On Learnable Mechanism Design

  • David C. Parkes


Computation is increasingly distributed across open networks and performed by self-interested autonomous agents that represent individuals and businesses. Given that these computational agents are often in situations of strategic interaction, it is natural to turn to economics for ideas to control these systems. Mechanism design is particularly attractive in this setting, given its focus on the design of optimal rules to implement good systemwide outcomes despite individual self-interest. Yet these rich computational environments present new challenges for mechanism design, for example, because of system dynamics and because the computational cost of implementing particular equilibrium outcomes is also important. We discuss some of these challenges and provide a reinterpretation of the mathematics of collective intelligence in terms of learnable mechanism design for bounded-rational agents.


Equilibrium Strategy Social Choice Function Combinatorial Auction Collective Intelligence Congestion Game 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Albert and A.-L. Barabasi. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys., 74:47–97, 2002.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Brian Arthur. Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 84(2):406–11, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Aumann and R. Myerson. Endogeneous formation of links between players and coalitions. In AI Roth, editor, The Shapley Value, pages 175–91. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Boutilier. A pomdp formulation of preference elicitation problems. In Proc. 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-02), July 2002. to appear.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. M. Carlson and J. Doyle. Highly optimized tolerance: A mechanism for power laws in designed systems. Physics Review E, 60(2): 1412–27, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Chatterjee and W. Samuelson. Bargaining under incomplete information. Operations Research, 31:835–51, 1983.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. H. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11:17–33, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Compte and P. Jehiel. Auctions and information acquisition: Sealed-bid or dynamic formats? Technical report, CERAS and UCL, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Conen and T. Sandholm. Preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions. In Proc. 3rd ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce (EC-01). ACM Press, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Dutta and S. Mutuswami. Stable networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 76:322–44, 1997.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Dutta and M. O. Jackson. On the formation of networks and groups. In B. Dutta and M. O. Jackson, editors, Models of the Strategic Formation of Networks and Groups. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Fabrikant, E. Koutsoupias, and C. H. Papadimitriou. Heuristically optimized tradeoffs: A new paradigm for power laws in the Internet. In Proc. STOC′02, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Feigenbaum and S. Shenker. Distributed algorithmic mechanism design: Recent results and future directions. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications, pages 1–13, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. P. Foster and R. Vohra. Calibrated learning and correlated equilibrium. Games and Economic Behavior, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. P. Foster and R. Vohra. Regret in the on-line decision problem. Games and Economic Behavior, pages 7–36, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire. Adaptive game playing using multiplicative weights. Games and Economic Behavior, 29:79–103, 1999.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Friedman and S. Shenker. Learning and implementation in the internet. Preprint. Available at:, 1997.
  18. 18.
    E. Friedman and D. C. Parkes. Pricing WiFi at Starbucks—Issues in online mechanism design. In Fourth ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce (EC′03), 2003 (shorter version). Extended version available at
  19. 19.
    D. Fudenberg and D. M. Kreps. Learning mixed equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior, 5:320–67, 1993.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Fudenberg and D. Levine. Theory of Learning in Games. MIT Press, 1997. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Gibbard. Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41:587–602, 1973.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Green and J.-J. Laffont. Characterization of satisfactory mechanisms for the revelation of preferences for public goods. Econometrica, 45:427–38, 1977.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 41:617–31, 1973.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Holzman, N. Kfir-Dahav, D. Monderer, and M. Tennenholtz. Bundling equilibrium in combinatorial auctions. Technical report, Technion and Stanford, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Hudson and T. Sandholm. Effectiveness of preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions. In Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce IV: Designing Mechanisms and Systems, volume 2531 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. O. Jackson and A. Wolinsky. A strategic model of social and economic networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 71:44–74, 1996.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. O. Jackson. Mechanism theory. In The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. O. Jackson. The stability and efficiency of economic and social networks. In Murat Sertel, editor, Advances of Economic Design. Springer-Verlag, 2001. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Kakade, M. Kearns, J. Langford, and L. Ortiz. Correlated equilibria in graphical games. In Proc. 4th ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Kalai and J. O. Ledyard. Repeated implementation. Journal of Economic Theory, 83(2):308–17, 1998.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Kalai and E. Lehrer. Rational learning leads to Nash equilibrium. Econometrica, 61(5):1019–45, 1993.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Kearns, M. L. Littman, and S. Singh. Graphical models for game theory. In Proc. of Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 253–60, 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    V. Krishna. Auction Theory. Academic Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    V. Krishna and Motty Perry. Efficient mechanism design. Technical report, Pennsylvania State University, 1998. Available at:
  35. 35.
    D. Lehmann, L. O'C allaghan, and Y. Shoham. Truth revelation in rapid, approximately efficient combinatorial auctions. In Proc. 1st ACM Conf on Electronic Commerce (EC-99), pages 96–102, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Littman, M. Kearns, and S. Singh. An efficient exact algorithm for singly connected graphical games. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. MasColell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    P. Milgrom. Putting Auction Theory to Work. MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Littman and P. Stone. A polynomial-time Nash equilibrium algorithm for repeated games. In Proc. 4th ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce, 2003.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley. Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior, 14: 124–43, 1996.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. B. Myerson. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operation Research, 6:58–73, 1981.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    R. B. Myerson and Mark A Satterthwaite. Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory, 28:265–81, 1983.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    N. Nisan and A. Ronen. Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 35:166–96, 2001.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    N. Nisan and I. Segal. The communication complexity of efficient allocation problems. Technical report, Hebrew University and Stanford University, 2002.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    D. C. Parkes. Optimal auction design for agents with hard valuation problems. In Proc. IJCAI-99 Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce, pages 206–19, July 1999. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    D. C. Parkes. Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Achieving Economic and Computational Efficiency. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, May 2001. Available at:
  47. 47.
    D. C. Parkes. Price-based information certificates for minimal-revelation combinatorial auctions. In Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce IV: Designing Mechanisms and Systems, volume 2531 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. 2002.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    D. C. Parkes, J. R. Kalagnanam, and M. Eso. Vickrey-based surplus distribution in combinatorial exchanges. In Proc. 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-01), 2001.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    D. C. Parkes and L. H. Ungar. Iterative combinatorial auctions: Theory and practice. In Proc. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00), pages 74–81, July 2000.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    R. P. McAfee and J. McMillan. Auctions and bidding. Journal of Economic Literature, 25:699–738, June 1987.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    S. Shenker. Making greed work in networks: A game-theoretic analysis of switch service disciplines. In SIGCOMM Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols, pages 47–57, 1994.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. Shneidman and D. C. Parkes. Rationality and self-interest in peer to peer networks. In 2nd Int. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS′03), 2003.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    S. Singh, M. Kearns, and Y. Mansour. Nash convergence of gradient dynamics in generalsum games. In Proc. UAI′00, 2000.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    K. Turner and D. H. Wolpert. Collective intelligence and Braess' paradox. In Proc. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00), pages 104–9, 2000.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    D. Vickrey and D. Koller. Multi-agent algorithms for solving graphical games. In Proc. National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI′02), 2002.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    W. Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16:8–37, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    A. Watts. A dynamic model of network formation. Games and Economic Behavior, 34: 331–41, 2001.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    D. H. Wolpert and K. Turner. Optimal payoff functions for members of collectives. In Advances in Complex Systems. 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Parkes
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Engineering and Applied SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations