اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدBehavioral Mechanism Design: Optimal Contests for Simple Agents
90
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Incentives are more likely to elicit desired outcomes when they are designed based on accurate models of agents strategic behavior. A growing literature, however, suggests that people do not quite behave like standard economic agents in a variety of environments, both online and offline. What consequences might such differences have for the optimal design of mechanisms in these environments? In this paper, we explore this question in the context of optimal contest design for simple agents---agents who strategically reason about whether or not to participate in a system, but not about the input they provide to it. Specifically, consider a contest where $n$ potential contestants with types $(q_i,c_i)$ each choose between participating and producing a submission of quality $q_i$ at cost $c_i$, versus not participating at all, to maximize their utilities. How should a principal distribute a total prize $V$ amongst the $n$ ranks to maximize some increasing function of the qualities of elicited submissions in a contest with such simple agents? We first solve the optimal contest design problem for settings with homogenous participation costs $c_i = c$. Here, the optimal contest is always a simple contest, awarding equal prizes to the top $j^*$ contestants for a suitable choice of $j^*$. (In comparable models with strategic effort choices, the optimal contest is either a winner-take-all contest or awards possibly unequal prizes, depending on the curvature of agents effort cost functions.) We next address the general case with heterogeneous costs where agents types are inherently two-dimensional, significantly complicating equilibrium analysis. Our main result here is that the winner-take-all contest is a 3-approximation of the optimal contest when the principals objective is to maximize the quality of the best elicited contribution.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We consider revenue-optimal mechanism design in the interdimensional setting, where one dimension is the value of the buyer, and one is a type that captures some auxiliary information. One setting is the FedEx Problem, for which FGKK [2016] character
ize the optimal mechanism for a single agent. We ask: how far can such characterizations go? In particular, we consider single-minded agents. A seller has heterogenous items. A buyer has a value v for a specific subset of items S, and obtains value v iff he gets (at least) all the items in S. We show: 1. Deterministic mechanisms are optimal for distributions that satisfy the declining marginal revenue (DMR) property; we give an explicit construction of the optimal mechanism. 2. Without DMR, the result depends on the structure of the directed acyclic graph (DAG) representing the partial order among types. When the DAG has out-degree at most 1, we characterize the optimal mechanism a la FedEx. 3. Without DMR, when the DAG has some node with out-degree at least 2, we show that in this case the menu complexity is unbounded: for any M, there exist distributions over (v,S) pairs such that the menu complexity of the optimal mechanism is at least M. 4. For the case of 3 types, we show that for all distributions there exists an optimal mechanism of finite menu complexity. This is in contrast to 2 additive heterogenous items or which the menu complexity could be uncountable [MV07; DDT15]. In addition, we prove that optimal mechanisms for Multi-Unit Pricing (without DMR) can have unbounded menu complexity. We also propose an extension where the menu complexity of optimal mechanisms can be countable but not uncountable. Together these results establish that optimal mechanisms in interdimensional settings are both much richer than single-dimensional settings, yet also vastly more structured than multi-dimensional settings.
We study competition among contests in a general model that allows for an arbitrary and heterogeneous space of contest design, where the goal of the contest designers is to maximize the contestants sum of efforts. Our main result shows that optimal c
ontests in the monopolistic setting (i.e., those that maximize the sum of efforts in a model with a single contest) form an equilibrium in the model with competition among contests. Under a very natural assumption these contests are in fact dominant, and the equilibria that they form are unique. Moreover, equilibria with the optimal contests are Pareto-optimal even in cases where other equilibria emerge. In many natural cases, they also maximize the social welfare.
We consider a revenue-maximizing seller with $m$ heterogeneous items and a single buyer whose valuation $v$ for the items may exhibit both substitutes (i.e., for some $S, T$, $v(S cup T) < v(S) + v(T)$) and complements (i.e., for some $S, T$, $v(S cu
p T) > v(S) + v(T)$). We show that the mechanism first proposed by Babaioff et al. [2014] - the better of selling the items separately and bundling them together - guarantees a $Theta(d)$ fraction of the optimal revenue, where $d$ is a measure on the degree of complementarity. Note that this is the first approximately optimal mechanism for a buyer whose valuation exhibits any kind of complementarity, and extends the work of Rubinstein and Weinberg [2015], which proved that the same simple mechanisms achieve a constant factor approximation when buyer valuations are subadditive, the most general class of complement-free valuations. Our proof is enabled by the recent duality framework developed in Cai et al. [2016], which we use to obtain a bound on the optimal revenue in this setting. Our main technical contributions are specialized to handle the intricacies of settings with complements, and include an algorithm for partitioning edges in a hypergraph. Even nailing down the right model and notion of degree of complementarity to obtain meaningful results is of interest, as the natural extensions of previous definitions provably fail.
We consider agents with non-linear preferences given by private values and private budgets. We quantify the extent to which posted pricing approximately optimizes welfare and revenue for a single agent. We give a reduction framework that extends the
approximation of multi-agent pricing-based mechanisms from linear utility to nonlinear utility. This reduction framework is broadly applicable as Alaei et al. (2012) have shown that mechanisms for linear agents can generally be interpreted as pricing-based mechanisms. We give example applications of the framework to oblivious posted pricing (e.g., Chawla et al., 2010), sequential posted pricing (e.g., Yan, 2011), and virtual surplus maximization (Myerson, 1981).
Vehicular mobile crowd sensing is a fast-emerging paradigm to collect data about the environment by mounting sensors on vehicles such as taxis. An important problem in vehicular crowd sensing is to design payment mechanisms to incentivize drivers (ag
ents) to collect data, with the overall goal of obtaining the maximum amount of data (across multiple vehicles) for a given budget. Past works on this problem consider a setting where each agent operates in isolation---an assumption which is frequently violated in practice. In this paper, we design an incentive mechanism to incentivize agents who can engage in arbitrary collusions. We then show that in a homogeneous setting, our mechanism is optimal, and can do as well as any mechanism which knows the agents preferences a priori. Moreover, if the agents are non-colluding, then our mechanism automatically does as well as any other non-colluding mechanism. We also show that our proposed mechanism has strong (and asymptotically optimal) guarantees for a more general heterogeneous setting. Experiments based on synthesized data and real-world data reveal gains of over 30% attained by our mechanism compared to past literature.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
