Search for: All records

In traditional algorithm design, no incentives come into play: the input is given, and your algorithm must produce a correct output. How much harder is it to solve the same problem when the input is not given directly, but instead reported by strategic agents with interests of their own? The unique challenge stems from the fact that the agents may choose to lie about the input in order to manipulate the behavior of the algorithm for their own interests, and tools from Game Theory are therefore required in order to predict how these agents will behave. We develop a new algorithmic framework with which to study such problems. Specifically, we provide a computationally efficient black-box reduction from solving any Bayesian optimization problem on “strategic input,” often calledalgorithmic mechanism design, to solving a perturbed version of that same optimization problem when the input is directly given, traditionally calledalgorithm design. We further demonstrate the power of our framework by making significant progress on several long-standing open problems. First, we provide an algorithmic extension of Myerson’s celebrated characterization of single item auctions [105] to multiple items, providing also a computationally efficient implementation of optimal auctions. Next, we design a computationally efficient 2-approximate mechanism for Bayesian job scheduling on unrelated machines, the original problem studied in Nisan and Ronen’s seminal paper introducing the field of Algorithmic Mechanism Design [106]. This matches the guarantee of the best known computationally efficient algorithm when the input is directly given. Finally, leveraging a connection to our framework, we additionally prove hardness of approximation for Bayesian mechanism design with submodular bidders. 

A fundamental shortcoming of the concept of Nash equilibrium is its computational intractability: approximating Nash equilibria in normal-form games is PPAD-hard. In this paper, inspired by the ideas of smoothed analysis, we introduce a relaxed variant of Nash equilibrium called σ-smooth Nash equilibrium, for a {smoothness parameter} σ. In a σ-smooth Nash equilibrium, players only need to achieve utility at least as high as their best deviation to a σ-smooth strategy, which is a distribution that does not put too much mass (as parametrized by σ) on any fixed action. We distinguish two variants of σ-smooth Nash equilibria: strong σ-smooth Nash equilibria, in which players are required to play σ-smooth strategies under equilibrium play, and weak σ-smooth Nash equilibria, where there is no such requirement. We show that both weak and strong σ-smooth Nash equilibria have superior computational properties to Nash equilibria: when σ as well as an approximation parameter ϵ and the number of players are all constants, there is a {constant-time} randomized algorithm to find a weak ϵ-approximate σ-smooth Nash equilibrium in normal-form games. In the same parameter regime, there is a polynomial-time deterministic algorithm to find a strong ϵ-approximate σ-smooth Nash equilibrium in a normal-form game. These results stand in contrast to the optimal algorithm for computing ϵ-approximate Nash equilibria, which cannot run in faster than quasipolynomial-time, subject to complexity-theoretic assumptions. We complement our upper bounds by showing that when either σ or ϵ is an inverse polynomial, finding a weak ϵ-approximate σ-smooth Nash equilibria becomes computationally intractable. Our results are the first to propose a variant of Nash equilibrium which is computationally tractable, allows players to act independently, and which, as we discuss, is justified by an extensive line of work on individual choice behavior in the economics literature.