Skip to main content

Partial Allocations in Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design: Bridging Multiple Levels of Service and Divisible Agents

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Web and Internet Economics (WINE 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14413))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Budget-feasible procurement has been a major paradigm in mechanism design since its introduction by Singer [24]. An auctioneer (buyer) with a strict budget constraint is interested in buying goods or services from a group of strategic agents (sellers). In many scenarios it makes sense to allow the auctioneer to only partially buy what an agent offers, e.g., an agent might have multiple copies of an item to sell, they might offer multiple levels of a service, or they may be available to perform a task for any fraction of a specified time interval. Nevertheless, the focus of the related literature has been on settings where each agent’s services are either fully acquired or not at all. A reason for this is that in settings with partial allocations, without any assumptions on the costs, there are strong inapproximability results (see, e.g., Chan and Chen [10], Anari et al. [5]). Under the mild assumption of being able to afford each agent entirely, we are able to circumvent such results. We design a polynomial-time, deterministic, truthful, budget-feasible, \((2+\sqrt{3})\)-approximation mechanism for the setting where each agent offers multiple levels of service and the auctioneer has a discrete separable concave valuation function. We then use this result to design a deterministic, truthful and budget-feasible mechanism for the setting where any fraction of a service can be acquired and the auctioneer’s valuation function is separable concave (i.e., the sum of concave functions). The approximation ratio of this mechanism depends on how “nice” the concave functions are, and is O(1) for valuation functions that are sums of O(1)-regular functions (e.g., functions like \(\log (1+x)\)). For the special case of a linear valuation function, we improve the best known approximation ratio from \(1+\phi \) (by Klumper and Schäfer [17]) to 2. This establishes a separation result between this setting and its indivisible counterpart.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We refer the reader to [6] for a rigorous treatment of the uniqueness property of Myerson’s characterization result.

  2. 2.

    Our results very easily extend to the setting where there is a different (public) \(k_i\) associated with each agent i. We use a common k for the sake of presentation.

  3. 3.

    Whenever we use one of these assumptions, we implicitly constrain the space of the (declared) cost profiles. That is, we assume that any agent who violates the respective condition is discarded up front from further considerations, e.g., by running a pre-processing step that removes such agents.

  4. 4.

    Note that for \(k=1\), the problem reduces to the well-known 0-1 Knapsack Problem.

  5. 5.

    It is not hard to see that the set \(Q_{ij}(\textbf{c}_{-i})\) is also closed and thus the supremum always exists.

References

  1. Amanatidis, G., Birmpas, G., Markakis, E.: Coverage, matching, and beyond: new results on budgeted mechanism design. In: Cai, Y., Vetta, A. (eds.) WINE 2016. LNCS, vol. 10123, pp. 414–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54110-4_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Amanatidis, G., Birmpas, G., Markakis, E.: On budget-feasible mechanism design for symmetric submodular objectives. In: Devanur, N.R., Lu, P. (eds.) WINE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10660, pp. 1–15. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71924-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amanatidis, G., Kleer, P., Schäfer, G.: Budget-feasible mechanism design for non-monotone submodular objectives: offline and online. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2019, pp. 901–919 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amanatidis, G., Klumper, S., Markakis, E., Schäfer, G., Tsikiridis, A.: Partial allocations in budget-feasible mechanism design: bridging multiple levels of service and divisible agents. CoRR/arXiv abs/2307.07385 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anari, N., Goel, G., Nikzad, A.: Budget feasible procurement auctions. Oper. Res. 66(3), 637–652 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Apt, K.R., Heering, J.: Characterization of incentive compatible single-parameter mechanisms revisited. J. Mech. Inst. Design 7(1), 113–129 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Archer, A., Tardos, É.: Truthful mechanisms for one-parameter agents. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 482–491 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Balkanski, E., Garimidi, P., Gkatzelis, V., Schoepflin, D., Tan, X.: Deterministic budget-feasible clock auctions. In: Proceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2022, pp. 2940–2963 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bei, X., Chen, N., Gravin, N., Lu, P.: Worst-case mechanism design via Bayesian analysis. SIAM J. Comput. 46(4), 1428–1448 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan, H., Chen, J.: Truthful multi-unit procurements with budgets. In: Liu, T.-Y., Qi, Q., Ye, Y. (eds.) WINE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8877, pp. 89–105. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13129-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, N., Gravin, N., Lu, P.: On the approximability of budget feasible mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2011, pp. 685–699 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dobzinski, S., Papadimitriou, C.H., Singer, Y.: Mechanisms for complement-free procurement. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2011, pp. 273–282 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goel, G., Nikzad, A., Singla, A.: Allocating tasks to workers with matching constraints: truthful mechanisms for crowdsourcing markets. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2014, pp. 279–280 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gravin, N., Jin, Y., Lu, P., Zhang, C.: Optimal budget-feasible mechanisms for additive valuations. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. (TEAC) 8(4), 1–15 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang, H., Han, K., Cui, S., Tang, J.: Randomized pricing with deferred acceptance for revenue maximization with submodular objectives. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pp. 3530–3540 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jalaly Khalilabadi, P., Tardos, É.: Simple and efficient budget feasible mechanisms for monotone submodular valuations. In: Christodoulou, G., Harks, T. (eds.) WINE 2018. LNCS, vol. 11316, pp. 246–263. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04612-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Klumper, S., Schäfer, G.: Budget feasible mechanisms for procurement auctions with divisible agents. In: Kanellopoulos, P., Kyropoulou, M., Voudouris, A. (eds.) SAGT 2022. LNCS, vol. 13584, pp. 78–93. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15714-1_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Leonardi, S., Monaco, G., Sankowski, P., Zhang, Q.: Budget feasible mechanisms on matroids. In: Eisenbrand, F., Koenemann, J. (eds.) IPCO 2017. LNCS, vol. 10328, pp. 368–379. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59250-3_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Li, M., Wang, C., Zhang, M.: Budget feasible mechanisms for facility location games with strategic facilities. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 36(2), 35 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Martello, S., Toth, P.: Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations. Wiley, Hoboken (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Milgrom, P., Segal, I.: Clock auctions and radio spectrum reallocation. J. Polit. Econ. 128(1), 1–31 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Myerson, R.: Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6(1), 58–73 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Rubinstein, A., Zhao, J.: Beyond worst-case budget-feasible mechanism design. In: 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Singer, Y.: Budget feasible mechanisms. In: In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2010, pp. 765–774 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) through its Open Technology Program, proj. no. 18938, and the Gravitation Project NETWORKS, grant no. 024.002.003. It has also been partially supported by project MIS 5154714 of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan Greece 2.0, funded by the European Union under the NextGenerationEU Program and the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement, grant no. 101034253. Moreover, it was supported by the “1st Call for HFRI Research Projects to support faculty members and researchers and the procurement of high-cost research equipment” (proj. no. HFRI-FM17-3512). Finally, part of this work was done during AT’s visit to the University of Essex that was supported by COST Action CA16228 (European Network for Game Theory).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Artem Tsikiridis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Amanatidis, G., Klumper, S., Markakis, E., Schäfer, G., Tsikiridis, A. (2024). Partial Allocations in Budget-Feasible Mechanism Design: Bridging Multiple Levels of Service and Divisible Agents. In: Garg, J., Klimm, M., Kong, Y. (eds) Web and Internet Economics. WINE 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14413. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48973-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48974-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics