Single-parameter utility

Last updated

In mechanism design, an agent is said to have single-parameter utility if his valuation of the possible outcomes can be represented by a single number. For example, in an auction for a single item, the utilities of all agents are single-parametric, since they can be represented by their monetary evaluation of the item. In contrast, in a combinatorial auction for two or more related items, the utilities are usually not single-parametric, since they are usually represented by their evaluations to all possible bundles of items.

Contents

Notation

There is a set of possible outcomes.

There are agents which have different valuations for each outcome.

In general, each agent can assign a different and unrelated value to every outcome in .

In the special case of single-parameter utility, each agent has a publicly known outcome proper subset which are the "winning outcomes" for agent (e.g., in a single-item auction, contains the outcome in which agent wins the item).

For every agent, there is a number which represents the "winning-value" of . The agent's valuation of the outcomes in can take one of two values: [1] :228

The vector of the winning-values of all agents is denoted by .

For every agent , the vector of all winning-values of the other agents is denoted by . So .

A social choice function is a function that takes as input the value-vector and returns an outcome . It is denoted by or .

Monotonicity

The weak monotonicity property has a special form in single-parameter domains. A social choice function is weakly-monotonic if for every agent and every , if:

and
then:

I.e, if agent wins by declaring a certain value, then he can also win by declaring a higher value (when the declarations of the other agents are the same).

The monotonicity property can be generalized to randomized mechanisms, which return a probability-distribution over the space . [1] :334 The WMON property implies that for every agent and every , the function:

is a weakly-increasing function of .

Critical value

For every weakly-monotone social-choice function, for every agent and for every vector , there is a critical value, such that agent wins if-and-only-if his bid is at least .

For example, in a second-price auction, the critical value for agent is the highest bid among the other agents.

In single-parameter environments, deterministic truthful mechanisms have a very specific format. [1] :334 Any deterministic truthful mechanism is fully specified by the set of functions c. Agent wins if and only if his bid is at least , and in that case, he pays exactly .

Deterministic implementation

It is known that, in any domain, weak monotonicity is a necessary condition for implementability. I.e, a social-choice function can be implemented by a truthful mechanism, only if it is weakly-monotone.

In a single-parameter domain, weak monotonicity is also a sufficient condition for implementability. I.e, for every weakly-monotonic social-choice function, there is a deterministic truthful mechanism that implements it. This means that it is possible to implement various non-linear social-choice functions, e.g. maximizing the sum-of-squares of values or the min-max value.

The mechanism should work in the following way: [1] :229

This mechanism is truthful, because the net utility of each agent is:

Hence, the agent prefers to win if and to lose if , which is exactly what happens when he tells the truth.

Randomized implementation

A randomized mechanism is a probability-distribution on deterministic mechanisms. A randomized mechanism is called truthful-in-expectation if truth-telling gives the agent a largest expected value.

In a randomized mechanism, every agent has a probability of winning, defined as:

and an expected payment, defined as:

In a single-parameter domain, a randomized mechanism is truthful-in-expectation if-and-only if: [1] :232

Note that in a deterministic mechanism, is either 0 or 1, the first condition reduces to weak-monotonicity of the Outcome function and the second condition reduces to charging each agent his critical value.

Single-parameter vs. multi-parameter domains

When the utilities are not single-parametric (e.g. in combinatorial auctions), the mechanism design problem is much more complicated. The VCG mechanism is one of the only mechanisms that works for such general valuations.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mechanism design</span> Field in game theory

Mechanism design is a field in economics and game theory that takes an objectives-first approach to designing economic mechanisms or incentives, toward desired objectives, in strategic settings, where players act rationally. Because it starts at the end of the game, then goes backwards, it is also called reverse game theory. It has broad applications, from economics and politics in such fields as market design, auction theory and social choice theory to networked-systems.

In game theory, an asymmetric game where players have private information is said to be strategy-proof or strategyproof (SP) if it is a weakly-dominant strategy for every player to reveal his/her private information, i.e. given no information about what the others do, you fare best or at least not worse by being truthful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vickrey auction</span> Auction priced by second-highest sealed bid

A Vickrey auction or sealed-bid second-price auction (SBSPA) is a type of sealed-bid auction. Bidders submit written bids without knowing the bid of the other people in the auction. The highest bidder wins but the price paid is the second-highest bid. This type of auction is strategically similar to an English auction and gives bidders an incentive to bid their true value. The auction was first described academically by Columbia University professor William Vickrey in 1961 though it had been used by stamp collectors since 1893. In 1797 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe sold a manuscript using a sealed-bid, second-price auction.

