Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2410.07023

Mechanism Design for Exchange Markets

Yusen Zheng·Yukun Cheng·Chenyang Xu·Xiaotie Deng
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Exchange markets are a significant type of market economy, in which each agent holds a budget and certain (divisible) resources available for trading. Most research on equilibrium in exchange economies is based on an environment of completely free competition. However, the orderly operation of markets also relies on effective economic regulatory mechanisms. This paper initiates the study of the mechanism design problem in exchange markets, exploring the potential to establish truthful market rules and mechanisms. This task poses a significant challenge as unlike auctioneers in auction design, the mechanism designer in exchange markets lacks centralized authority to fully control the allocation of resources. In this paper, the mechanism design problem is formalized as a two-stage game. In stage 1, agents submit their private information to the manager, who then formulates market trading rules based on the submitted information. In stage 2, agents are free to engage in transactions within these rules, ultimately reaching an equilibrium. We generalize the concept of liquid welfare from classical budget-feasible auctions and use market liquid welfare as a measure to evaluate the performance of the designed mechanism. Moreover, an extra concept called profitability is introduced to assess whether the market is money-making (profitable) or money-losing (unprofitable). Our goal is to design a truthful mechanism that achieves an (approximate) optimal welfare while minimizing unprofitability as much as possible. Two mechanisms for the problem are proposed. The first one guarantees truthfulness and profitability while approaching an approximation ratio of 1/2 in large markets. The second one is also truthful and achieves 1/2 approximation in general markets but incurs bounded unprofitability. Our aim is for both mechanisms to provide valuable insights into the truthful market design problem.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yusen Zheng, Yukun Cheng, Chenyang Xu, Xiaotie Deng. 2024-10-09. Mechanism Design for Exchange Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07023

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