Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-Monetary Mechanism Design without Priors: Achieving Efficiency via Adaptive Costly Audits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Without knowing utility distributions and without any money, a planner can achieve $\mathcal{O}(K^2)$ regret using adaptive audits with $\mathcal{O}(K^3 \log T)$ expected checks.

desk verdict A genuine first result in prior-free non-monetary repeated allocation, but the main theorem leans on an unproved PBE existence claim in the auxiliary game; fixable, but must be fixed before it stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08412 v3 pith:Y3SXPADJ submitted 2025-02-12 cs.GT econ.TH

Yan Dai , Moise Blanchard , Patrick Jaillet This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTecon.TH MSC 91B0391A2091A27
keywords mechanismdesignwithoutmoneycostlystateverificationadaptiveauditingnopriordistributionalinformationsocialwelfareregretPerfectBayesianEquilibriumrepeatedresourceallocationincentivecompatibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a planner who knows nothing about agents' utility distributions and cannot use monetary transfers can still allocate a single resource efficiently when agents are strategic. It answers yes, provided the planner can occasionally audit the winning agent after the allocation to observe that agent's true utility. The proposed mechanism, AdaAudit, chooses audit probabilities adaptively from online estimates of each agent's fair winning probability and lets agents flag biased estimates; under a constructed Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, the expected social-welfare regret is at most $K^2$ while the expected number of audits is $\mathcal{O}(K^3 \log T / c)$. The result matters because it gives the first general sub-linear regret guarantee for non-monetary mechanisms with no prior distributional information, showing that costly verification can substitute for both money and prior knowledge.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adaptive audit probability $\hat p_{t,i} = \min(8K^2 / ((T-t) \hat q_{t,i} c), 1)$, where $\hat q_{t,i}$ is the planner's current estimate of $q_{t,i}$, the probability that agent $i$ would win a round under truthful reports from the current set of alive agents. This formula makes the expected future loss from being eliminated, roughly $\hat p_{t,i} (T-t) \mu_{t,i}$, dominate the at-most-one unit of current gain from lying, while the sum over $t$ of $q_{t,i}/((T-t) \mu_{t,i})$ is $\mathcal{O}((\log T)/c)$. Because $q_{t,i}$ is unknown, AdaAudit estimates it in epochs and allows any agent to flag an estimate outside a factor-4 window around the true value; the well-behaved flagging strategy is shown to be individually rational. The equilibrium proof works through an auxiliary game that forbids mark-ups unless the audit probability is 1 and restricts reports to depend only on $(t, \text{alive set})$; a PBE of that restricted game is lifted to the full game via a V-function correspondence.

