diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'problem.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | problem.tex | 126 |
1 files changed, 63 insertions, 63 deletions
diff --git a/problem.tex b/problem.tex index a8b89f4..237894e 100644 --- a/problem.tex +++ b/problem.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\subsection{Optimal Experimental Design} +\subsection{Experimental Design} The theory of experimental design \cite{pukelsheim2006optimal,atkinson2007optimum} studies how an experimenter should select the parameters of a set of experiments she is about to conduct. In general, the optimality of a particular design depends on the purpose of the experiment, \emph{i.e.}, the quantity the experimenter is trying to learn or the hypothesis she is trying to validate. Due to their ubiquity in statistical analysis, a large literature on the subject focuses on learning \emph{linear models}, whereby the experimenter wishes to fit a linear map to the data she has collected. @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ More precisely, putting cost considerations aside, suppose that an experimenter \end{align} where $\beta$ a vector in $\reals^d$, commonly referred to as the \emph{model}, and $\varepsilon_i$ (the \emph{measurement noise}) are independent, normally distributed random variables with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$. -The purpose of these experiments is to allow the experimenter to estimate the model $\beta$. In particular, assuming Gaussian noise, the maximum likelihood estimator of $\beta$ is the \emph{least squares} estimator: for $X_S=[x_i]_{i\in S}\in \reals^{|S|\times d}$ the matrix of experiment features and +The purpose of these experiments is to allow the experimenter to estimate the model $\beta$. In particular, under \eqref{model}, the maximum likelihood estimator of $\beta$ is the \emph{least squares} estimator: for $X_S=[x_i]_{i\in S}\in \reals^{|S|\times d}$ the matrix of experiment features and $y_S=[y_i]_{i\in S}\in\reals^{|S|}$ the observed measurements, \begin{align} \hat{\beta} &=\max_{\beta\in\reals^d}\prob(y_S;\beta) =\argmin_{\beta\in\reals^d } \sum_{i\in S}(\T{\beta}x_i-y_i)^2 \nonumber\\ & = (\T{X_S}X_S)^{-1}X_S^Ty_S\label{leastsquares}\end{align} @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ the noise terms $\varepsilon_i$). In particular, $\hat{\beta}$ has mean $\beta$ (\emph{i.e.}, it is an \emph{unbiased estimator}) and covariance $(\T{X_S}X_S)^{-1}$. -Let $V:2^\mathcal{N}\to\reals$ be a value function, quantifying how informative a set of experiments $S$ is in estimating $\beta$. The standard optimal experimental design problem amounts to finding a set $S$ that maximizes $V(S)$ subject to the constraint $|S|\leq k$. +Let $V:2^\mathcal{N}\to\reals$ be a \emph{value function}, quantifying how informative a set of experiments $S$ is in estimating $\beta$. The standard optimal experimental design problem amounts to finding a set $S$ that maximizes $V(S)$ subject to the constraint $|S|\leq k$. -A variety of different value functions are used in experimental design\cite{pukelsheim2006optimal}; almost all make use of the covariance $(\T{X_S}X_S)^{-1}$ of the estimator $\hat{\beta}$. A value functioned preferred because of its relationship to entropy is the \emph{$D$-optimality criterion}: %which yields the following optimization problem +A variety of different value functions are used in experimental design~\cite{pukelsheim2006optimal}; almost all make use of the covariance $(\T{X_S}X_S)^{-1}$ of the estimator $\hat{\beta}$. A value function preferred because of its relationship to entropy is the \emph{$D$-optimality criterion}: %which yields the following optimization problem \begin{align} V(S) &= \frac{1}{2}\log\det \T{X_S}X_S \label{dcrit} %\\ \end{align} @@ -41,94 +41,94 @@ the uncertainty on $\beta$, as captured by the entropy of its estimator. Value function \eqref{dcrit} has several appealing properties. To begin with, it is a submodular set function (see Lemma~\ref{...} and Thm.~\ref{...}). In addition, the maximization of convex relaxations of this function is a well-studied problem \cite{boyd}. Note that \eqref{dcrit} is undefined when $\mathrm{rank}(\T{X_S}X_S)<d$; in this case, we take $V(S)=-\infty$ (so that $V$ takes values in the extended reals). -\subsection{Budget Feasible Mechanism Design} -In this paper, we approach the problem of optimal experimental design from the -perspective of \emph{a budget feasible reverse auction} -\cite{singer-mechanisms}. In particular, we assume that each experiment $i\in -\mathcal{N}$ is associated with a cost $c_i$, that the experimenter needs to -pay in order to conduct the experiment. The experimenter has a budget -$B\in\reals_+$. In the \emph{full information case}, the costs are common -knowledge; optimal design in this context amounts to selecting a set $S$ +\subsection{Budget Feasible Reverse Auctions} +A \emph{budget feasible reverse auction} +\cite{singer-mechanisms} comprises a set of items $\mathcal{N}=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ as well as a single buyer. Each item has a cost $c_i\in\reals_+$. Moreover, the buyer has a positive value function $V:2^{\mathcal{N}}\to \reals_+$, as well as a budget $B\in \reals_+$. In the \emph{full information case}, the costs $c_i$ are common +knowledge; the objective of the buyer in this context is to select a set $S$ maximizing the value $V(S)$ subject to the constraint $\sum_{i\in S} c_i\leq -B$. We write: +B$.We write: \begin{equation}\label{eq:non-strategic} OPT(V,\mathcal{N}, B) = \max_{S\subseteq\mathcal{N}} \left\{V(S) \mid \sum_{i\in S}c_i\leq B\right\} \end{equation} -the best value we can reach under the budget constraint $B$ when selecting -experiments from the set $\mathcal{N}$. +for the optimal value achievable in the full-information case. \stratis{Should be $OPT(V,c,B)$\ldots better drop the arguments.} -As in \cite{singer-mechanisms,chen}, we focus in a \emph{strategic scenario}: -experiment $i$ corresponds to a \emph{strategic agent}, whose cost $c_i$ is -private. For example, each $i$ may correspond to a human participant; the -feature vector $x_i$ may correspond to a normalized vector of her age, weight, -gender, income, \emph{etc.}, and the measurement $y_i$ may capture some -biometric information (\emph{e.g.}, her red cell blood count, a genetic marker, -etc.). The cost $c_i$ is the amount the participant deems sufficient to -incentivize her participation in the study. - -A mechanism $\mathcal{M} = (f,p)$ comprises (a) an \emph{allocation function} +In the \emph{strategic case}, each items in $\mathcal{N}$ is held by a different strategic agent, whose cost is a-priori private. +A \emph{mechanism} $\mathcal{M} = (f,p)$ comprises (a) an \emph{allocation function} $f:\reals_+^n \to 2^\mathcal{N}$ and (b) a \emph{payment function} $p:\reals_+^n\to \reals_+^n$. Given the -vector or costs $[c_i]_{i\in\mathcal{N}}$, the allocation function determines the set -$S\subseteq \mathcal{N}$ of experiments to be conducted, while the payment function -returns a vector of payments $[p_i]_{i\in \mathcal{N}}$. As in +vector or costs $c=[c_i]_{i\in\mathcal{N}}$, the allocation function $f$ determines the set in +$ \mathcal{N}$ of items to be purchased, while the payment function +returns a vector of payments $[p_i]_{i\in \mathcal{N}}$. Let $s_i(c) = \id_{i\in f_i(c)}$ be the binary indicator of $i\in f(c)$. As in \cite{singer-mechanisms, chen}, we study mechanisms that are normalized -($i\notin S$ implies $p_i=0$), individually rational ($p_i\geq c_i$) and have -no positive transfers $p_i\geq 0$. +($i\notin f(c)$ implies $p_i(c)=0$), individually rational ($p_i(c)\geq c_i\cdot s_i(c)$) and have +no positive transfers ($p_i(c)\geq 0$). -Moreover, we want to design a mechanism which has the following properties: +In addition to the above, mechanism design in budget feasible reverse auctions seeks mechanisms that have the following properties \cite{singer-mechanisms,chen}: \begin{itemize} - \item \emph{Truthful.} An agent has no incentive to report a cost $c_i'$ - different from his true cost $c_i$. Formally, let us write $(c_i', c_{-i})$ - the vector of costs when agent $i$ reports cost $c_i'$ (all the other costs - $c_{-i}$ being the same). Let $[p_i']_{i\in \mathcal{N}} = p(c_i', - c_{-i})$, then the mechanism is truthful iff (a) $i\notin - f(c_i,c_{-i})\implies i\notin f(c_i',c_{-i})$ and (b) $p_i - c_i \geq p_i' - - c_i$. - \item \emph{Budget Feasible.} The sum of the payments should not exceed the + \item \emph{Truthfulness.} An agent has no incentive to missreport her true cost. Formally, let $c_{-i}$ + be a vector of costs of all agents except $i$. % $c_{-i}$ being the same). Let $[p_i']_{i\in \mathcal{N}} = p(c_i', +% c_{-i})$, then the +A mechanism is truthful iff every $i \in \mathcal{N}$ and every two cost vectors $(c_i,c_{-i})$ and $(c_i',c_{-i})$ + $p_i(c_i,c_{-i}) - s_i(c_i,c_{-i})\cdot c_i \geq p_i(c_i',c_{-i}) - s(c_i',c_{-i})\cdot c_i$. + \item \emph{Budget Feasibility.} The sum of the payments should not exceed the budget constraint: \begin{displaymath} \sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}} p_i \leq B. \end{displaymath} \item \emph{Approximation ratio.