A mechanism is called incentive-compatible (IC) if every participant can achieve the best outcome to themselves just by acting according to their true preferences.

The revelation principle is a fundamental principle in mechanism design. It states that if a social choice function can be implemented by an arbitrary mechanism, then the same function can be implemented by an incentive-compatible-direct-mechanism with the same equilibrium outcome (payoffs).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Revenue equivalence</span>

Revenue equivalence is a concept in auction theory that states that given certain conditions, any mechanism that results in the same outcomes also has the same expected revenue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vickrey–Clarke–Groves auction</span> Type of sealed-bid multiple-item auction

A Vickrey–Clarke–Groves (VCG) auction is a type of sealed-bid auction of multiple items. Bidders submit bids that report their valuations for the items, without knowing the bids of the other bidders. The auction system assigns the items in a socially optimal manner: it charges each individual the harm they cause to other bidders. It gives bidders an incentive to bid their true valuations, by ensuring that the optimal strategy for each bidder is to bid their true valuations of the items; it can be undermined by bidder collusion and in particular in some circumstances by a single bidder making multiple bids under different names. It is a generalization of a Vickrey auction for multiple items.

In the mathematical theory of matroids, the rank of a matroid is the maximum size of an independent set in the matroid. The rank of a subset S of elements of the matroid is, similarly, the maximum size of an independent subset of S, and the rank function of the matroid maps sets of elements to their ranks.

In mechanism design, a Vickrey–Clarke–Groves (VCG) mechanism is a generic truthful mechanism for achieving a socially-optimal solution. It is a generalization of a Vickrey–Clarke–Groves auction. A VCG auction performs a specific task: dividing items among people. A VCG mechanism is more general: it can be used to select any outcome out of a set of possible outcomes.

In mechanism design, monotonicity is a property of a social choice function. It is a necessary condition for being able to implement the function using a strategyproof mechanism. Its verbal description is:

If changing one agent's type changes the outcome under the social choice function, then the resulting difference in utilities of the new and original outcomes evaluated at the new type of this agent must be at least as much as this difference in utilities evaluated at the original type of this agent.

A Bayesian-optimal mechanism (BOM) is a mechanism in which the designer does not know the valuations of the agents for whom the mechanism is designed, but the designer knows that they are random variables and knows the probability distribution of these variables.

Rental harmony is a kind of a fair division problem in which indivisible items and a fixed monetary cost have to be divided simultaneously. The housemates problem and room-assignment-rent-division are alternative names to the same problem.

A prior-free mechanism (PFM) is a mechanism in which the designer does not have any information on the agents' valuations, not even that they are random variables from some unknown probability distribution.

In mechanism design and auction theory, a profit extraction mechanism is a truthful mechanism whose goal is to win a pre-specified amount of profit, if it is possible.

In auction theory, particularly Bayesian-optimal mechanism design, a virtual valuation of an agent is a function that measures the surplus that can be extracted from that agent.

Bayesian-optimal pricing is a kind of algorithmic pricing in which a seller determines the sell-prices based on probabilistic assumptions on the valuations of the buyers. It is a simple kind of a Bayesian-optimal mechanism, in which the price is determined in advance without collecting actual buyers' bids.

A sequential auction is an auction in which several items are sold, one after the other, to the same group of potential buyers. In a sequential first-price auction (SAFP), each individual item is sold using a first price auction, while in a sequential second-price auction (SASP), each individual item is sold using a second price auction.

In economics and mechanism design, a cost-sharing mechanism is a process by which several agents decide on the scope of a public product or service, and how much each agent should pay for it. Cost-sharing is easy when the marginal cost is constant: in this case, each agent who wants the service just pays its marginal cost. Cost-sharing becomes more interesting when the marginal cost is not constant. With increasing marginal costs, the agents impose a negative externality on each other; with decreasing marginal costs, the agents impose a positive externality on each other. The goal of a cost-sharing mechanism is to divide this externality among the agents.

In economics, dichotomous preferences (DP) are preference relations that divide the set of alternatives to two subsets: "Good" versus "Bad".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Price of anarchy in auctions</span>

The Price of Anarchy (PoA) is a concept in game theory and mechanism design that measures how the social welfare of a system degrades due to selfish behavior of its agents. It has been studied extensively in various contexts, particularly in auctions.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Vazirani, Vijay V.; Nisan, Noam; Roughgarden, Tim; Tardos, Éva (2007). Algorithmic Game Theory (PDF). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-87282-0.