Optimal Mechanisms for Consumer Surplus Maximization^††thanks: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1928930 and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation under grant G-2021-16778, while all three authors were in residence at the Simons Laufer Mathematical Sciences Institute (formerly MSRI) in Berkeley, California, during the Fall 2023 semester.

Unlike in the case of welfare maximization, where we can use the VCG mechanism directly, the difficulty in maximizing residual consumer surplus involves carefully balancing the prices. When prices are set too high, all bidders will have low utility. On the other hand, if prices are set too low, the auctioneer may serve bidders of low total welfare. To overcome this problem we introduce a framework for designing mechanisms for consumer surplus maximization which we call the “VCG with copies mechanism” (Section 2.2). In this framework, we essentially run the VCG mechanism over a modified instance instead of the original one. In the modified instance, we have multiple copies of each item, and the agents’ valuations are modified so that each agent will not (strictly) prefer a set of items that were not available in the original instance. This, essentially, results in more balanced prices which are lower than the VCG prices for the original instance.

The framework consists of three parts. The first is deciding on the number of copies, or more generally choosing a distribution over the number of copies. Then, the VCG mechanism is run over the modified instances with the chosen number of copies. The last part is a rounding scheme that takes the VCG allocation and payments for the modified instance and turns them into an allocation and payments for the original instance where we only have a single copy of each item. Implementing this last step can be tricky as we want to convert the allocation and payments such that they are still relatively close to the allocation and payments of the modified instance while maintaining truthfulness.

We instantiate this framework with three multi-parameter auction settings, and obtain optimal approximation guarantees against the social welfare in each setting.

First, we consider multi-unit auctions with bidders whose valuation functions are submodular. In this case, using the VCG with copies framework we get a mechanism whose residual surplus is a $O(\log n)$ approximation to the social welfare, where $n$ is the number of bidders (Theorem 8).

Second, we consider an auction setting with heterogeneous items and unit-demand buyers. In the prior free case, using the framework, we get a mechanism whose residual surplus is a $O(\log n)$ approximation to the social welfare (Theorem 7). We also consider a Bayesian case, where for every agent, his value for each item is sampled $i.i.d$. In this case, using the framework, we get a better approximation guarantee of $O(1+\log\frac{n}{m})$ (Theorem 9), which generalizes the result of [hartline2008optimal] for $m$-unit auction with $n$ unit-demand agents of $O(1+\log\frac{n}{m})$ approximation. In fact, we need a weaker requirement than the assumption that for every agent his value for each item is sampled $i.i.d$. We use only the assumption that the item with the highest value of each agent will be distributed independently uniformly at random, which we call the uniform highest value assumption.

hartline2008optimal showed a lower bound of $\Omega(1+\log\frac{n}{m})$ for multi-unit auctions with unit demand bidders. Building on their lower bound instance, we construct two instances. In the first we have $n$ additive bidders, each bidder’s value for the grand bundle is sampled independently from the exponential distribution with parameter $1$, and his value for a fraction of the grand bundle is a fraction of this value. In the second instance, all bidders are only interested in the first item, and their value for this item is sampled independently from the exponential distribution with parameter $1$. Very similar to the proof of [hartline2008optimal], we get a lower bound of $\Omega(\log n)$ for both instances. The first instance shows the tightness of our result for multi-unit auctions with submodular bidders, and the second shows tightness for the case of prior free unit demand agents.

For the last instantiation, we consider the divisible goods case (Section 3), where we adapt the VCG with copies framework to the divisible goods setting by proposing the restricted capacity VCG mechanism. Rather than randomly selecting a number of copies of each item, the restricted capacity VCG mechanism randomly chooses a “capacity” for each item, i.e., a maximum amount of each item that each agent may receive. The mechanism then runs VCG on a version of the input modified by this capacity constraint. Observe that this mechanism is, in a sense, simpler than VCG with copies, since it circumvents the need for conversion of the allocations output by VCG since they are all feasible on the initial instance (since items are divisible). In this case, we consider buyers with concave valuation functions¹¹1A valuation function $v_{i}$ is concave if for any two allocation vectors $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$ and any $\lambda\in(0,1)$ we have that $\lambda v_{i}(\vec{x})+(1-\lambda)v_{i}(\vec{y})\leq v_{i}(\lambda\vec{x}+(1-\lambda)\vec{y})$., and show a restricted capacity VCG mechanism whose residual surplus is a $O(\log n)$ approximation to the social welfare (Theorem 15). We remark that this result is indeed tight. This is due to the lower bound on the performance of any randomized allocation mechanism for a single indivisible item shown in [hartline2008optimal]. Since fractional and randomized allocations coincide for the single-item case (when bidders are expected utility maximizers), we obtain a $\Omega(\log{n})$ lower bound on the performance of any mechanism in our multiple heterogeneous divisible goods setting.

In this paper, we also study the special case of two agents (Section 4). First, we show that the case of a single-item is as hard as any number of items when agents have arbitrary monotone valuations; in both cases an approximation of $\frac{3}{2}$ is optimal. This result is consistent with our previously discussed results which show that the surplus guarantees achievable in several well-studied multi-parameter auction settings with many agents are no worse than the surplus guarantees achievable in the canonical single-item setting with many agents. Then, in Section 4.1, we answer an open question that was raised by hartline2008optimal, regarding the approximation ratio with respect to a different benchmark that is not the unattainable first-best.

In addition to [hartline2008optimal], the works perhaps closest to ours are [fotakis2016efficient, goldner2024simple]. fotakis2016efficient study maximizing consumer surplus in fully general domains, but obtain only a $O(\log|\mathcal{O}|)$ approximation guarantee where $\mathcal{O}$ is the set of feasible outcomes. Since $|\mathcal{O}|$ can be exponential in the number of items in our indivisible goods settings (and, essentially infinite in our divisible good settings), while their mechanisms apply in our settings, they guarantee only a trivial fraction of the social welfare as consumer surplus (which can be achieved simply by following [hartline2008optimal] on the grand bundle of items). Seeking to improve upon the guarantees (in terms of bidders and items) of [fotakis2016efficient], goldner2024simple initiated the study of sublinear approximations in multi-dimensional settings. Independently and concurrently to our work, they studied multi-dimensional surplus maximization with unit-demand bidders in Bayesian setting as we do in Section 2.4. For the case where bidders’ values are distributed i.i.d., they devise a Bayesian incentive compatible (rather than truthfulness in expectation) auction. In Section 2.4, we show that our mechanism achieves the same asymptotic guarantee as [goldner2024simple] under a weaker assumption where for each agent the favorite item is distributed uniformly among the items (which generalizes both the i.i.d. case considered in [goldner2024simple] and the identical items unit-demand case considered in [hartline2008optimal]).

Also quite similar to our work is that of [qiao2023online, ganesh2023combinatorial]. qiao2023online propose the problem of “pen-testing”. In the pen-testing problem, an algorithm faces a set of $n$ pens each with an unknown amount of ink. The goal of the algorithm is to “test” these pens, possibly exhausting some of the ink contained within, in order to select a pen with a large amount of remaining ink. As qiao2023online and ganesh2023combinatorial argue, one can interpret this problem as a consumer surplus maximization problem where the pens are the bidders. qiao2023online then give algorithms for selecting a single pen in online pen-testing settings (where pens arrive one-by-one and the algorithm must make irrevocable decisions). ganesh2023combinatorial consider the problem of selecting multiple pens in both online and offline environments where a feasibility constraint restricts which subsets of pens can be simultaneously selected. Notably, these works only apply in binary, single-parameter mechanism design settings, since choosing or not choosing a pen corresponds to a binary service decision for the bidders (i.e., each bidder has a single private value for receiving a service and either receives the service or not), whereas the problems we investigate are all multi-parameter auction settings (i.e., bidders hold multiple pieces of private information).

Similar in spirit to our question of mechanism design with money-burning is the literature on mechanism design without money. Mechanism design without money is a rich literature (see [schummer2007mechanism] for a survey of some results) seeking to design mechanisms which align the incentives of the agents with the designer while avoiding monetary payments altogether. Indeed, one possible approach to the questions we explore in this work is to find a welfare maximizing mechanism without money. However, it is known from prior work, e.g., [hartline2008optimal], that mechanisms without money cannot guarantee better than an $\Omega(n)$ approximation to the optimal social welfare, even in the case of allocating a single good. As such, we seek mechanisms which leverage (small) monetary transfers in order to obtain better consumer surplus guarantees.

