IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v67y2009i1p125-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond Moulin mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Mehta, Aranyak
  • Roughgarden, Tim
  • Sundararajan, Mukund

Abstract

The only known general technique for designing truthful and approximately budget-balanced cost-sharing mechanisms with good efficiency or computational complexity properties is due to Moulin [1999. Incremental cost sharing: Characterization by coalition strategy-proofness. Soc. Choice Welfare 16 (2), 279-320]. For many fundamental cost-sharing applications, however, Moulin mechanisms provably suffer from poor budget-balance, poor economic efficiency, or both. We propose acyclic mechanisms, a new framework for designing truthful and approximately budget-balanced cost-sharing mechanisms. Acyclic mechanisms strictly generalize Moulin mechanisms and offer three important advantages. First, it is easier to design acyclic mechanisms than Moulin mechanisms: many classical primal-dual algorithms naturally induce a non-Moulin acyclic mechanism with good performance guarantees. Second, for important classes of cost-sharing problems, acyclic mechanisms have exponentially better budget-balance and economic efficiency than Moulin mechanisms. Finally, while Moulin mechanisms have found application primarily in binary demand games, we extend acyclic mechanisms to general demand games, a multi-parameter setting in which each bidder can be allocated one of several levels of service.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehta, Aranyak & Roughgarden, Tim & Sundararajan, Mukund, 2009. "Beyond Moulin mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 125-155, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:67:y:2009:i:1:p:125-155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(08)00125-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hervé Moulin & Scott Shenker, 2001. "Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs:budget balance versus efficiency," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 18(3), pages 511-533.
    2. Peleg, Bezalel, 1992. "Axiomatizations of the core," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, pages 397-412, Elsevier.
    3. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    4. HervÊ Moulin, 1999. "Incremental cost sharing: Characterization by coalition strategy-proofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 279-320.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Minghui Lai & Weili Xue & Qian Hu, 2019. "An Ascending Auction for Freight Forwarder Collaboration in Capacity Sharing," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 1175-1195, July.
    2. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    3. Zhang, Wentao & Uhan, Nelson A. & Dessouky, Maged & Toriello, Alejandro, 2018. "Moulin mechanism design for freight consolidation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 141-162.
    4. William N. Caballero & Brian J. Lunday & Darryl K. Ahner, 2020. "Incentive Compatible Cost Sharing of a Coalition Initiative with Probabilistic Inspection and Penalties for Misrepresentation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1021-1055, December.
    5. Jesse A. Schwartz & Quan Wen, 2018. "Robust trading mechanisms with budget surplus and partial trade," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 201-208, October.
    6. Balireddi, Sindhura & Uhan, Nelson A., 2012. "Cost-sharing mechanisms for scheduling under general demand settings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 270-277.
    7. Schwartz, Jesse A. & Wen, Quan, 2018. "A subsidized Vickrey auction for cost sharing," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 32-38.
    8. Hagen, Martin, 2023. "Collusion-proof mechanisms for multi-unit procurement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 281-298.
    9. Georgiou, Konstantinos & Swamy, Chaitanya, 2019. "Black-box reductions for cost-sharing mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 17-37.
    10. Yi, Jianxin & Li, Yong, 2016. "A general impossibility theorem and its application to individual rights," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 79-86.
    11. Dobzinski, Shahar & Mehta, Aranyak & Roughgarden, Tim & Sundararajan, Mukund, 2018. "Is Shapley cost sharing optimal?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 130-138.
    12. Hashimoto, Kazuhiko & Saitoh, Hiroki, 2015. "Strategy-proof cost sharing under increasing returns: Improvement of the supremal welfare loss," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 101-121.
    13. Hu, Shichun & Dessouky, Maged M. & Uhan, Nelson A. & Vayanos, Phebe, 2021. "Cost-sharing mechanism design for ride-sharing," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 410-434.
    14. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 59-83.
    15. Paul Dütting & Vasilis Gkatzelis & Tim Roughgarden, 2017. "The Performance of Deferred-Acceptance Auctions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 897-914, November.
    16. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83199, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Martin Hellwig, 2015. "Financial Stability and Monetary Policy," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2015_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    18. Yi, Jianxin & Wang, Hefei & Li, Yong, 2018. "Designing efficient and incentive compatible mechanisms is almost impossible in quasi-linear environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 113-117.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hagen, Martin, 2023. "Collusion-proof mechanisms for multi-unit procurement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 281-298.
    2. Ruben Juarez & Rajnish Kumar, 2013. "Implementing efficient graphs in connection networks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 359-403, October.
    3. Kazuhiko Hashimoto & Hiroki Saitoh, 2016. "Strategy-proof rules for an excludable public good," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(4), pages 749-766, April.
    4. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    5. Balireddi, Sindhura & Uhan, Nelson A., 2012. "Cost-sharing mechanisms for scheduling under general demand settings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 270-277.
    6. Juarez, Ruben & Nitta, Kohei & Vargas, Miguel, 2021. "Coalitional efficient profit-sharing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    7. Michel Le Breton & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Alexei Savvateev & Shlomo Weber, 2013. "Stability and fairness in models with a multiple membership," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 673-694, August.
    8. Jarman, Felix & Meisner, Vincent, 2017. "Ex-post optimal knapsack procurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 35-63.
    9. Dobzinski, Shahar & Mehta, Aranyak & Roughgarden, Tim & Sundararajan, Mukund, 2018. "Is Shapley cost sharing optimal?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 130-138.
    10. Hashimoto, Kazuhiko & Saitoh, Hiroki, 2015. "Strategy-proof cost sharing under increasing returns: Improvement of the supremal welfare loss," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 101-121.
    11. Paul Dütting & Vasilis Gkatzelis & Tim Roughgarden, 2017. "The Performance of Deferred-Acceptance Auctions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 897-914, November.
    12. Minghui Lai & Weili Xue & Qian Hu, 2019. "An Ascending Auction for Freight Forwarder Collaboration in Capacity Sharing," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 1175-1195, July.
    13. Adam N. Elmachtoub & Retsef Levi, 2015. "From Cost Sharing Mechanisms to Online Selection Problems," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 542-557, March.
    14. Chen, Jing & Micali, Silvio, 2012. "Collusive dominant-strategy truthfulness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1300-1312.
    15. Georgiou, Konstantinos & Swamy, Chaitanya, 2019. "Black-box reductions for cost-sharing mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 17-37.
    16. Zhang, Wentao & Uhan, Nelson A. & Dessouky, Maged & Toriello, Alejandro, 2018. "Moulin mechanism design for freight consolidation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 141-162.
    17. Kazuhiko Hashimoto & Kohei Shiozawa, 2018. "Strategy-Proofness and Efficiency of Probabilistic Mechanisms for Excludable Public Good," Working Papers e118, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    18. Arthur Carvalho & Kate Larson, 2012. "Sharing Rewards Among Strangers Based on Peer Evaluations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 253-273, September.
    19. Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2015. "Mechanism design with two alternatives in quasi-linear environments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 433-455, February.
    20. Shipra Agrawal & Yichuan Ding & Amin Saberi & Yinyu Ye, 2012. "Price of Correlations in Stochastic Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 150-162, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:67:y:2009:i:1:p:125-155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.