ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Reducing truth-telling online mechanisms to online optimization
Full text PdfPdf (247 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing archive
Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing table of contents
San Diego, CA, USA
SESSION: Session 9B table of contents
Pages: 503 - 510  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:1-58113-674-9
Authors
Baruch Awerbuch  Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Yossi Azar  Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Adam Meyerson  Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 5,   Downloads (12 Months): 26,   Citation Count: 13
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/780542.780616
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We describe a general technique for converting an online algorithm Β to a truthtelling mechanism. We require that the original online competitive algorithm has certain "niceness" properties in that actions on future requests are independent of the actual value of requests which were accepted (though these actions will of course depend upon the set of accepted requests). Under these conditions, we are able to give an online truthtelling mechanism (where the values of requests are given by bids which may not accurately represent the valuation of the requesters) such that our total profit is within O(ρ + log μ) of the optimum offline profit obtained by an omniscient algorithm (one which knows the true valuations of the users). Here ρ is the competitive ratio of Β for the optimization version of the problem, and μ is the ratio of the maximum to minimum valuation for a request. In general there is an Ω(log μ) lower bound on the ratio of worst-case profit for a truthtelling mechanism when compared to the profit obtained by an omniscient algorithm, so this result is in some sense best possible. In addition, we prove that our construction is resilient against many forms of "cheating" attempts, such as forming coalitions.We demonstrate applications of this result to several problems. We develop online truthtelling mechanisms for online routing and admission control of path or multicast requests, assuming large network capacities. Assuming the existance of an algorithm Β for the optimization version of the problem, our techniques provide truthtelling mechanisms for general combinatorial auctions. However, designing optimization algorithms may be difficult in general because of online or approximation lower bounds. For the cases described above, we are able to design optimization algorithms Β by amortizing the lost benefit from online computation (and from approximation hardness in the case of multicast) against the benefit obtained from accepted requests.We comment that our upper bounds on profit competitiveness imply, as an obvious corollary, similar bound on global efficiency, namely overall well-being of all the users. This contrasts with most other work on truthtelling mechanisms for general online resource allocation, where only efficiency is maximized, and competitiveness can be arbitrarily poor.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
A. Awerbuch, Y. Azar, and S. Plotkin. Throughput-competitive on-line routing. Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1993.
 
4
 
5
B. Awerbuch. Online algorithms for selective multicast: A survey. Proceedings of the Dagstuhl Workshop on Online Algorithms, 1996.
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
E. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 1971.
10
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
T. Groves. Incentives in teams. Econemetrica, 1973.
15
 
16
R. J. Lipton and A. Tomkins. Online interval scheduling. Proceedings of the 5th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 2001.
17
 
18
W. Vickery. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 1961.

CITED BY  13

Collaborative Colleagues:
Baruch Awerbuch: colleagues
Yossi Azar: colleagues
Adam Meyerson: colleagues