Search

We consider the problem of a designer who wants to allocate resources to representatives, that then distribute the resources they receive among the individuals they represent. Motivated by the way Feeding America, one of the largest U.S. charities, allocates donations to food banks, which then further distribute the donations to food-insecure individuals, we focus on mechanisms that use artificial currencies. We compare auctions through the lens of the Price of Anarchy, with respect to three canonical welfare objectives: utilitarian social welfare (sum of individuals' utilities), Nash social welfare (product of individuals' utilities), and egalitarian social welfare (minimum of individuals' utilities). We prove strong lower bounds on the Price of Anarchy of all auctions that allocate each item to the highest bidder, subject to a mild technical constraint; this includes Feeding America's current auction, the First-Price auction. In sharp contrast, our main result shows that adapting the classic Trading Post mechanism of Shapley and Shubik to this setting, and coupled with Feeding America's choice of budget rule (each representative gets an amount of artificial currency equal to the number of individuals it represents), achieves a small Price of Anarchy for all generalized $p$-mean objectives simultaneously. Our bound on the Price of Anarchy of the Trading Post mechanism depends on $\ell$: the product of the rank and the ``incoherence'' of the underlying valuation matrix, which together capture a notion of how ``spread out'' the values of a matrix are. This notion has been extremely influential in the matrix completion literature, and, to the best of our knowledge, has never been used in auction theory prior to our work. Perhaps surprisingly, we prove that the dependence on $\ell$ is necessary: the Price of Anarchy of the Trading Post mechanism is $\Omega(\sqrt{\ell})$., Comment: The 20th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE 2024)

In the era of Web3, decentralized technologies have emerged as the cornerstone of a new digital paradigm. Backed by a decentralized blockchain architecture, the Web3 space aims to democratize all aspects of the web. From data-sharing to learning models, outsourcing computation is an established, prevalent practice. Verifiable computation makes this practice trustworthy as clients/users can now efficiently validate the integrity of a computation. As verifiable computation gets considered for applications in the Web3 space, decentralization is crucial for system reliability, ensuring that no single entity can suppress clients. At the same time, however, decentralization needs to be balanced with efficiency: clients want their computations done as quickly as possible. Motivated by these issues, we study the trade-off between decentralization and efficiency when outsourcing computational tasks to strategic, rational solution providers. Specifically, we examine this trade-off when the client employs (1) revelation mechanisms, i.e. auctions, where solution providers bid their desired reward for completing the task by a specific deadline and then the client selects which of them will do the task and how much they will be rewarded, and (2) simple, non-revelation mechanisms, where the client commits to the set of rules she will use to map solutions at specific times to rewards and then solution providers decide whether they want to do the task or not. We completely characterize the power and limitations of revelation and non-revelation mechanisms in our model.

We study revenue maximization for agents with additive preferences, subject to downward-closed constraints on the set of feasible allocations. In seminal work, Alaei~\cite{alaei2014bayesian} introduced a powerful multi-to-single agent reduction based on an ex-ante relaxation of the multi-agent problem. This reduction employs a rounding procedure which is an online contention resolution scheme (OCRS) in disguise, a now widely-used method for rounding fractional solutions in online Bayesian and stochastic optimization problems. In this paper, we leverage our vantage point, 10 years after the work of Alaei, with a rich OCRS toolkit and modern approaches to analyzing multi-agent mechanisms; we introduce a general framework for designing non-sequential and sequential multi-agent, revenue-maximizing mechanisms, capturing a wide variety of problems Alaei's framework could not address. Our framework uses an \emph{interim} relaxation, that is rounded to a feasible mechanism using what we call a two-level OCRS, which allows for some structured dependence between the activation of its input elements. For a wide family of constraints, we can construct such schemes using existing OCRSs as a black box; for other constraints, such as knapsack, we construct such schemes from scratch. We demonstrate numerous applications of our framework, including a sequential mechanism that guarantees a $\frac{2e}{e-1} \approx 3.16$ approximation to the optimal revenue for the case of additive agents subject to matroid feasibility constraints. We also show how our framework can be easily extended to multi-parameter procurement auctions, where we provide an OCRS for Stochastic Knapsack that might be of independent interest.

Food waste and food insecurity are two closely related pressing global issues. Food rescue organizations worldwide run programs aimed at addressing the two problems. In this paper, we partner with a non-profit organization in the state of Indiana that leads \emph{Food Drop}, a program that is designed to redirect rejected truckloads of food away from landfills and into food banks. The truckload to food bank matching decisions are currently made by an employee of our partner organization. In addition to this being a very time-consuming task, as perhaps expected from human-based matching decisions, the allocations are often skewed: a small percentage of the possible recipients receives the majority of donations. Our goal in this partnership is to completely automate Food Drop. In doing so, we need a matching algorithm for making real-time decisions that strikes a balance between ensuring fairness for the food banks that receive the food and optimizing efficiency for the truck drivers. In this paper, we describe the theoretical guarantees and experiments that dictated our choice of algorithm in the platform we built and deployed for our partner organization. Our work also makes contributions to the literature on load balancing and balls-into-bins games, that might be of independent interest. Specifically, we study the allocation of $m$ weighted balls into $n$ weighted bins, where each ball has two non-uniformly sampled random bin choices, and prove upper bounds, that hold with high probability, on the maximum load of any bin.

Allocating items in a fair and economically efficient manner is a central problem in fair division. We study this problem for agents with additive preferences, when items are all goods or all chores, divisible or indivisible. The celebrated notion of Nash welfare is known to produce fair and efficient allocations for both divisible and indivisible goods; there is no known analogue for dividing chores. The Nash welfare objective belongs to a large, parameterized family of objectives called the p-mean welfare functions, which includes other notable members, like social welfare and egalitarian welfare. However, among the members of this family, only the Nash welfare produces fair allocations for goods. Incidentally, Nash welfare is also the only member that satisfies the axiom of scale invariance, which is crucially associated with its fairness properties. We define the class of "normalized p-mean" objectives, which imparts the missing key axiom of scale invariance to the p-mean family. Our results show that optimizing the normalized p-mean objectives produces fair and efficient allocations when the items are goods or chores, divisible or indivisible. For instance, the normalized p-means gives us an infinite class of objectives that produce (i) proportional and Pareto efficient allocations for divisible goods, (ii) approximately proportional and Pareto efficient allocations for divisible chores, (iii) EF1 and Pareto efficient allocations for indivisible goods for two agents, and (iv) EF1 and Pareto efficient allocations for indivisible chores for two agents., Comment: 31 Pages