On the Limitations of Greedy Mechanism Design for Truthful Combinatorial Auctions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study mechanisms for the combinatorial auction (CA) problem, in which m objects are sold to rational agents and the goal is to maximize social welfare. Of particular interest is the special case of s -CAs, where agents are interested in sets of size at most s , for which a simple greedy algorithm obtains an s + 1 approximation, but no polynomial time deterministic truthful mechanism is known to attain an approximation ratio better than O ( m /√log m ). We view this not only as an extreme gap between the power of greedy auctions and truthful greedy auctions, but also as exemplifying the gap between the known power of truthful and non-truthful polynomial time deterministic algorithms. We associate the notion of greediness with a broad class of algorithms, known as priority algorithms, which encapsulate many natural auction methods. This motivates us to ask: how well can a truthful greedy algorithm approximate the optimal social welfare for CA problems? We show that no truthful greedy priority algorithm can obtain an approximation to the CA problem that is sublinear in m , even for s -CAs with s ≥ 2. Our inapproximations are independent of any time constraints on the mechanism and are purely a consequence of the greedy-type restriction. We conclude that any truthful combinatorial auction mechanism with a non-trivial approximation factor must fall outside the scope of many natural auction methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".