in markets with cancellations, i.e., markets in which prior allocation decisions can be revoked, but at a cost. In our model, a seller receives requests online and chooses which requests to accept, subject to constraints on the subsets of requests which may be accepted simultaneously. A request, once accepted, can be canceled at a cost which is a fixed fraction of the request value. This scenario models a market for web advertising campaigns, in which the buyback cost represents the cost of canceling an existing contract.

We study auctions for selling a limited supply of a single commodity in the case where the supply is known in advance and the case it is unknown and must be instead allocated in an online fashion. The latter variant was proposed by Mahdian and Saberi [12] as a model of an important phenomena in auctions for selling Internet advertising: advertising impressions must be allocated as they arrive and the total quantity available is unknown in advance. We describe the Bayesian optimal mechanism for these variants and extend the random sampling auction of Goldberg et al. [8] to address the prior-free case.

The monopolist's theory of optimal single-item auctions for agents with independent private values can be summarized by two statements. The first is from Myerson [8]: the optimal auction is Vickrey with a reserve price. The second is from Bulow and Klemperer [1]: it is better to recruit one more bidder and run the Vickrey auction than to run the optimal auction. These results hold for single-item auctions under the assumption that the agents' valuations are independently and identically drawn from a distribution that satisfies a natural (and prevalent) regularity condition.

Mechanism design is now a standard tool in computer science for aligning the incentives of self-interested agents with the objectives of a system designer. There is, however, a fundamental disconnect between the traditional application domains of mechanism design (such as auctions) and those arising in computer science (such as networks): while monetary "transfers" (i.e., payments) are essential for most of the known positive results in mechanism design, they are undesirable or even technologically infeasible in many computer systems. Classical impossibility results imply that the reach of mechanisms without transfers is severely limited. Computer systems typically do have the ability to reduce service quality--routing systems can drop or delay traffic, scheduling protocols can delay the release of jobs, and computational payment schemes can require computational payments from users (e.g., in spam-fighting systems). Service degradation is tantamount to requiring that users "burn money", and such "payments" can be used to influence the preferences of the agents at a cost of degrading the social surplus. We develop a framework for the design and analysis of "money-burning mechanisms" to maximize the residual surplus-the total value of the chosen outcome minus the payments required. Our primary contributions are the following. * We define a general template for prior-free optimal mechanism design that explicitly connects Bayesian optimal mechanism design, the dominant paradigm in economics, with worst-case analysis. In particular, we establish a general and principled way to identify appropriate performance benchmarks in prior-free mechanism design. * For general single-parameter agent settings, we characterize the Bayesian optimal money-burning mechanism. * For multi-unit auctions, we design a near-optimal prior-free money-burning mechanism: for every valuation profile, its expected residual surplus is within a constant factor of our benchmark, the residual surplus of the best Bayesian optimal mechanism for this profile. * For multi-unit auctions, we quantify the benefit of general transfers over money-burning: optimal money-burning mechanisms always obtain a logarithmic fraction of the full social surplus, and this bound is tight.

We discuss the use of social networks in implementing viral marketing strategies. While influence maximization has been studied in this context (see Chapter 24 of [10]), we study revenue maximization, arguably, a more natural objective. In our model, a buyer's decision to buy an item is influenced by the set of other buyers that own the item and the price at which the item is offered.

Algorithmic pricing is the computational problem that sellers (e.g.,in supermarkets) face when trying to set prices for their items to maximize their profit in the presence of a known demand. Guruswami etal. (SODA, 2005) proposed this problem and gave logarithmic approximations (in the number of consumers) for the unit-demand and single-parameter cases where there is a specific set of consumers and their valuations for bundles are known precisely. Subsequently several versions of the problem have been shown to have poly-logarithmic in approximability. This problem has direct ties to the important open question of better understanding the Bayesian optimal mechanism in multi-parameter agent settings; however, for this purpose approximation factors logarithmic in the number of agents are inadequate. It is therefore of vital interest to consider special cases where constant approximations are possible. We consider the unit-demand variant of this pricing problem. Here a consumer has a valuation for each different item and their value for aset of items is simply the maximum value they have for any item in the set. Instead of considering a set of consumers with precisely known preferences, like the prior algorithmic pricing literature, we assume that the preferences of the consumers are drawn from a distribution. This is the standard assumption in economics; furthermore, the setting of a specific set of customers with specific preferences, which is employed in all of the prior work in algorithmic pricing, is a special case of this general Bayesian pricing problem, where there is a discrete Bayesian distribution for preferences specified by picking one consumer uniformly from the given set of consumers. Notice that the distribution over the valuations for the individual items that this generates is obviously correlated. Our work complements these existing works by considering the case where the consumer's valuations for the different items are independent random variables. Our main result is a constant approximation algorithm for this problem that makes use of an interesting connection between this problem and the concept of virtual valuations from the single-parameter Bayesian optimal mechanism design literature.

