Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
announcement

Payment Rules through Discriminant-Based Classifiers

Published: 27 March 2015 Publication History

Abstract

In mechanism design it is typical to impose incentive compatibility and then derive an optimal mechanism subject to this constraint. By replacing the incentive compatibility requirement with the goal of minimizing expected ex post regret, we are able to adapt statistical machine learning techniques to the design of payment rules. This computational approach to mechanism design is applicable to domains with multi-dimensional types and situations where computational efficiency is a concern. Specifically, given an outcome rule and access to a type distribution, we train a support vector machine with a specific structure imposed on the discriminant function, such that it implicitly learns a corresponding payment rule with desirable incentive properties. We extend the framework to adopt succinct k-wise dependent valuations, leveraging a connection with maximum a posteriori assignment on Markov networks to enable training to scale up to settings with a large number of items; we evaluate this construction in the case where k=2. We present applications to multiparameter combinatorial auctions with approximate winner determination, and the assignment problem with an egalitarian outcome rule. Experimental results demonstrate that the construction produces payment rules with low ex post regret, and that penalizing classification error is effective in preventing failures of ex post individual rationality.

References

[1]
Abraham, I., Babaioff, M., Dughmi, S., and Roughgarden, T. 2012. Combinatorial auctions with restricted complements. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 3--16.
[2]
Ashlagi, I., Braverman, M., Hassidim, A., and Monderer, D. 2010. Monotonicity and implementability. Econometrica 78, 5, 1749--1772.
[3]
Ausubel, L. M. and Milgrom, P. 2006. The lovely but lonely Vickrey auction. In Combinatorial Auctions, P. Cramton, Y. Shoham, and P. Steinberg, Eds., MIT Press, Chapter 1, 17--40.
[4]
Bei, X. and Huang, Z. 2011. Bayesian incentive compatibility via fractional assignments. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 720--733.
[5]
Budish, E. 2011. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. J. Political Economy 119, 1061--1103.
[6]
Cai, Y., Daskalakis, C., and Weinberg, S. M. 2012. An algorithmic characterization of multi-dimensional mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 459--478.
[7]
Carroll, G. 2011. A quantitative approach to incentives: Application to voting rules. Tech. rep., MIT.
[8]
Conitzer, V. and Sandholm, T. 2002. Complexity of mechanism design. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 103--110.
[9]
Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., and Santi, P. 2005. Combinatorial auctions with k-wise dependent valuations. In Proceedings of the 20th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 248--254.
[10]
Day, R. and Milgrom, P. 2008. Core-selecting package auctions. Int. J. Game Theory 36, 3--4, 393--407.
[11]
Erdil, A. and Klemperer, P. 2010. A new payment rule for core-selecting package auctions. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 8, 2--3, 537--547.
[12]
Guo, M. and Conitzer, V. 2010. Computationally feasible automated mechanism design: General approach and case studies. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[13]
Hartline, J. D., Kleinberg, R., and Malekian, A. 2011. Bayesian incentive compatibility via matchings. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 734--747.
[14]
Joachims, T., Finley, T., and Yu, C.-N. J. 2009. Cutting-plane training of structural SVMs. Machine Learn. 77, 1, 27--59.
[15]
Lahaie, S. 2009. A kernel method for market clearing. In Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 208--213.
[16]
Lahaie, S. 2010. Stability and incentive compatibility in a kernel-based combinatorial auction. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 811--816.
[17]
Lavi, R., Mu’alem, A., and Nisan, N. 2003. Towards a characterization of truthful combinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 574--583.
[18]
Lavi, R. and Swamy, C. 2005. Truthful and near-optimal mechanism design via linear programming. In Proceedings of the 46th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 595--604.
[19]
Lehmann, D., O’Callaghan, L. I., and Shoham, Y. 2002. Truth revelation in approximately efficient combinatorial auctions. J. ACM 49, 577--602.
[20]
Lubin, B. 2010. Combinatorial markets in theory and practice: Mitigating incentives and facilitating elicitation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Harvard University.
[21]
Lubin, B. and Parkes, D. C. 2009. Quantifying the strategyproofness of mechanisms via metrics on payoff distributions. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 349--358.
[22]
Lubin, B. and Parkes, D. C. 2012. Approximate strategyproofness. Current Science 103, 9, 1021--1032.
[23]
Myerson, R. B. 1981. Optimal auction design. Math. Operations Res. 6, 1, 58--73.
[24]
Parkes, D. C., Kalagnanam, J., and Eso, M. 2001. Achieving budget-balance with Vickrey-based payment schemes in exchanges. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1161--1168.
[25]
Pathak, P. and Sönmez, T. 2013. School admissions reform in Chicago and England: Comparing mechanisms by their vulnerability to manipulation. Amer. Econ. Rev. 103, 80--106.
[26]
Rastegari, B., Condon, A., and Leyton-Brown, K. 2011. Revenue monotonicity in deterministic, dominant-strategy combinatorial auctions. Artif. Intell. 175, 441--456.
[27]
Saks, M. and Yu, L. 2005. Weak monotonicity suffices for truthfulness on convex domains. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 286--293.
[28]
Sandholm, T. 2002. Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artif. Intell. 135, 1--2, 1--54.
[29]
Taskar, B., Chatalbashev, V., and Koller, D. 2004. Learning associative Markov networks. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning.
[30]
Tsochantaridis, I., Joachims, T., Hofmann, T., and Altun, Y. 2005. Large margin methods for structured and interdependent output variables. J. Machine Learn. Res. 6, 1453--1484.
[31]
Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., and Matsubara, S. 2004. The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: New fraud in internet auctions. Games Econ. Behavior 46, 1, 174--188.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Optimal Auctions through Deep Learning: Advances in Differentiable EconomicsJournal of the ACM10.1145/363074971:1(1-53)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Breaking the traditional: a survey of algorithmic mechanism design applied to economic and complex environmentsNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-023-08647-135:22(16193-16222)Online publication date: 20-May-2023
  • (2022)Optimal-er auctions through attentionProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3600270.3602787(34734-34747)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation  Volume 3, Issue 1
Special Issue on EC'12, Part 1
March 2015
143 pages
ISSN:2167-8375
EISSN:2167-8383
DOI:10.1145/2752509
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 March 2015
Accepted: 01 December 2013
Revised: 01 November 2013
Received: 01 March 2013
Published in TEAC Volume 3, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Computational Mechanism Design
  2. Support Vector Machines

Qualifiers

  • Announcement
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • EURYI award
  • SNF Postdoctoral Fellowship
  • NDSEG fellowship
  • National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Optimal Auctions through Deep Learning: Advances in Differentiable EconomicsJournal of the ACM10.1145/363074971:1(1-53)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Breaking the traditional: a survey of algorithmic mechanism design applied to economic and complex environmentsNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-023-08647-135:22(16193-16222)Online publication date: 20-May-2023
  • (2022)Optimal-er auctions through attentionProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3600270.3602787(34734-34747)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2022
  • (2019)Machine Learning for Optimal Economic DesignThe Future of Economic Design10.1007/978-3-030-18050-8_70(495-515)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2019
  • (2018)Deep learning for multi-facility location mechanism designProceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3304415.3304453(261-267)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2018
  • (2016)Automated mechanism design without money via machine learningProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3060621.3060682(433-439)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2016
  • (2016)A general statistical framework for designing strategy-proof assignment mechanismsProceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3020948.3021003(527-536)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2016

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media