The objective in our work also has some similarities with the work on frugal mechanism design (see, e.g., [archer2007frugal, chen2010frugal, talwar2003price, karlin2005beyond]), wherein an auctioneer seeks to acquire services from a set of strategic provider bidders and the auctioneer aims to minimize her total expenditure. In both frameworks, the auctioneer aims to minimize the costs (i.e., the monetary transfers), but the algorithmic approaches must differ since frugal mechanism design concerns procurement (i.e., reverse) auctions whereas we study allocation (i.e., forward) auction problems.

Another line of work of guo2009worst, guo2010optimal, and moulin2009almost aims to minimize the payments collected by the auctioneer in the VCG auction via redistributions, i.e., the payments collected by the auctioneer are then redistributed to the participating bidders. Our mechanisms, by contrast, do not permit any transfer of money from the auctioneer to the participants (nor between the participants directly) and, thus, their approaches are insufficient for our purposes. An interesting question is under what conditions one can obtain improved consumer surplus guarantees over the guarantees we achieve in this paper by allowing for money to be exchanged between bidders.

Finally, money burning sees practical application in the use of transaction fee mechanisms in blockchain (see, e.g., [roughgarden2021transaction, chung2023foundations, chen2023bayesian, wu2023maximizing]). Since in a blockchain protocol only a limited number of transactions can be posted to the chain per block, transaction fee mechanisms are used to decide which transactions are ultimately processed. In these mechanisms some of the payments are burnt and are removed from the system altogether, rather than transferred to the miner who is processing the block. In contrast to our problem, however, payments are burnt in transaction fee mechanisms in order to incentivize the miners (who are also assumed to be strategic agents in the model) to follow the blockchain protocol. As such, the literature on transaction fee mechanism design centers, generally, only around designing mechanisms with good incentive properties (and can allow payments to be quite high), whereas in this work we aim to satisfy a simpler set of incentives while optimizing the more challenging objective of consumer surplus.

In this section, we consider settings where the mechanism designer wants to allocate a set $\mathcal{I}$ of $m$ indivisible items to a set $\mathcal{N}$ of $n$ agents. Each agent is associated with a valuation function $v_{i}:2^{\mathcal{I}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$. We assume that valuation functions are monotone (i.e., for all $S\subseteq T\subseteq\mathcal{I}$, $v_{i}(S)\leq v_{i}(T)$) and normalized (i.e., $v_{i}(\emptyset)=0$).

The mechanism designer needs to design a truthful mechanism $\mathcal{M}$ that receives the valuation functions of the agents $v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}$ and returns an allocation $A=(A_{1},\ldots,A_{n})\in\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the set of all possible allocations and a payment vector $p=(p_{1},\ldots,p_{n})\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^{n}$, where the mechanism might use randomness, in which case, $A$ and $p$ are random variables returned by the mechanism. The mechanism designer’s goal is to maximize the expected residual surplus, which is $\sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}}v_{i}(A_{i})-p_{i}$.

We require that the designed mechanism satisfies truthfulness in expectation (TIE) and ex-post individual rationality (EPIR):

We measure the performance of the mechanism using the first-best benchmark which is the maximal possible social welfare, which we denote by $SW(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{I})=\max_{A\in\Delta}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}}v_{i}(A_{i})$. We say that a mechanism guarantees an $\alpha$-approximation (for $\alpha\geq 1$) of the optimal welfare as residual surplus if

We consider several types of valuation functions:

• •

  Valuation function $v_{i}:2^{\mathcal{I}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is unit-demand if for every non-empty set $S$, $v_{i}(S)=\max_{j\in S}v_{i}(\{j\})$.

• •

  Valuation function $v_{i}:2^{\mathcal{I}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is gross-substitutes if for every two vectors of item prices $p,p^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^{m}$, for which $p_{j}\leq p^{\prime}_{j}$ for all $j\in\mathcal{I}$, and a set $S\in\arg\max_{T\subseteq\mathcal{I}}v_{i}(T)-\sum_{j\in T}p(j)$, there exists a set $S^{\prime}\in\arg\max_{T\subseteq\mathcal{I}}v_{i}(T)-\sum_{j\in T}p^{\prime}(j)$ for which for all items $j\in S$ with $p_{j}=p^{\prime}_{j}$ it holds that $j\in S^{\prime}$.

• •

  Valuation function $v_{i}:2^{\mathcal{I}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is submodular if for every two sets $S,T\subseteq\mathcal{I}$ it holds that $v_{i}(S)+v_{i}(T)\geq v_{i}(S\cap T)+v_{i}(S\cup T)$.

• •

  Valuation function $v_{i}:2^{\mathcal{I}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is a multi-unit function if for every two sets $S,T\subseteq\mathcal{I}$ of the same size it holds that $v_{i}(S)=v_{i}(T)$.

A valuation function can belong simultaneously to multiple categories, and it is known that the class of unit-demand functions is a strict subset of the class of gross-substitutes functions which is a strict subset of the class of submodular functions [LehmannLN06]. Among multi-unit functions the classes of gross-substitutes and submodular are the same [LehmannLN06, GUL1999].

Our mechanisms use as a subroutine the VCG mechanism [clarke1971, groves1973, vickrey1961], which for a specific instance selects an arbitrary allocation that maximizes the social welfare, and each agent pays its negative externality to the other agents. That is, the allocation returned by the VCG mechanism $A$ is in $\arg\max_{A\in\Delta}SW(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{I})$, and for all $i$, $p_{i}=SW(\mathcal{N}\setminus\{i\},\mathcal{I})-SW(\mathcal{N}\setminus\{i\},\mathcal{I}\setminus A_{i})$.

In this section, we introduce the VCG with copies framework. We then show how to use this framework and devise multiple truthful mechanisms with optimal guarantees for various settings.

Mechanism 1 basically creates $2^{\ell}$ copies of all the items, and extends the valuation functions of the agents to the instance with the copies. Then, the mechanism calculates the VCG allocation and price vector for the instance with the copies. Since in the real instance, there is only one copy of each item, in order to create a valid allocation, the mechanism uses the randomized subroutine $B$ to generate an allocation and payments, where each agent receives the equivalent set and pays the same as in the allocation returned by Step 1 with a probability of $\frac{q}{2^{\ell}}$ (and otherwise, the agent receives nothing and pays nothing). We assume that in Step 1, the calculated allocation is non-redundant and all allocated items contribute to the welfare. I.e., $\forall i\in\mathcal{N}$, and $j\in A^{\prime}_{i}$, it holds that $v_{i}^{\prime}(A^{\prime}_{i})>v_{i}(A_{i}^{\prime}\setminus\{j\})$, and in particular, no agent receives two copies of the same item. In the remainder of this section, we show how to implement the subroutine $B$ for two cases, (1) where all agents have unit-demand valuations, and (2) where all agents have multi-unit submodular valuations. We then show that for these cases, the mechanism guarantees a residual surplus of at least $\frac{q}{r+1}$ of the entire social welfare.

We first claim that as long as the subroutine $B$ satisfies the property that each agent $i$ receives set $g(A_{i}^{\prime})$ and pays $p_{i}^{\prime}$ with probability $\frac{q}{2^{\ell}}$ (and receives the empty set and pays nothing otherwise) then Mechanism 1 is truthful in expectation and ex-post individual rational no matter how the subroutine is implemented.

We next present a welfare guarantee of our mechanism when applied to gross-substitutes valuation functions. To do so, we abuse the notation and use $v_{i}$ instead of $v_{i}^{\prime}$ for the instance with the copies. We can abuse this notation since for every set $S\subseteq\mathcal{I}^{\prime}$, it holds that $v_{i}^{\prime}(S)=v_{i}(g(S))$. For a set of items $\mathcal{I}$, and a non-negative integer $c$, we denote by $c\cdot\mathcal{I}$ the superset that contains $c$ copies of each item of $\mathcal{I}$, and for two (super)sets $S_{1},S_{2},$ of items, we denote by $S_{1}-S_{2}$ the superset difference where if an element appears $x_{1}$ times in $S_{1}$, and $x_{2}$ in $S_{2}$, it will appear $\max(0,x_{1}-x_{2})$ times in $S_{1}-S_{2}$. For two supersets of items $S_{1},S_{2}$, we denote by $S_{1}+S_{2}$ the superset union of the two sets where if an element appears $x_{1}$ times in $S_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ times in $S_{2}$, then it will appear $x_{1}+x_{2}$ in $S_{1}+S_{2}$.