arXiv subjects

S. Matthew Weinberg

Publications and source records attributed to S. Matthew Weinberg.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

arXiv2018

A Duality-Based Unified Approach to Bayesian Mechanism Design

We provide a unified view of many recent developments in Bayesian mechanism design, including the black-box reductions of Cai et al. [CDW13b], simple auctions for additive buyers [HN12], and posted-price mechanisms for unit-demand bidders [CHK07]. Additionally, we show that viewing these three previously disjoint lines of work through the same lens leads to new developments as well. First, we provide a duality framework for Bayesian mechanism design, which naturally accommodates multiple agents and arbitrary objectives/feasibility constraints. Using this, we prove that either a posted-price mechanism or the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves auction with per-bidder entry fees achieves a constant-factor of the optimal revenue achievable by a Bayesian Incentive Compatible mechanism whenever buyers are unit-demand or additive, unifying previous breakthroughs of Chawla et al. [CHMS10] and Yao [Yao15], and improving both approximation ratios (from 30 to 24 and 69 to 8, respectively). Finally, we show that this view also leads to improved structural characterizations in the Cai et al. framework.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Smoothed Analysis of Multi-Item Auctions with Correlated Values

Consider a seller with m heterogeneous items for sale to a single additive buyer whose values for the items are arbitrarily correlated. It was previously shown that, in such settings, distributions exist for which the seller's optimal revenue is infinite, but the best "simple" mechanism achieves revenue at most one ([Briest et. al 15], [Hart and Nisan 13]), even when $m=2$. This result has long served as a cautionary tale discouraging the study of multi-item auctions without some notion of "independent items". In this work we initiate a smoothed analysis of such multi-item auction settings. We consider a buyer whose item values are drawn from an arbitrarily correlated multi-dimensional distribution then randomly perturbed with magnitude $δ$ under several natural perturbation models. On one hand, we prove that the ([Briest et. al 15], [Hart and Nisan 13]) construction is surprisingly robust to certain natural perturbations of this form, and the infinite gap remains. On the other hand, we provide a smoothed model such that the approximation guarantee of simple mechanisms is smoothed-finite. We show that when the perturbation has magnitude $δ$, pricing only the grand bundle guarantees an $O(1/δ)$-approximation to the optimal revenue. That is, no matter the (worst-case) initially correlated distribution, these tiny perturbations suffice to bring the gap down from infinite to finite. We further show that the same guarantees hold when $n$ buyers have values drawn from an arbitrarily correlated $mn$-dimensional distribution (without any dependence on $n$). Taken together, these analyses further pin down key properties of correlated distributions that result in large gaps between simplicity and optimality.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Complement-Free Couples Must Communicate: A Hardness Result for Two-Player Combinatorial Auctions

We study the communication complexity of welfare maximization in combinatorial auctions with $m$ items and two subadditive bidders. A $\frac{1}{2}$-approximation can be guaranteed by a trivial randomized protocol with zero communication, or a trivial deterministic protocol with $O(1)$ communication. We show that outperforming these trivial protocols requires exponential communication, settling an open question of [DobzinskiNS10, Feige09]. Specifically, we show that any (randomized) protocol guaranteeing a $(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{6}{\log_2 m})$-approximation requires communication exponential in $m$. This is tight even up to lower-order terms: we further present a $(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{O(\log m)})$-approximation in poly($m$) communication. To derive our results, we introduce a new class of subadditive functions that are "far from" fractionally subadditive functions, and may be of independent interest for future works. Beyond our main result, we consider the spectrum of valuations between fractionally-subadditive and subadditive via the MPH hierarchy. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results towards combinatorial auctions with strategic bidders.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Bitcoin: A Natural Oligopoly

Although Bitcoin was intended to be a decentralized digital currency, in practice, mining power is quite concentrated. This fact is a persistent source of concern for the Bitcoin community. We provide an explanation using a simple model to capture miners' incentives to invest in equipment. In our model, $n$ miners compete for a prize of fixed size. Each miner chooses an investment $q_i$, incurring cost $c_i q_i$, and then receives reward $\frac{q_i^α}{\sum_j q_j^α}$, for some $α\geq 1$. When $c_i = c_j$ for all $i,j$, and $α= 1$, there is a unique equilibrium where all miners invest equally. However, we prove that under seemingly mild deviations from this model, equilibrium outcomes become drastically more centralized. In particular, (a) When costs are asymmetric, if miner $i$ chooses to invest, then miner $j$ has market share at least $1-\frac{c_j}{c_i}$. That is, if miner $j$ has costs that are (e.g.) $20\%$ lower than those of miner $i$, then miner $j$ must control at least $20\%$ of the \emph{total} mining power. (b) In the presence of economies of scale ($α> 1$), every market participant has a market share of at least $1-\frac{1}α$, implying that the market features at most $\fracα{α- 1}$ miners in total. We discuss the implications of our results for the future design of cryptocurrencies. In particular, our work further motivates the study of protocols that minimize "orphaned" blocks, proof-of-stake protocols, and incentive compatible protocols.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2018

Formal Barriers to Longest-Chain Proof-of-Stake Protocols

The security of most existing cryptocurrencies is based on a concept called Proof-of-Work, in which users must solve a computationally hard cryptopuzzle to authorize transactions (`one unit of computation, one vote'). This leads to enormous expenditure on hardware and electricity in order to collect the rewards associated with transaction authorization. Proof-of-Stake is an alternative concept that instead selects users to authorize transactions proportional to their wealth (`one coin, one vote'). Some aspects of the two paradigms are the same. For instance, obtaining voting power in Proof-of-Stake has a monetary cost just as in Proof-of-Work: a coin cannot be freely duplicated any more easily than a unit of computation. However some aspects are fundamentally different. In particular, exactly because Proof-of-Stake is wasteless, there is no inherent resource cost to deviating (commonly referred to as the `Nothing-at-Stake' problem). In contrast to prior work, we focus on incentive-driven deviations (any participant will deviate if doing so yields higher revenue) instead of adversarial corruption (an adversary may take over a significant fraction of the network, but the remaining players follow the protocol). The main results of this paper are several formal barriers to designing incentive-compatible proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies (that don't apply to proof-of-work).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2018

Simple Mechanisms for a Subadditive Buyer and Applications to Revenue Monotonicity

We study the revenue maximization problem of a seller with n heterogeneous items for sale to a single buyer whose valuation function for sets of items is unknown and drawn from some distribution D. We show that if D is a distribution over subadditive valuations with independent items, then the better of pricing each item separately or pricing only the grand bundle achieves a constant-factor approximation to the revenue of the optimal mechanism. This includes buyers who are k-demand, additive up to a matroid constraint, or additive up to constraints of any downwards-closed set system (and whose values for the individual items are sampled independently), as well as buyers who are fractionally subadditive with item multipliers drawn independently. Our proof makes use of the core-tail decomposition framework developed in prior work showing similar results for the significantly simpler class of additive buyers [LY13, BILW14]. In the second part of the paper, we develop a connection between approximately optimal simple mechanisms and approximate revenue monotonicity with respect to buyers' valuations. Revenue non-monotonicity is the phenomenon that sometimes strictly increasing buyers' values for every set can strictly decrease the revenue of the optimal mechanism [HR12]. Using our main result, we derive a bound on how bad this degradation can be (and dub such a bound a proof of approximate revenue monotonicity); we further show that better bounds on approximate monotonicity imply a better analysis of our simple mechanisms.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

Selling to a No-Regret Buyer

We consider the problem of a single seller repeatedly selling a single item to a single buyer (specifically, the buyer has a value drawn fresh from known distribution $D$ in every round). Prior work assumes that the buyer is fully rational and will perfectly reason about how their bids today affect the seller's decisions tomorrow. In this work we initiate a different direction: the buyer simply runs a no-regret learning algorithm over possible bids. We provide a fairly complete characterization of optimal auctions for the seller in this domain. Specifically: - If the buyer bids according to EXP3 (or any "mean-based" learning algorithm), then the seller can extract expected revenue arbitrarily close to the expected welfare. This auction is independent of the buyer's valuation $D$, but somewhat unnatural as it is sometimes in the buyer's interest to overbid. - There exists a learning algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ such that if the buyer bids according to $\mathcal{A}$ then the optimal strategy for the seller is simply to post the Myerson reserve for $D$ every round. - If the buyer bids according to EXP3 (or any "mean-based" learning algorithm), but the seller is restricted to "natural" auction formats where overbidding is dominated (e.g. Generalized First-Price or Generalized Second-Price), then the optimal strategy for the seller is a pay-your-bid format with decreasing reserves over time. Moreover, the seller's optimal achievable revenue is characterized by a linear program, and can be unboundedly better than the best truthful auction yet simultaneously unboundedly worse than the expected welfare.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

A Constructive Approach to Reduced-Form Auctions with Applications to Multi-Item Mechanism Design

We provide a constructive proof of Border's theorem [Bor91, HR15a] and its generalization to reduced-form auctions with asymmetric bidders [Bor07, MV10, CKM13]. Given a reduced form, we identify a subset of Border constraints that are necessary and sufficient to determine its feasibility. Importantly, the number of these constraints is linear in the total number of bidder types. In addition, we provide a characterization result showing that every feasible reduced form can be induced by an ex-post allocation rule that is a distribution over ironings of the same total ordering of the union of all bidders' types. We show how to leverage our results for single-item reduced forms to design auctions with heterogeneous items and asymmetric bidders with valuations that are additive over items. Appealing to our constructive Border's theorem, we obtain polynomial-time algorithms for computing the revenue-optimal auction. Appealing to our characterization of feasible reduced forms, we characterize feasible multi-item allocation rules.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

The menu complexity of "one-and-a-half-dimensional" mechanism design

We study the menu complexity of optimal and approximately-optimal auctions in the context of the "FedEx" problem, a so-called "one-and-a-half-dimensional" setting where a single bidder has both a value and a deadline for receiving an [FGKK16]. The menu complexity of an auction is equal to the number of distinct (allocation, price) pairs that a bidder might receive [HN13]. We show the following when the bidder has $n$ possible deadlines: - Exponential menu complexity is necessary to be exactly optimal: There exist instances where the optimal mechanism has menu complexity is $2^n-1$. This matches exactly the upper bound provided by Fiat et al.'s algorithm, and resolves one of their open questions [FGKK16]. - Fully polynomial menu complexity is necessary and sufficient for approximation: For all instances, there exists a mechanism guaranteeing a multiplicative (1-ε)-approximation to the optimal revenue with menu complexity $O(n^{3/2}\sqrt{\frac{\min\{n/ε,\ln(v_{\max})\}}ε}) = O(n^2/ε)$, where $v_{\max}$ denotes the largest value in the support of integral distributions. - There exist instances where any mechanism guaranteeing a multiplicative $(1-O(1/n^2))$-approximation to the optimal revenue requires menu complexity $Ω(n^2)$. Our main technique is the polygon approximation of concave functions [Rote19], and our results here should be of independent interest. We further show how our techniques can be used to resolve an open question of [DW17] on the menu complexity of optimal auctions for a budget-constrained buyer.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

Multi-armed Bandit Problems with Strategic Arms

We study a strategic version of the multi-armed bandit problem, where each arm is an individual strategic agent and we, the principal, pull one arm each round. When pulled, the arm receives some private reward $v_a$ and can choose an amount $x_a$ to pass on to the principal (keeping $v_a-x_a$ for itself). All non-pulled arms get reward $0$. Each strategic arm tries to maximize its own utility over the course of $T$ rounds. Our goal is to design an algorithm for the principal incentivizing these arms to pass on as much of their private rewards as possible. When private rewards are stochastically drawn each round ($v_a^t \leftarrow D_a$), we show that: - Algorithms that perform well in the classic adversarial multi-armed bandit setting necessarily perform poorly: For all algorithms that guarantee low regret in an adversarial setting, there exist distributions $D_1,\ldots,D_k$ and an approximate Nash equilibrium for the arms where the principal receives reward $o(T)$. - Still, there exists an algorithm for the principal that induces a game among the arms where each arm has a dominant strategy. When each arm plays its dominant strategy, the principal sees expected reward $μ'T - o(T)$, where $μ'$ is the second-largest of the means $\mathbb{E}[D_{a}]$. This algorithm maintains its guarantee if the arms are non-strategic ($x_a = v_a$), and also if there is a mix of strategic and non-strategic arms.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

On Simultaneous Two-player Combinatorial Auctions

We consider the following communication problem: Alice and Bob each have some valuation functions $v_1(\cdot)$ and $v_2(\cdot)$ over subsets of $m$ items, and their goal is to partition the items into $S, \bar{S}$ in a way that maximizes the welfare, $v_1(S) + v_2(\bar{S})$. We study both the allocation problem, which asks for a welfare-maximizing partition and the decision problem, which asks whether or not there exists a partition guaranteeing certain welfare, for binary XOS valuations. For interactive protocols with $poly(m)$ communication, a tight 3/4-approximation is known for both [Fei06,DS06]. For interactive protocols, the allocation problem is provably harder than the decision problem: any solution to the allocation problem implies a solution to the decision problem with one additional round and $\log m$ additional bits of communication via a trivial reduction. Surprisingly, the allocation problem is provably easier for simultaneous protocols. Specifically, we show: 1) There exists a simultaneous, randomized protocol with polynomial communication that selects a partition whose expected welfare is at least $3/4$ of the optimum. This matches the guarantee of the best interactive, randomized protocol with polynomial communication. 2) For all $\varepsilon > 0$, any simultaneous, randomized protocol that decides whether the welfare of the optimal partition is $\geq 1$ or $\leq 3/4 - 1/108+\varepsilon$ correctly with probability $> 1/2 + 1/ poly(m)$ requires exponential communication. This provides a separation between the attainable approximation guarantees via interactive ($3/4$) versus simultaneous ($\leq 3/4-1/108$) protocols with polynomial communication. In other words, this trivial reduction from decision to allocation problems provably requires the extra round of communication.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

A Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for a Buyer with Complements

We consider a revenue-maximizing seller with $m$ heterogeneous items and a single buyer whose valuation $v$ for the items may exhibit both substitutes (i.e., for some $S, T$, $v(S \cup T) < v(S) + v(T)$) and complements (i.e., for some $S, T$, $v(S \cup T) > v(S) + v(T)$). We show that the mechanism first proposed by Babaioff et al. [2014] - the better of selling the items separately and bundling them together - guarantees a $Θ(d)$ fraction of the optimal revenue, where $d$ is a measure on the degree of complementarity. Note that this is the first approximately optimal mechanism for a buyer whose valuation exhibits any kind of complementarity, and extends the work of Rubinstein and Weinberg [2015], which proved that the same simple mechanisms achieve a constant factor approximation when buyer valuations are subadditive, the most general class of complement-free valuations. Our proof is enabled by the recent duality framework developed in Cai et al. [2016], which we use to obtain a bound on the optimal revenue in this setting. Our main technical contributions are specialized to handle the intricacies of settings with complements, and include an algorithm for partitioning edges in a hypergraph. Even nailing down the right model and notion of "degree of complementarity" to obtain meaningful results is of interest, as the natural extensions of previous definitions provably fail.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

