Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Complexity of Mechanism Design

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv cs/0205075 v1 pith:LGGG3VYN submitted 2002-05-28 cs.GT cs.CCcs.MA

Complexity of Mechanism Design

classification cs.GT cs.CCcs.MA
keywords mechanismdesignagentspreferencesproblemaggregationcomplexityimplementation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The aggregation of conflicting preferences is a central problem in multiagent systems. The key difficulty is that the agents may report their preferences insincerely. Mechanism design is the art of designing the rules of the game so that the agents are motivated to report their preferences truthfully and a (socially) desirable outcome is chosen. We propose an approach where a mechanism is automatically created for the preference aggregation setting at hand. This has several advantages, but the downside is that the mechanism design optimization problem needs to be solved anew each time. Focusing on settings where side payments are not possible, we show that the mechanism design problem is NP-complete for deterministic mechanisms. This holds both for dominant-strategy implementation and for Bayes-Nash implementation. We then show that if we allow randomized mechanisms, the mechanism design problem becomes tractable. In other words, the coordinator can tackle the computational complexity introduced by its uncertainty about the agents' preferences by making the agents face additional uncertainty. This comes at no loss, and in some cases at a gain, in the (social) objective.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Is Delegated Play Truthful? Within-Range Regret and the Trilemma of Aligned Delegation

    cs.GT 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    The gain from misreporting to your own proxy equals the proxy's within-range regret, so honest reporting is optimal exactly when the proxy already plays the best reachable action; guardrails then face a binding–truthf...