Better Strategyproof Mechanisms without Payments or Prior - An Analytic Approach
نویسنده
چکیده
We revisit the problem of designing strategyproof mechanisms for allocating divisible items among two agents who have linear utilities, where payments are disallowed and there is no prior information on the agents’ preferences. The objective is to design strategyproof mechanisms which are competitive against the most efficient (but not strategyproof) mechanism. For the case with two items: • We provide a set of sufficient conditions for strategyproofness. • We use an analytic approach to derive strategyproof mechanisms which are more competitive than all prior strategyproof mechanisms. • We improve the linear-program-based proof of Guo and Conitzer [GC10] to show new upper bounds on competitive ratios. • We provide the first “mathematical” upper bound proof. For the cases with any number of items: • We build on the Partial Allocation mechanisms introduced by Cole et al. [CGG13a, CGG13b] to design a strategyproof mechanism which is 0.67776-competitive, breaking the 2 3 barrier. • We propose a new subclass of strategyproof mechanisms called Dynamical-Increasing-Price mechanisms, where each agent purchases the items using virtual money, and the prices of the items depend on other agents’ preferences.
منابع مشابه
Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 91125 Strategyproof Allocation of a Single Object
The problem of allocating a single indivisible object to one of several selfish agents is considered, where monetary payments are not allowed, and the object is not necessarily desirable to each agent. It is shown that ordinality and positive responsiveness together are necessary and sufficient conditions for strategyproofness, which implies that efficient social choice functions are not strate...
متن کاملStrategyproof Mechanisms for Additively Separable Hedonic Games and Fractional Hedonic Games
Additively separable hedonic games and fractional hedonic games have received considerable attention. They are coalition forming games of selfish agents based on their mutual preferences. Most of the work in the literature characterizes the existence and structure of stable outcomes (i.e., partitions in coalitions), assuming that preferences are given. However, there is little discussion on thi...
متن کاملEfficiency and Budget Balance
We study efficiency and budget balance for designing mechanisms in general quasi-linear domains. Green and Laffont [13] proved that one cannot generically achieve both. We consider strategyproof budgetbalanced mechanisms that are approximately efficient. For deterministic mechanisms, we show that a strategyproof and budget-balanced mechanism must have a sink agent whose valuation function is ig...
متن کاملEfficiency and Budget Balance in General Quasi-linear Domains
We study efficiency and budget balance for designing mechanisms in general quasi-linear domains. Green and Laffont (1979) proved that one cannot generically achieve both. We consider strategyproof budget-balanced mechanisms that are approximately efficient. For deterministic mechanisms, we show that a strategyproof and budget-balanced mechanism must have a sink agent whose valuation function is...
متن کاملIncremental Mechanism Design
Mechanism design has traditionally focused almost exclusively on the design of truthful mechanisms. There are several drawbacks to this: 1. in certain settings (e.g. voting settings), no desirable strategyproof mechanisms exist; 2. truthful mechanisms are unable to take advantage of the fact that computationally bounded agents may not be able to find the best manipulation, and 3. when designing...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2016