Clock Auctions Augmented with Unreliable Advice

Vasilis Gkatzelis, Daniel Schoepflin, Xizhi Tan
{"title":"Clock Auctions Augmented with Unreliable Advice","authors":"Vasilis Gkatzelis, Daniel Schoepflin, Xizhi Tan","doi":"arxiv-2408.06483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We provide the first analysis of clock auctions through the\nlearning-augmented framework. Deferred-acceptance clock auctions are a\ncompelling class of mechanisms satisfying a unique list of highly practical\nproperties, including obvious strategy-proofness, transparency, and\nunconditional winner privacy, making them particularly well-suited for\nreal-world applications. However, early work that evaluated their performance\nfrom a worst-case analysis standpoint concluded that no deterministic clock\nauction can achieve much better than an $O(\\log n)$ approximation of the\noptimal social welfare (where $n$ is the number of bidders participating in the\nauction), even in seemingly very simple settings. To overcome this overly pessimistic impossibility result, which heavily\ndepends on the assumption that the designer has no information regarding the\npreferences of the participating bidders, we leverage the learning-augmented\nframework. This framework assumes that the designer is provided with some\nadvice regarding what the optimal solution may be. This advice may be the\nproduct of machine-learning algorithms applied to historical data, so it can\nprovide very useful guidance, but it can also be highly unreliable. Our main results are learning-augmented clock auctions that use this advice\nto achieve much stronger performance guarantees whenever the advice is accurate\n(known as consistency), while simultaneously maintaining worst-case guarantees\neven if this advice is arbitrarily inaccurate (known as robustness).\nSpecifically, for the standard notion of consistency, we provide a clock\nauction that achieves the best of both worlds: $(1+\\epsilon)$-consistency for\nany constant $\\epsilon > 0$ and $O(\\log n)$ robustness. We then also consider a\nmuch stronger notion of consistency and provide an auction that achieves the\noptimal trade-off between this notion of consistency and robustness.","PeriodicalId":501316,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Computer Science and Game Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Computer Science and Game Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.06483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We provide the first analysis of clock auctions through the learning-augmented framework. Deferred-acceptance clock auctions are a compelling class of mechanisms satisfying a unique list of highly practical properties, including obvious strategy-proofness, transparency, and unconditional winner privacy, making them particularly well-suited for real-world applications. However, early work that evaluated their performance from a worst-case analysis standpoint concluded that no deterministic clock auction can achieve much better than an $O(\log n)$ approximation of the optimal social welfare (where $n$ is the number of bidders participating in the auction), even in seemingly very simple settings. To overcome this overly pessimistic impossibility result, which heavily depends on the assumption that the designer has no information regarding the preferences of the participating bidders, we leverage the learning-augmented framework. This framework assumes that the designer is provided with some advice regarding what the optimal solution may be. This advice may be the product of machine-learning algorithms applied to historical data, so it can provide very useful guidance, but it can also be highly unreliable. Our main results are learning-augmented clock auctions that use this advice to achieve much stronger performance guarantees whenever the advice is accurate (known as consistency), while simultaneously maintaining worst-case guarantees even if this advice is arbitrarily inaccurate (known as robustness). Specifically, for the standard notion of consistency, we provide a clock auction that achieves the best of both worlds: $(1+\epsilon)$-consistency for any constant $\epsilon > 0$ and $O(\log n)$ robustness. We then also consider a much stronger notion of consistency and provide an auction that achieves the optimal trade-off between this notion of consistency and robustness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用不可靠的建议来强化时钟拍卖
我们首次通过学习增强框架对时钟拍卖进行了分析。延迟接受时钟拍卖是一类引人注目的机制,它满足一系列独特的高度实用的特性,包括明显的策略防伪性、透明性和无条件赢家隐私性,因此特别适合现实世界的应用。然而,从最坏情况分析的角度评估其性能的早期工作得出结论:即使在看似非常简单的设置中,任何确定性的时钟拍卖都无法实现比最优社会福利(这里的 $n$ 是参与拍卖的投标人数量)的 $O(\log n)$ 近似值好得多的结果。为了克服这一过于悲观的不可能性结果,我们利用了学习增强框架(learning-augmentedframework)。这个框架假定设计者会得到一些关于最优解的建议。这种建议可能是应用于历史数据的机器学习算法的产物,因此可以提供非常有用的指导,但也可能非常不可靠。我们的主要成果是学习增强时钟拍卖,只要建议是准确的(称为一致性),它就能利用这种建议实现更强的性能保证,同时即使这种建议任意不准确(称为鲁棒性),它也能保持最坏情况下的保证。具体来说,对于标准的一致性概念,我们提供了一种时钟拍卖,它能实现两全其美:对于任何常数 $\epsilon > 0$,都能实现 $(1+\epsilon)$ 一致性,同时还能实现 $O(\log n)$ 鲁棒性。然后,我们还考虑了更强的一致性概念,并提供了一种拍卖,在一致性概念和鲁棒性之间实现了最佳权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
MALADY: Multiclass Active Learning with Auction Dynamics on Graphs Mechanism Design for Extending the Accessibility of Facilities Common revenue allocation in DMUs with two stages based on DEA cross-efficiency and cooperative game The common revenue allocation based on modified Shapley value and DEA cross-efficiency On Robustness to $k$-wise Independence of Optimal Bayesian Mechanisms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1