Redistribution of VCG Payments in Assignment of Heterogeneous Objects

  • Sujit Gujar
  • Narahari Yadati
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5385)

Abstract

In this paper, we seek to design a Groves mechanism for assigning p heterogeneous objects among n competing agents (n > p) with unit demand, satisfying weak budget balance, individual rationality, and minimizing the budget imbalance. This calls for designing an appropriate rebate function. When the objects are identical, this problem has been solved by Moulin [1] and Guo and Conitzer [2]. However, it remains an open problem to design such a rebate function when the objects are heterogeneous. We propose a mechanism, HETERO and conjecture that HETERO is individually rational and weakly budget balanced. We provide empirical evidence for our conjecture through experimental simulations.

Keywords

Groves mechanism Budget imbalance Redistribution function Moulin mechanism Rebate function 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Moulin, H.: Efficient, strategy-proof and almost budget-balanced assignment. Technical report, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guo, M., Conitzer, V.: Worst-case optimal redistribution of VCG payments. In: EC 2007: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 30–39. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16(1), 8–37 (1961)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E.: Multi-part pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11, 17–23 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groves, T.: Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41, 617–631 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, J.R., Laffont, J.J.: Incentives in Public Decision Making. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laffont, J., Maskin, E.: A differential approach to expected utility maximizing mechanisms. In: Laffont, J.J. (ed.) Aggregation and Revelation of Preferences (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bailey, M.J.: The demand revealing process: To distribute the surplus. Public Choice 91(2), 107–126 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavallo, R.: Optimal decision-making with minimal waste: strategyproof redistribution of VCG payments. In: AAMAS 2006: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 882–889. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujit Gujar
    • 1
  • Narahari Yadati
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Computer Science and AutomationIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations