Truthful Mechanism Design for Multidimensional Covering Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate {\em multidimensional covering mechanism-design} problems, wherein there are $m$ items that need to be covered and $n$ agents who provide covering objects, with each agent $i$ having a private cost for the covering objects he provides. The goal is to select a set of covering objects of minimum total cost that together cover all the items. We focus on two representative covering problems: uncapacitated facility location (\ufl) and vertex cover (\vcp). For multidimensional \ufl, we give a black-box method to transform any {\em Lagrangian-multiplier-preserving} $ρ$-approximation algorithm for \ufl to a truthful-in-expectation, $ρ$-approx. mechanism. This yields the first result for multidimensional \ufl, namely a truthful-in-expectation 2-approximation mechanism. For multidimensional \vcp (\mvcp), we develop a {\em decomposition method} that reduces the mechanism-design problem into the simpler task of constructing {\em threshold mechanisms}, which are a restricted class of truthful mechanisms, for simpler (in terms of graph structure or problem dimension) instances of \mvcp. By suitably designing the decomposition and the threshold mechanisms it uses as building blocks, we obtain truthful mechanisms with the following approximation ratios ($n$ is the number of nodes): (1) $O(r^2\log n)$ for $r$-dimensional \vcp; and (2) $O(r\log n)$ for $r$-dimensional \vcp on any proper minor-closed family of graphs (which improves to $O(\log n)$ if no two neighbors of a node belong to the same player). These are the first truthful mechanisms for \mvcp with non-trivial approximation guarantees.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".