Abstract:We consider the problem of a designer who wants to allocate resources to representatives, that then distribute the resources they receive among the individuals they represent. Motivated by the way Feeding America, one of the largest U.S. charities, allocates donations to food banks, which then further distribute the donations to food-insecure individuals, we focus on mechanisms that use artificial currencies. We compare auctions through the lens of the Price of Anarchy, with respect to three canonical welfare objectives: utilitarian social welfare (sum of individuals' utilities), Nash social welfare (product of individuals' utilities), and egalitarian social welfare (minimum of individuals' utilities). We prove strong lower bounds on the Price of Anarchy of all auctions that allocate each item to the highest bidder, subject to a mild technical constraint; this includes Feeding America's current auction, the First-Price auction. In sharp contrast, our main result shows that adapting the classic Trading Post mechanism of Shapley and Shubik to this setting, and coupled with Feeding America's choice of budget rule (each representative gets an amount of artificial currency equal to the number of individuals it represents), achieves a small Price of Anarchy for all generalized $p$-mean objectives simultaneously. Our bound on the Price of Anarchy of the Trading Post mechanism depends on $\ell$: the product of the rank and the ``incoherence'' of the underlying valuation matrix, which together capture a notion of how ``spread out'' the values of a matrix are. This notion has been extremely influential in the matrix completion literature, and, to the best of our knowledge, has never been used in auction theory prior to our work. Perhaps surprisingly, we prove that the dependence on $\ell$ is necessary: the Price of Anarchy of the Trading Post mechanism is $\Omega(\sqrt{\ell})$.

An Incentive Mechanism for Selfish Bin Covering.

Bin Packing of Selfish Items

Best Cost-Sharing Rule Design for Selfish Bin Packing

Cost-Sharing Mechanisms For Selfish Bin Packing

A note on a selfish bin packing problem

From Packing Rules to Cost-Sharing Mechanisms.

A Best Cost-Sharing Rule for Selfish Bin Packing

Inefficiency of Equilibria for the Machine Covering Game on Uniform Machines

A General Bin Packing Game: Interest Taken into Account

Getting More by Knowing Less: Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Fair Division

Selfishness Level of Strategic Games

Mechanism Design for Set Cover Games when Elements Are Agents

Bin Packing Game With An Interest Matrix

Cost Sharing and Strategyproof Mechanisms for Set Cover Games

Cost Allocation and Strategyproof Mechanism for Cover-set Games

Mechanism Design with Delegated Bidding

Incentive Design for Large Congestion Games: Publicness-Specific Bayes Correlated Wardrop Equilibrium (Extended Abstract)

On the Efficiency of All-Pay Mechanisms

A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Incentivizing Investments in Security Games

Incentives for Early Arrival in Cost Sharing

Envy freedom and prior-free mechanism design