1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related}
\subsection{Budget Feasible Mechanisms for General Submodular Functions}
Budget feasible mechanism design was originally proposed by \citeN{singer-mechanisms}. Singer considers the problem of maximizing an arbitrary submodular function subject to a budget constraint in the \emph{value query} model, \emph{i.e.} assuming an oracle providing the value of the submodular objective on any given set.
Singer shows that there exists a randomized, 112-approximation mechanism for submodular maximization that is \emph{universally truthful} (\emph{i.e.}, it is a randomized mechanism sampled from a distribution over truthful mechanisms). \citeN{chen} improve this result by providing a 7.91-approximate mechanism, and show a corresponding lower bound of $2$ among universally truthful mechanisms for submodular maximization.
In contrast to the above results, no deterministic, truthful, constant approximation mechanism that runs in polynomial time is presently known for submodular maximization. However, assuming access to an oracle providing the optimum in the full-information setup, Chen \emph{et al.},~provide a truthful, $8.34$-approximate mechanism; in cases for which the full information problem is NP-hard, as the one we consider here, this mechanism is not poly-time, unless P=NP. Chen \emph{et al.}~also prove a $1+\sqrt{2}$ lower bound for truthful mechanisms, improving upon an earlier bound of 2 by \citeN{singer-mechanisms}.
\subsection{Budget Feasible Mechanism Design on Specific Problems}
Improved bounds, as well as deterministic polynomial mechanisms, are known for specific submodular objectives under the value query model. For symmetric submodular functions, a truthful mechanism with approximation ratio 2 is known, and this ratio is tight \cite{singer-mechanisms}. Singer also provides a 7.32-approximate truthful mechanism for the budget feasible version of \textsc{Matching}, and a corresponding lower bound of 2 \cite{singer-mechanisms}. Improving an earlier result by Singer, \citeN{chen} give a truthful, $2+\sqrt{2}$-approximate mechanism for \textsc{Knapsack}, and a lower bound of $1+\sqrt{2}$. Finally, a truthful, 31-approximate mechanism is also known for the budgeted version of \textsc{Coverage} \cite{singer-mechanisms,singer-influence}. Our results therefore extend the set of problems for which a deterministic, polynomial mechanism is known to include \SEDP.
\subsection{Beyond Submodular Objectives}
Beyond submodular objectives, it is known that no truthful mechanism with approximation ratio smaller than $n^{1/2-\epsilon}$ exists for maximizing fractionally subadditive functions (a class that includes submodular functions) assuming access to a value query oracle~\cite{singer-mechanisms}. Assuming access to a stronger oracle (the \emph{demand} oracle), there exists
a truthful, $O(\log^3 n)$-approximate mechanism
\cite{dobz2011-mechanisms} as well as a universally truthful, $O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$-approximate mechanism for subadditive maximization
\cite{bei2012budget}. Moreover, in a Bayesian setup, assuming a prior distribution among the agent's costs, there exists a truthful mechanism with a 768/512-approximation ratio \cite{bei2012budget}. %(in terms of expectations)
\subsection{Data Markets}
A series of recent papers \cite{mcsherrytalwar,approximatemechanismdesign,xiao:privacy-truthfulness,chen:privacy-truthfulness} consider the related problem of retrieving data from an \textit{unverified} database: the auctioneer cannot verify the data reported by individuals and therefore must incentivize them to report truthfully.
\citeN{mcsherrytalwar} argue that \emph{differentially private} mechanisms offer a form of \emph{approximate truthfulness}: if users have a utility that depends on their privacy, reporting their data untruthfully can only increase their utility by a small amount. \citeN{xiao:privacy-truthfulness}, improving upon earlier work by~\citeN{approximatemechanismdesign}, constructs mechanisms that
simultaneously achieve exact truthfulness as well as differential privacy. Eliciting private data through a \emph{survey} \cite{roth-liggett}, whereby individuals first decide whether to participate in the survey and then report their data,
also falls under the unverified database setting \cite{xiao:privacy-truthfulness}. In the \emph{verified} database setting, \citeN{ghosh-roth:privacy-auction} and~\citeN{pranav} consider budgeted auctions where users have a utility again captured by differential privacy. Our work departs from the above setups in that utilities do not involve privacy, whose effects are assumed to be internalized in the costs reported by the users; crucially, we also assume that experiments are tamper-proof, and individuals can misreport their costs but not their values.
\sloppy
Our work is closest to the survey setup of~\citeN{roth-schoenebeck}, who also consider how to sample individuals with different features who report a hidden value at a certain cost. The authors assume a prior on the joint distribution between costs and features, and wish to obtain an unbiased estimate of the expectation of the hidden value under the constraints of truthfulness, budget feasibility and individual rationality. Our work departs by learning a more general statistic (a linear model) than data means. We note that, as in \cite{roth-schoenebeck}, costs and features can be arbitrarily correlated (our results are prior-free).
\fussy
%\stratis{TODO: privacy discussion. Logdet objective. Should be one paragraph each.}
\begin{comment}
Two types of mechanisms: \emph{deterministic} and \emph{randomized}. For
randomized mechanisms, people seek \emph{universally truthful} mechanisms:
mechanisms which are a randomization of truthful mechanisms.
\paragraph{Symmetric submodular functions} $V(S) = g(|S|)$ where $g$ is
a concave function. Truthful deterministic mechanism with approximation ratio
of 2. This is optimal \cite{singer-mechanisms}.
\paragraph{Knapsack} deterministic: $1+\sqrt{2}\leq \alpha \leq 2 + \sqrt{2}$,
randomized: $2\leq \alpha\leq 3$ \cite{chen}
\paragraph{Matching} deterministic: $2 \leq \alpha\leq 7.32$ \cite{singer-mechanisms}
\paragraph{Coverage} deterministic: $ ?\leq\alpha\leq 31$ \cite{singer-influence}
\paragraph{Submodular function} deterministic: $1+\sqrt{2}\leq\alpha\leq ?$,
randomized: $2\leq\alpha\leq 7.91$ \cite{chen}
For wider class of functions, \cite{singer-mechanisms} proves that even for XOS
functions, the lower bound is $\sqrt{n}$ (no constant approximation) even in the
non-strategic case). To be able to say something interesting, people extend the
computational model to the \emph{demand} query model: you have access to an
oracle which given a vector of price $[p_i]_{i\in\mathcal{N}}$ returns
$S\in\argmax_{S\subseteq\mathcal{N}} V(S) - \sum_{i\in S} p_i$
\paragraph{XOS functions} fractionally additive functions: functions which can
be written as the max of a finite set of additive functions. deterministic: 768
\paragraph{Complement-free (sub-additive) objective} derministic: $O(\log^3 n)$
\cite{dobz2011-mechanisms}. randomized: $O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$
\cite{bei2012budget}. More generally \cite{bei2012budget} gives a randomized
mechanism which is $O(\mathcal{I})$ where $\mathcal{I}$ is the integrality gap
of a set cover like problem which is defined from the value function. In
particular, for XOS function, this integrality gap is $O(1)$.
\paragraph{Bayesian mechanism design} when we have a distribution over the
costs of the agents. In this case the approximation guarantee is defined in
expectations. \cite{bei2012budget} $768/512$ approximation ratio for any
subadditive function.
\paragraph{Online mechanisms} \cite{learning} in the i.i.d posted price model
for symmetric submodular functions randomized $O(1)$-competitive algorithm. For
general submodular function in the secretary posted price model randomized
$O(\log n)$-competitive algorithm. In the bidding model $O(1)$-competitive
algorithm.
\stratis{What is known about the maximization of logdet in the non-strategic case? Is it NP hard? Approximation ratios?}
\thibaut{Knapsack reduces to our problem in dimension 1, hence maximizing log
det is NP-hard. The approximation ratio is at least (1-1/e) by applying the
general approximation algorithm from Sviridenko \cite{sviridenko-submodular}.}
\end{comment}
|
