skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186042acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Incentive-Aware Learning for Large Markets

Published:10 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In a typical learning problem, one key step is to use training data to pick one model from a collection of models that optimizes an objective function. In many multi-agent settings, the training data is generated through the actions of the agents, and the model is used to make a decision (e.g., how to sell an item) that affects the agents. An illustrative example of this is the problem of learning the reserve price in an auction. In such cases, the agents have an incentive to influence the training data (e.g., by manipulating their bids in the case of an auction) to game the system and achieve a more favorable outcome. In this paper, we study such incentive-aware learning problem in a general setting and show that it is possible to approximately optimize the objective function under two assumptions: (i) each individual agent is a "small" (part of the market); and (ii) there is a cost associated with manipulation. For our illustrative application, this nicely translates to a mechanism for setting approximately optimal reserve prices in auctions where no individual agent has significant market share. For this application, we also show that the second assumption (that manipulations are costly) is not necessary since we can "perturb" any auction to make it costly for the agents to manipulate.

References

  1. Kareem Amin, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Umar Syed. 2013. Learning prices for repeated auctions with strategic buyers Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1169--1177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Kareem Amin, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Umar Syed. 2014. Repeated contextual auctions with strategic buyers Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 622--630. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M-F Balcan, Avrim Blum, Jason D Hartline, and Yishay Mansour. 2005. Mechanism design via machine learning. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2005. FOCS 2005. 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 605--614. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Maria-Florina Balcan, Tuomas Sandholm, and Ellen Vitercik. 2017. Sample Complexity of Multi-Item Profit Maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00243 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Eric Budish. 2011. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy Vol. 119, 6 (2011), 1061--1103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, Claudio Gentile, and Yishay Mansour. 2015. Regret minimization for reserve prices in second-price auctions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory Vol. 61, 1 (2015), 549--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Shuchi Chawla, Jason Hartline, and Denis Nekipelov. 2014. Mechanism design for data science. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation. ACM, 711--712. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Richard Cole and Tim Roughgarden. 2014. The sample complexity of revenue maximization. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 243--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ofer Dekel, Felix Fischer, and Ariel D Procaccia. 2010. Incentive compatible regression learning. J. Comput. System Sci. Vol. 76, 8 (2010), 759--777. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Nikhil R Devanur, Zhiyi Huang, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. 2015. The sample complexity of auctions with side information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02296 (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A Hemaspaandra. 2010. Using complexity to protect elections. Commun. ACM Vol. 53, 11 (2010), 74--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Piotr Faliszewski and Ariel D Procaccia. 2010. AI's war on manipulation: Are we winning? AI Magazine Vol. 31, 4 (2010), 53--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Amos Fiat, Anna Karlin, Elias Koutsoupias, and Angelina Vidali. 2013. Approaching utopia: strong truthfulness and externality-resistant mechanisms Proceedings of the 4th conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. ACM, 221--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hu Fu, Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier, and Philipp Strack. 2015. Randomization beats second price as a prior-independent auction Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 323--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yannai A Gonczarowski and Noam Nisan. 2016. Efficient Empirical Revenue Maximization in Single-Parameter Auction Environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09976 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Moritz Hardt, Nimrod Megiddo, Christos Papadimitriou, and Mary Wootters. 2016. Strategic classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. ACM, 111--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Zhiyi Huang, Yishay Mansour, and Tim Roughgarden. 2015. Making the most of your samples. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 45--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yash Kanoria and Hamid Nazerzadeh. 2014. Dynamic reserve prices for repeated auctions: Learning from bids. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael Kearns, Mallesh Pai, Aaron Roth, and Jonathan Ullman. 2014. Mechanism design in large games: Incentives and privacy Proceedings of the 5th conference on Innovations in theoretical computer science. ACM, 403--410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Fuhito Kojima and Parag A Pathak. 2009. Incentives and stability in large two-sided matching markets. The American Economic Review Vol. 99, 3 (2009), 608--627.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Pinyan Lu, Shang-Hua Teng, and Changyuan Yu. 2006. Truthful auctions with optimal profit. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics. Springer, 27--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Frank McSherry and Kunal Talwar. 2007. Mechanism design via differential privacy. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2007. FOCS'07. 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 94--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Reshef Meir, Ariel D Procaccia, and Jeffrey S Rosenschein. 2012. Algorithms for strategyproof classification. Artificial Intelligence Vol. 186 (2012), 123--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jamie H Morgenstern and Tim Roughgarden. 2015. On the pseudo-dimension of nearly optimal auctions Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 136--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Noam Nisan, Tim Roughgarden, Eva Tardos, and Vijay V Vazirani. 2007. Algorithmic game theory. Vol. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kobbi Nissim, Rann Smorodinsky, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2012. Approximately optimal mechanism design via differential privacy Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. ACM, 203--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Michael Ostrovsky and Michael Schwarz. 2011. Reserve prices in internet advertising auctions: A field experiment Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. ACM, 59--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Pingzhong Tang and Yulong Zeng. 2016. How to manipulate truthful prior-dependent mechanisms? CoRR Vol. abs/1606.02409 (2016). deftempurl%http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02409 tempurlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Incentive-Aware Learning for Large Markets

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
            April 2018
            2000 pages
            ISBN:9781450356398

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

            Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

            Publication History

            • Published: 10 April 2018

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate170of1,155submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format