We use techniques from sample-complexity in machine learning to reduce problems of incentive-compatible mechanism design to standard algorithmic questions, for a wide variety of revenue-maximizing pricing problems. Our reductions imply that for these problems, given an optimal (or /spl beta/-approximation) algorithm for the standard algorithmic problem, we can convert it into a (1 + /spl epsi/)-approximation (or /spl beta/(1 +/spl epsi/)-approximation) for the incentive-compatible mechanism design problem, so long as the number of bidders is sufficiently large as a function of an appropriate measure of complexity of the comparison class of solutions. We apply these results to the problem of auctioning a digital good, the attribute auction problem, and to the problem of item-pricing in unlimited-supply combinatorial auctions. From a learning perspective, these settings present several challenges: in particular the loss function is discontinuous and asymmetric, and the range of bidders' valuations may be large.

We investigate the class of single-round, sealed-bid auctions for a set of identical items to bidders who each desire one unit. We adopt the worst-case competitive framework defined by [9, 5] that compares the profit of an auction to that of an optimal single-price sale of least two items. In this paper, we first derive an optimal auction for three items, answering an open question from [8]. Second, we show that the form of this auction is independent of the competitive framework used. Third, we propose a schema for converting a given limited-supply auction into an unlimited supply auction. Applying this technique to our optimal auction for three items, we achieve an auction with a competitive ratio of 3.25, which improves upon the previously best-known competitive ratio of 3.39 from [7]. Finally, we generalize a result from [8] and extend our understanding of the nature of the optimal competitive auction by showing that the optimal competitive auction occasionally offers prices that are higher than all bid values.

We study the problem of designing seller-optimal auctions, i.e. auctions where the objective is to maximize revenue. Prior to this work, the only auctions known to be approximately optimal in the worst case employed randomization. Our main result is the existence of deterministic auctions that approximately match the performance guarantees of these randomized auctions. We give a fairly general derandomization technique for turning any randomized mechanism into an asymmetric deterministic one with approximately the same revenue. In doing so, we bypass the impossibility result for symmetric deterministic auctions and show that asymmetry is nearly as powerful as randomization for solving optimal mechanism design problems. Our general construction involves solving an exponential-sized flow problem and thus is not polynomial-time computable. To complete the picture, we give an explicit polynomial-time construction for derandomizing a specific auction with good worst-case revenue. Our results are based on toy problems that have a flavor similar to the hat problem from [3].

We study auctions for a commodity in unlimited supply, e.g., a digital good. In particular we consider three desirable properties for auctions: item Competitive: the auction achieves a constant fraction of the optimal revenue even on worst case inputs. item Truthful: any bidder's best strategy is to bid the maximum value they are willing to pay. item Envy-free: after the auction is run, no bidder would be happier with the outcome of another bidder (for digital good auctions, this means that there is a single sale price and goods are allocated to all bidders willing to pay this price).Our main result is to show that no constant-competitive auction that is truthful and always gives outcomes are envy-free. We consider two relaxations of these requirements, allowing the auction to be untruthful with vanishingly small probability, and allowing the auction to give non-envy-free outcomes with vanishingly small probability. Under both of these relaxations we get competitive auctions.

We describe mechanisms for auctions that are simultaneously truthful (alternately known as strategy-proof or incentive compatible) and guarantee high "net" profit. We make use of appropriate variants of competitive analysis of algorithms in designing and analyzing our mechanisms. Thus, we do not require any probabilistic assumptions on bids.We present two new concepts regarding auctions, that of a cancellable auction and that of a generalized auction. We use cancellable auctions in the design of generalized auctions, but they are of independent interest as well. Cancellable auctions have the property that if the revenue collected does not meet certain predetermined criteria, then the auction can be cancelled and the resulting auction is still truthful. The trivial approach (run a truthful auction and cancel if needed) yields an auction that is not necessarily truthfu.Generalized auctions can be used to model many problems previously considered in the literature, as well as numerous new problems. In particular, we give the first truthful profit-maximizing auctions for problems such as conditional financing and multicast.