Advertisement

Strategy-Proof Mechanisms for Interdependent Task Allocation with Private Durations

  • Ayman Ghoneim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7047)

Abstract

Classical mechanism design assumes that an agent’s value of any determined outcome depends only on its private information. However in many situations, an agent’s value of an outcome depends on the private information of other agents in addition to its private information. In such settings where agents have interdependent valuations, strategy-proof mechanisms have not been proposed yet, and when these mechanisms are possible is still an open research question. Toward addressing this question, we consider the interdependent task allocation (ITA) problem, where a set of tasks with predefined dependencies is to be assigned to self-interested agents based on what they report about their privately known capabilities and costs. We consider here the possibility that tasks may fail during their executions, which imposes interdependencies between the agents’ valuations. In this study, we design mechanisms and prove their strategy-proofness along with other properties for a class of ITA settings where an agent’s privately known costs are modeled as privately known durations.

Keywords

Social Welfare Private Information Assigned Task Private Cost Successor Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clarke, E.H.: Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11, 17–33 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Green, J.R., Laffont, J.J.: Characterization of satisfactory mechanisms for the revelation of preferences for public goods. Econometrica 45, 427–438 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Groves, T.: Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41, 617–631 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Krogt, R., de Weerdt, M.M., Zhang, Y.: Mechanism design and multiagent planning. In: The 18th ECAI, pp. 423–427 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D., Green, J.R.: Microeconomic Theory. Oxford Uni. Press (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mezzetti, C.: Mechanism design with interdependent valuations: Efficiency. Econometrica 72(5) (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Myerson, R.B.: Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47(1), 61–73 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nisan, N., Ronen, A.: Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior 35 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porter, R., Ronen, A., Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Fault tolerant mechanism design. Artificial Intelligence 172(15), 1783–1799 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Mezzetti, C., Giovannucci, A., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Dash, R.K., Jennings, N.R.: Trust-based mechanisms for robust and efficient task allocation in the presence of execution uncertainty. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 35, 119–159 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of Finance 16, 8–37 (1961)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, Y., de Weerdt, M.M.: Creating incentives to prevent intentional execution failures. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM, pp. 431–434 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayman Ghoneim
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.NICTACanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations