Skip to main content

Efficient Money Burning in General Domains

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 9347))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We study mechanism design where the payments charged to the agents are not in the form of monetary transfers, but are effectively burned. In this setting, the objective is to maximize social utility, i.e., the social welfare minus the payments charged. We consider a general setting with m discrete outcomes and n multidimensional agents. We present two essentially orthogonal randomized truthful mechanisms that extract an \(O(\log m)\) fraction of the maximum welfare as social utility. Moreover, the first mechanism achieves a \(O(\log m)\)-approximation for the social welfare, which is improved to an O(1)-approximation by the second mechanism. An interesting feature of the second mechanism is that it optimizes over an appropriately “smoothed” space, thus achieving a nice and smooth tradeoff between welfare approximation and the payments charged.

This research was supported by the project AlgoNow, co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund - ESF) and Greek national funds, through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: THALES, investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

References

  1. Archer, A., Tardos, É.: Frugal path mechanisms. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 3(1) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Braverman, M., Chen, J., Kannan, S.: Optimal provision-after-wait in healthcare. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2014), pp. 541–542 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cavallo, R.: Efficiency and redistribution in dynamic mechanism design. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2008), pp. 220–229 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chakravarty, S., Kaplan, T.R.: Manna from heaven or forty years in the desert: optimal allocation without transfer payments. Social Science Research Network (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.939389

  5. Cole, R., Gkatzelis, V., Goel, G.: Mechanism design for fair division: allocating divisible items without payments. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2013), pp. 251–268 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Elkind, E., Sahai, A., Steiglitz, K.: Frugality in path auctions. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2004), pp. 701–709 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eso, P., Futo, G.: Auction design with a risk averse seller. Economics Letters 65(1), 71–74 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Gneiting, T., Rafterys, A.E.: Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 102(477), 359–378 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Guo, M., Conitzer, V.: Worst-case optimal redistribution of VCG payments in multi-unit auctions. Games Econ. Behav. 67(1), 69–98 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Guo, M., Conitzer, V.: Better redistribution with inefficient allocation in multi-unit auctions. Artif. Intell. 216, 287–308 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartline, J.D., Roughgarden, T.: Optimal mechanism design and money burning. In: Proceedings of the 40th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2008), pp. 75–84 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lesca, J., Todo, T., Yokoo, M.: Coexistence of utilitarian efficiency and false-name-proofness in social choice. In: International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2014), pp. 1201–1208 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Nisan, N.: Introduction to mechanism design (for computer scientists). Algorithmic Game Theor. 9, 209–242 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Schapira, M., Singer, Y.: Inapproximability of combinatorial public projects. In: Papadimitriou, C., Zhang, S. (eds.) WINE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5385, pp. 351–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris Tsipras .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fotakis, D., Tsipras, D., Tzamos, C., Zampetakis, E. (2015). Efficient Money Burning in General Domains. In: Hoefer, M. (eds) Algorithmic Game Theory. SAGT 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9347. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48433-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48433-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-48432-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-48433-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics