skip to main content
research-article

Mechanism Design for Online Resource Allocation: A Unified Approach

Published:12 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper concerns the mechanism design for online resource allocation in a strategic setting. In this setting, a single supplier allocates capacity-limited resources to requests that arrive in a sequential and arbitrary manner. Each request is associated with an agent who may act selfishly to misreport the requirement and valuation of her request. The supplier charges payment from agents whose requests are satisfied, but incurs a load-dependent supply cost. The goal is to design an incentive compatible online mechanism, which determines not only the resource allocation of each request, but also the payment of each agent, so as to (approximately) maximize the social welfare (i.e., aggregate valuations minus supply cost). We study this problem under the framework of competitive analysis. The major contribution of this paper is the development of a unified approach that achieves the best-possible competitive ratios for setups with different supply costs. Specifically, we show that when there is no supply cost or the supply cost function is linear, our model is essentially a standard 0-1 knapsack problem, for which our approach achieves logarithmic competitive ratios that match the state-of-the-art (which is optimal). For the more challenging setup when the supply cost is strictly-convex, we provide online mechanisms, for the first time, that lead to the optimal competitive ratios as well. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach that unifies the characterization of optimal competitive ratios in online resource allocation for different setups including zero, linear and strictly-convex supply costs.

References

  1. Ravi P. Agarwal and V. Lakshmikantham. 1993. Uniqueness and Nonuniqueness Criteria for Ordinary Differential Equations .World Scientific.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Matthew. Andrews, Spyridon. Antonakopoulos, and Lisa. Zhang. 2016. Minimum-Cost Network Design with (Dis)economies of Scale. SIAM J. Comput. , Vol. 45, 1 (2016), 49--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Vladimir Arnold. 1973. Ordinary differential equations. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruch Awerbuch, Yossi Azar, and Amir Epstein. 2005. The Price of Routing Unsplittable Flow. In Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 57--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Y. Azar, N. Buchbinder, T. H. Chan, S. Chen, I. R. Cohen, A. Gupta, Z. Huang, N. Kang, V. Nagarajan, J. Naor, and D. Panigrahi. 2016. Online Algorithms for Covering and Packing Problems with Convex Objectives. In 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , Vol. 00. 148--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, and Yishay Mansour. 2008. Item Pricing for Revenue Maximization. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 50--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yair Bartal, Rica Gonen, and Noam Nisan. 2003. Incentive Compatible Multi Unit Combinatorial Auctions. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 72--87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Avrim Blum, Anupam Gupta, Yishay Mansour, and Ankit Sharma. 2011. Welfare and Profit Maximization with Production Costs. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 52Nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '11). Washington, DC, USA, 77--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Allan Borodin and Ran El-Yaniv. 1998. Online Computation and Competitive Analysis .Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonathan M. Borwein and Adrian S. Lewis. 2006. Convex Analysis and and Nonlinear Optimization .Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Niv Buchbinder and R. Gonen. 2015. Incentive Compatible Mulit-Unit Combinatorial Auctions: A Primal Dual Approach . Algorithmica , Vol. 72 (2015), 167--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Niv Buchbinder and Joseph Naor. 2006. Improved bounds for online routing and packing via a primal-dual approach. In 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'06) . 293--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Niv Buchbinder and Joseph (Seffi) Naor. 2009. Online Primal-Dual Algorithms for Covering and Packing . Mathematics of Operations Research , Vol. 34, 2 (May 2009), 270--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Niv Buchbinder and Joseph (Seffi) Naor. 2009. The Design of Competitive Online Algorithms via a Primal-Dual Approach. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. , Vol. 3, 2--3 (Feb. 2009), 93--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ying-Ju Chen and Jiawei Zhang. 2012. Design of price mechanisms for network resource allocation via price of anarchy. Mathematical Programming , Vol. 131, 1 (01 Feb 2012), 333--364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. George Christodoulou and Elias Koutsoupias. 2005. The Price of Anarchy of Finite Congestion Games. In Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 67--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. José Correa, Patricio Foncea, Ruben Hoeksma, Tim Oosterwijk, and Tjark Vredeveld. 2017. Posted Price Mechanisms for a Random Stream of Customers. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation .Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Sven de Vries and Rakesh Vohra. 2003. Combinatorial Auctions: A Survey. INFORMS J. Comput. , Vol. 15, 3 (2003), 284--309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nikhil R. Devanur and Thomas P. Hayes. 2009. The Adwords Problem: Online Keyword Matching with Budgeted Bidders Under Random Permutations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71--78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nikhil R. Devanur and Zhiyi Huang. 2017. Primal Dual Gives Almost Optimal Energy-Efficient Online Algorithms. ACM Trans. Algorithms , Vol. 14, 1, Article 5 (Dec. 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nikhil R. Devanur and Kamal Jain. 2012. Online Matching with Concave Returns. In Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Liran Einav, Chiara Farronato, Jonathan Levin, and Neel Sundaresan. 2018. Auctions versus Posted Prices in Online Markets. Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 126, 1 (2018), 18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. R. El-Yaniv, A. Fiat, R. M. Karp, and G. Turpin. 2001. Optimal search and one-way trading online algorithms . Algorithmica (New York) , Vol. 30, 1 (2001), 101--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Anupam Gupta, Ravishankar Krishnaswamy, and Kirk Pruhs. 2013. Online Primal-Dual for Non-linear Optimization with Applications to Speed Scaling. In Approximation and Online Algorithms. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 173--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhiyi Huang and Anthony Kim. 2015. Welfare Maximization with Production Costs: A Primal Dual Approach. In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA '15). 59--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Navendu Jain, Ishai Menache, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, and Jonathan Yaniv. 2014. A Truthful Mechanism for Value-Based Scheduling in Cloud Computing. Theory of Computing Systems , Vol. 54, 3 (01 Apr 2014), 388--406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Bala Kalyanasundaram and Kirk R. Pruhs. 2000. An Optimal Deterministic Algorithm for Online B-matching. Theor. Comput. Sci. , Vol. 233, 1--2 (Feb. 2000), 319--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Qiulin Lin, Hanling Yi, John Pang, Minghua Chen, Adam Wierman, Michael Honig, and Yuanzhang Xiao. 2019. Competitive Online Optimization under Inventory Constraints. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. , Vol. 3, 1 (March 2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Will Ma and David Simchi-Levi. 2019. Tight Weight-dependent Competitive Ratios for Online Edge-weighted Bipartite Matching and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 727--728.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory .Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Aranyak Mehta. 2013. Online Matching and Ad Allocation. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. , Vol. 8, 4 (Oct. 2013), 265--368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Aranyak Mehta, Amin Saberi, Umesh Vazirani, and Vijay Vazirani. 2007. AdWords and Generalized Online Matching. J. ACM , Vol. 54, 5, Article 22 (Oct. 2007).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. D. S. Mitrinović , J. E. Pevc arić , and A. M. Fink. 1991. Inequalities Involving Functions and Their Integrals and Derivatives. Springer Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Noam Nisan, Tim Roughgarden, Éva Tardos, and Vijay V. Vazirani. 2007. Algorithmic Game Theory .Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence Perko. 2001. Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems. Springer New York, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Andrei D. Polyanin and Valentin F. Zaitsev. 2003. Handbook of Exact Solutions for Ordinary Differential Equations. Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David Porter, Stephen Rassenti, Anil Roopnarine, and Vernon Smith. 2003. Combinatorial auction design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 100, 19 (2003), 11153--11157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1633736100Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Ryan Porter. 2004. Mechanism Design for Online Real-time Scheduling. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Xiaoqi Tan, Ablerto Leon-Garcia, and Danny .H.K. Tsang. 2019. Optimal Posted Prices for Online Resource Allocation with Supply Costs. In Proceedings of ACM Workshop on Mathematical Performance Modeling and Analysis . Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ruqu Wang. 1993. Auctions versus Posted-Price Selling . The American Economic Review , Vol. 83, 4 (1993), 838--851.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and C. Wu. 2017. Optimal Posted Prices for Online Cloud Resource Allocation. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. , Vol. 1, 1 (June 2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Yunhong Zhou, Deeparnab Chakrabarty, and Rajan Lukose. 2008. Budget Constrained Bidding in Keyword Auctions and Online Knapsack Problems. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1243--1244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Mechanism Design for Online Resource Allocation: A Unified Approach

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!