Mechanism Design for Online Resource Allocation
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".