Computational criticisms of the revelation principle
EC '04 Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce
Junta distributions and the average-case complexity of manipulating elections
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Universal voting protocol tweaks to make manipulation hard
IJCAI'03 Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence
Complexity of mechanism design
UAI'02 Proceedings of the Eighteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence
Automated mechanism design with co-evolutionary hierarchical genetic programming techniques
Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
A mechanism is manipulable if it is in some agents' best interest to misrepresent their private information. The revelation principle establishes that, roughly, anything that can be accomplished by a manipulable mechanism can also be accomplished with a truthful mechanism. Yet agents often fail to play their optimal manipulations due to computational limitations or various flavors of incompetence and cognitive biases. Thus, manipulable mechanisms in particular should anticipate byzantine play. We study manipulation-optimal mechanisms: mechanisms that are undominated by truthful mechanisms when agents act fully rationally, and do better than any truthful mechanism if any agent fails to act rationally in any way . This enables the mechanism designer to do better than the revelation principle would suggest, and obviates the need to predict byzantine agents' irrational behavior. We prove a host of possibility and impossibility results for the concept which have the impression of broadly limiting possibility. These results are largely in line with the revelation principle, although the considerations are more subtle and the impossibility not universal.