The Competition Complexity of Auctions: A Bulow-Klemperer Result for Multi-Dimensional Bidders

A seminal result of Bulow and Klemperer [1989] demonstrates the power of competition for extracting revenue: when selling a single item to $n$ bidders whose values are drawn i.i.d. from a regular distribution, the simple welfare-maximizing VCG mechanism (in this case, a second price-auction) with one additional bidder extracts at least as much revenue in expectation as the optimal mechanism. The beauty of this theorem stems from the fact that VCG is a {\em prior-independent} mechanism, where the seller possesses no information about the distribution, and yet, by recruiting one additional bidder it performs better than any prior-dependent mechanism tailored exactly to the distribution at hand (without the additional bidder). In this work, we establish the first {\em full Bulow-Klemperer} results in {\em multi-dimensional} environments, proving that by recruiting additional bidders, the revenue of the VCG mechanism surpasses that of the optimal (possibly randomized, Bayesian incentive compatible) mechanism. For a given environment with i.i.d. bidders, we term the number of additional bidders needed to achieve this guarantee the environment's {\em competition complexity}. Using the recent duality-based framework of Cai et al. [2016] for reasoning about optimal revenue, we show that the competition complexity of $n$ bidders with additive valuations over $m$ independent, regular items is at most $n+2m-2$ and at least $\log(m)$. We extend our results to bidders with additive valuations subject to downward-closed constraints, showing that these significantly more general valuations increase the competition complexity by at most an additive $m-1$ factor. We further improve this bound for the special case of matroid constraints, and provide additional extensions as well.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Signal to noise in matching markets

In many matching markets, one side "applies" to the other, and these applications are often expensive and time-consuming (e.g. students applying to college). It is tempting to think that making the application process easier should benefit both sides of the market. After all, the applicants could submit more applications, and the recipients would have more applicants to choose from. In this paper, we propose and analyze a simple model to understand settings where both sides of the market suffer from increased number of applications. The main insights of the paper are derived from quantifying the signal to noise tradeoffs in random matchings, as applications provide a signal of the applicants' preferences. When applications are costly the signal is stronger, as the act of making an application itself is meaningful. Therefore more applications may yield potentially better matches, but fewer applications create stronger signals for the receiving side to learn true preferences. We derive analytic characterizations of the expected quality of stable matchings in a simple utility model where applicants have an overall quality, but also synergy with specific possible partners. Our results show how reducing application cost without introducing an effective signaling mechanism might lead to inefficiencies for both sides of the market.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Condorcet-Consistent and Approximately Strategyproof Tournament Rules

We consider the manipulability of tournament rules for round-robin tournaments of $n$ competitors. Specifically, $n$ competitors are competing for a prize, and a tournament rule $r$ maps the result of all $\binom{n}{2}$ pairwise matches (called a tournament, $T$) to a distribution over winners. Rule $r$ is Condorcet-consistent if whenever $i$ wins all $n-1$ of her matches, $r$ selects $i$ with probability $1$. We consider strategic manipulation of tournaments where player $j$ might throw their match to player $i$ in order to increase the likelihood that one of them wins the tournament. Regardless of the reason why $j$ chooses to do this, the potential for manipulation exists as long as $\Pr[r(T) = i]$ increases by more than $\Pr[r(T) = j]$ decreases. Unfortunately, it is known that every Condorcet-consistent rule is manipulable (Altman and Kleinberg). In this work, we address the question of how manipulable Condorcet-consistent rules must necessarily be - by trying to minimize the difference between the increase in $\Pr[r(T) = i]$ and decrease in $\Pr[r(T) = j]$ for any potential manipulating pair. We show that every Condorcet-consistent rule is in fact $1/3$-manipulable, and that selecting a winner according to a random single elimination bracket is not $α$-manipulable for any $α> 1/3$. We also show that many previously studied tournament formats are all $1/2$-manipulable, and the popular class of Copeland rules (any rule that selects a player with the most wins) are all in fact $1$-manipulable, the worst possible. Finally, we consider extensions to match-fixing among sets of more than two players.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Revenue Maximization and Ex-Post Budget Constraints