} The value of the allocated set should not - be too far from the optimum value of the non-strategic case + be too far from the optimum value of the full information case \eqref{eq:non-strategic}. Formally, there must exist some $\alpha\geq 1$ such that: \begin{displaymath} OPT(V,\mathcal{N}, B) \leq \alpha V(S). \end{displaymath} - The approximation ratio captures the \emph{price of truthfulness}: this is - what you loose by moving from the non-strategic case to the strategic case - with a truthfulness constraint. + The approximation ratio captures the \emph{price of truthfulness}, \emph{i.e.}, the relative value loss incurred by adding the truthfulness constraint. % to the value function maximization. \item \emph{Computationally efficient.} The allocation and payment function - should be computable in polynomial time in the number $|\mathcal{N}|$ of - agents. \thibaut{Should we say something about the black-box model for $V$? - Needed to say something in general, but not in our case where the value - function can be computed in polynomial time}. + should be computable in polynomial time in the number of + agents $n$. %\thibaut{Should we say something about the black-box model for $V$? Needed to say something in general, but not in our case where the value function can be computed in polynomial time}. \end{itemize} -Note that this is a \emph{single parameter} auction: each agent has only one -private value. In this case, Myerson's theorem \cite{myerson} gives +As noted in \cite{singer-mechanisms, chen}, budget feasible reverse auctions are \emph{single parameter} auctions: each agent has only one +private value. In this case, Myerson's Theorem \cite{myerson} gives a characterization of truthful mechanisms. -\begin{theorem}[Myerson \cite{myerson}]\label{thm:myerson} -A normalized mechanism $\mathcal{M} = (f,p)$ for a single parameter auction is +\begin{lemma}[Myerson \cite{myerson}]\label{thm:myerson} +\sloppy A normalized mechanism $\mathcal{M} = (f,p)$ for a single parameter auction is truthful iff: -\begin{enumerate} -\item $f$ is \emph{monotone}: for any agent $i$ and $c_i' \leq c_i$, for any +%\begin{enumerate} +%\item +(a) $f$ is \emph{monotone}, \emph{i.e.}, for any agent $i$ and $c_i' \leq c_i$, for any fixed costs $c_{-i}$ of agents in $\mathcal{N}\setminus\{i\}$, $i\in f(c_i, -c_{-i})\implies i\in f(c_i', c_{-i})$. -\item agents are paid their \emph{threshold payments}: agent $i$ receives -$\inf\{c_i: i\in f(c_i, c_{-i})\}$. -\end{enumerate} -\end{theorem} +c_{-i})$ implies $i\in f(c_i', c_{-i})$, and (b) +%\item + agents are paid \emph{threshold payments}, \emph{i.e.}, for all $i\in f(c)$, $p_i(c)=\inf\{c_i': i\in f(c_i', c_{-i})\}$. +%\end{enumerate} +\end{lemma} +\fussy +Myerson's Theorem is particularly useful when designing a budget feasible truthful +mechanism, as it allows us to focus on designing a monotone allocation function. Then, the +mechanism will be truthful as long as we give each agent her threshold payment---the caveat being that the latter need to sum to a value below $B$. + +\subsection{Budget Feasible Experimental Design} +In this paper, we approach the problem of optimal experimental design from the +perspective of a budget feasible reverse auction, as defined above. + In particular, we assume the experimenter has a budget +$B\in\reals_+$ and plays the role of the buyer. +Each experiment $i\in +\mathcal{N}$ corresponds to a strategic agent, whose cost $c_i$ is +private. In order to obtain the measurement $y_i$, the experimenter needs to +pay agent $i$ a price that exceeds her cost. + +For example, each $i$ may correspond to a human participant; the +feature vector $x_i$ may correspond to a normalized vector of her age, weight, +gender, income, \emph{etc.}, and the measurement $y_i$ may capture some +biometric information (\emph{e.g.}, her red cell blood count, a genetic marker, +etc.). The cost $c_i$ is the amount the participant deems sufficient to +incentivize her participation in the study. Note that, in this setup, the feature vectors $x_i$ are public information that the experimenter can consult prior the experiment design. Moreover, though a participant may lie about her true cost $c_i$, she cannot lie about $x_i$ (\emph{i.e.}, all features are verifiable upon collection) or $y_i$ (\emph{i.e.}, she cannot falsify her measurement). + + -This theorem is particularly useful when designing a budget feasible truthful -mechanism: we can focus on designing a monotone allocation function. Then, the -mechanism will be truthful as long as we give each agent her threshold payment. -Finally, it suffices to prove that the sum of threshold payments does not -exceed the budget to ensure budget feasibility. \begin{comment} \subsection{Experimental Design} |