We consider the problem of a revenue-maximizing seller with m items for sale to n additive bidders with hard budget constraints, assuming that the seller has some prior distribution over bidder values and budgets. The prior may be correlated across items and budgets of the same bidder, but is assumed independent across bidders. We target mechanisms that are Bayesian Incentive Compatible, but that are ex-post Individually Rational and ex-post budget respecting. Virtually no such mechanisms are known that satisfy all these conditions and guarantee any revenue approximation, even with just a single item. We provide a computationally efficient mechanism that is a $3$-approximation with respect to all BIC, ex-post IR, and ex-post budget respecting mechanisms. Note that the problem is NP-hard to approximate better than a factor of 16/15, even in the case where the prior is a point mass \cite{ChakrabartyGoel}. We further characterize the optimal mechanism in this setting, showing that it can be interpreted as a distribution over virtual welfare maximizers. We prove our results by making use of a black-box reduction from mechanism to algorithm design developed by \cite{CaiDW13b}. Our main technical contribution is a computationally efficient $3$-approximation algorithm for the algorithmic problem that results by an application of their framework to this problem. The algorithmic problem has a mixed-sign objective and is NP-hard to optimize exactly, so it is surprising that a computationally efficient approximation is possible at all. In the case of a single item ($m=1$), the algorithmic problem can be solved exactly via exhaustive search, leading to a computationally efficient exact algorithm and a stronger characterization of the optimal mechanism as a distribution over virtual value maximizers.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Parallel Algorithms for Select and Partition with Noisy Comparisons

We consider the problem of finding the $k^{th}$ highest element in a totally ordered set of $n$ elements (select), and partitioning a totally ordered set into the top $k$ and bottom $n-k$ elements (partition) using pairwise comparisons. Motivated by settings like peer grading or crowdsourcing, where multiple rounds of interaction are costly and queried comparisons may be inconsistent with the ground truth, we evaluate algorithms based both on their total runtime and the number of interactive rounds in three comparison models: noiseless (where the comparisons are correct), erasure (where comparisons are erased with probability $1-γ$), and noisy (where comparisons are correct with probability $1/2+γ/2$ and incorrect otherwise). We provide numerous matching upper and lower bounds in all three models. Even our results in the noiseless model, which is quite well-studied in the TCS literature on parallel algorithms, are novel.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2015

Interpolating Between Truthful and non-Truthful Mechanisms for Combinatorial Auctions

We study the communication complexity of combinatorial auctions via interpolation mechanisms that interpolate between non-truthful and truthful protocols. Specifically, an interpolation mechanism has two phases. In the first phase, the bidders participate in some non-truthful protocol whose output is itself a truthful protocol. In the second phase, the bidders participate in the truthful protocol selected during phase one. Note that virtually all existing auctions have either a non-existent first phase (and are therefore truthful mechanisms), or a non-existent second phase (and are therefore just traditional protocols, analyzed via the Price of Anarchy/Stability). The goal of this paper is to understand the benefits of interpolation mechanisms versus truthful mechanisms or traditional protocols, and develop the necessary tools to formally study them. Interestingly, we exhibit settings where interpolation mechanisms greatly outperform the optimal traditional and truthful protocols. Yet, we also exhibit settings where interpolation mechanisms are provably no better than truthful ones. Finally, we apply our new machinery to prove that the recent single-bid mechanism of Devanur et. al.~\cite{DevanurMSW15} (the only pre-existing interpolation mechanism in the literature) achieves the optimal price of anarchy among a wide class of protocols, a claim that simply can't be addressed by appealing just to machinery from communication complexity or the study of truthful mechanisms.

cs.GT↗