What would settle it

Simulate AdaAudit on a distribution satisfying Assumption 1, with agents playing the well-behaved flagging equilibrium, and record total regret and audit count over long horizons; the proof asserts regret never exceeds $K^2$ and audits stay within $\mathcal{O}(K^3 \log T / c)$, so any instance violating those bounds would falsify Theorem 5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5: for any utility distributions satisfying Assumption 1 (at least one agent's utility is at least $c > 0$ almost surely), there exists a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium $\pi^*$ of AdaAudit with $R_T(\pi^*, \mathrm{AdaAudit}) \le K^2$ and $B_T(\pi^*, \mathrm{AdaAudit}) = \mathcal{O}(K^3 \log T / c)$. The paper also proves an $\Omega(K)$ lower bound on regret and an $\Omega(1)$ lower bound on audits for low regret, so the qualitative guarantees cannot be obtained without cost. The mechanism's insight is that an audit probability inversely proportional to the winner's expected future gain makes lying unprofitable: the threat of elimination, scaled by the audit probability, outweighs the one-shot gain from misreporting, and summing those probabilities over time yields a harmonic series and hence only logarithmically many audits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every agent knows all utility distributions exactly while the planner knows none, because the flagging strategy requires agents to compare the planner's estimate with the true fair winning probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 5 is correct, an organization that can audit outcomes occasionally can run a near-efficient allocation with zero prior preference data and zero budget for transfers.
  • The logarithmic audit count means the cost of verification, not the number of rounds, is the bottleneck: over a $T$-round horizon the planner spends only $\mathcal{O}(K^3 \log T / c)$ audits in expectation.
  • The lower bounds imply no mechanism can remove the polynomial dependence on $K$ or avoid some constant number of audits, so AdaAudit's qualitative trade-off is essentially unavoidable.
  • The paper's extension to imperfect audit models means the audit signal does not need to be perfectly reliable for the regret and audit guarantees to survive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the flagging rule suggests a reusable design pattern: when a planner's estimate is coupled to agents' reports, let agents who expect to be harmed by a biased estimate veto it, because their private information can police estimation errors.
  • A direct extension would drop the agents-know-distributions assumption and replace the exact $q$-comparison in the flagging rule with a statistical test; making that work would extend the result to settings where agents and planner share no common prior.
  • The proof technique of reducing equilibrium analysis to an auxiliary game with restricted strategies appears transferable to other mechanism design problems, but only where the planner can commit to immediate elimination on detected lies.
  • The gap between the $K^2$ regret upper bound and the $\Omega(K)$ lower bound suggests a plausible next target of closing the factor $K$ with sharper estimates or different audit schedules; this is not claimed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies repeated single-resource allocation among K strategic agents when monetary transfers are disallowed and the planner has no prior knowledge of the agents' utility distributions. The planner can audit the winner after each allocation and observe the winner's true utility, but cannot revoke the allocation. The main result, Theorem 5, claims that for every collection of distributions satisfying Assumption 1 there is a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium of the proposed mechanism AdaAudit under which the social-welfare regret is at most K^2 and the expected number of audits is O(K^3 log T / c). The mechanism adapts audit probabilities to online estimates of agents' fair winning probabilities, and it allows agents to flag biased estimates. The equilibrium analysis proceeds by reducing the original game to a more restrictive auxiliary game, proving a correspondence between equilibria of the two games, and then bounding regret and audit counts in the auxiliary equilibrium. The paper also provides lower bounds showing Omega(K) regret is necessary and that constant expected audits force polynomial regret.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a substantive contribution: it gives the first general sub-linear social-welfare guarantee for repeated non-monetary allocation when the planner has no distributional information, and it introduces two transferable ideas, namely adaptive future punishments calibrated by audited fair shares and an incentive-aligned flagging component. The auxiliary-game reduction is also interesting as a way to circumvent the failure of the revelation principle in a setting where the planner must work for all distributions at once. The paper is unusually explicit about the structure of its proofs and the constants involved. The main reservation is that the central equilibrium-existence claim is taken as an input rather than proved, and the audit-count proof contains a stopping-time concentration step that is not fully justified as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Definition 8, Theorem 10] The proof of the main theorem assumes, rather than establishes, that the auxiliary game has a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium. Theorem 10 begins with 'Let π*^r be a PBE in the auxiliary game from Definition 8', and Theorem 5 then asserts existence of a PBE of AdaAudit for every collection of distributions satisfying Assumption 1. However, no existence theorem for the auxiliary game is stated, proved, or cited. The auxiliary game has continuous private types in [0,1], action sets that depend on the realized type (Restriction 2 gives action set [0,u_t,i] when p_t,i <= 1), payoffs that are discontinuous at report ties and at elimination events, and Assumption 1 explicitly permits distributions with atoms. Standard continuity-based Bayesian equilibrium existence theorems do not apply directly. This is load-bearing: if for some admissible distributions the auxiliary game has no PBE, the constructed π* need not exist and the existence claim of Theorem 5 collapses. The authors should either prove existence of a PBE in the auxiliary game under Assumption 1, cite a theorem that applies to this class of discontinuous type-dependent-action Bayesian games, or restrict the main theorem to the class of distributions for which existence is established.
  2. [Appendix B.2, Claim 25 and Claim 26] The bound on the expected number of audits in the estimation phase relies on the random time t_{ℓ,i} defined in Eq. (21) as the first round in which the empirical frequency of the independent fair-winning indicators F_{t,i} lies in [q_{ℓ,i}/3, 3q_{ℓ,i}], while the agent has won sufficiently many times. The proof of Claim 25 dismisses the case t_{ℓ,i} = t_{ℓ+1} - 1 as 'immediate', but in that case Eq. (21) is not satisfied, and the subsequent inequalities in Claim 26 use Eq. (21) to convert empirical frequencies into bounds on the estimate. Claim 26 then applies Chernoff-type concentration to sums over deterministic dyadic horizons to control 2^{k_{ℓ,i}}. The step connecting the stopping time t_{ℓ,i} (or its non-existence) to the dyadic-horizon concentration bounds is not written out, and as it stands the proof does not establish the claimed O(K^3 log T) audit bound for epochs in which no round satisfies Eq. (21). The authors should either prove the required concentration statement at the stopping time directly, or rework the definition of t_{ℓ,i} and the proof of Claim 26 so that the no-such-t case is covered by the displayed inequalities.
  3. [Appendix D, Theorem 28] The lower-bound proof says 'By the revelation principle, we assume without loss of generality that under this specific utility distributions setup {U_i} and mechanism M truthful reporting truth is the considered PBE.' This is true only after a direct-revelation transformation of M that depends on the fixed prior, and it is potentially confusing given the paper's own discussion that the revelation principle cannot be applied globally across all distributions. The argument should state explicitly that the transformation is performed for the fixed distributions of the lower bound and that it preserves the allocation, audit, and utility processes. As written, the unqualified 'WLOG' invites a circularity objection even though the step can be made valid in this fixed-prior context.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Line 6] When the empirical winning probability \hat q_{t,i_t} is zero, which occurs in the first rounds of an epoch, the audit probability \hat p_{t,i_t} = min(8K^2/((T-t)\hat q_{t,i_t} c), 1) is undefined as written. The intended convention, stated in Section 4.2, is that the agent is audited with probability 1 during the estimation phase. Please add an explicit convention such as \hat p_{t,i_t}=1 when \hat q_{t,i_t}=0.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Appendix A] Definitions 8 and 9 are referred to in the main text as 'Theorem 8' and 'Theorem 9' (e.g., Theorem 10 and several places in Appendix A). This makes the logical status of the statements confusing; the labels should be unified so that definitions are cited as definitions and theorems as theorems.
  3. [Lemmas 11, 12, 13] These are labeled informal theorems in the main text and then proved in the appendix under different numbers (Theorems 18–20). It would improve readability to use a single numbering scheme, or at least to add explicit forward references when the informal statements are introduced.
  4. [Abstract and Theorem 5] The abstract states the audit bound as O(K^3 log T) without the factor 1/c that appears in Theorem 5. Since c is a parameter of Assumption 1 and appears in the proof, the abstract should either include the factor or state that c is a fixed constant of the problem.
  5. [Section 3] The statement that all agents know the utility distributions while the planner knows none is a very strong information asymmetry. The paper justifies it as necessary for the Bayesian equilibrium definition, but it would be helpful to state explicitly in the introduction or the model section that the results do not cover the case where agents also have distributional uncertainty, since the flagging strategy in Definition 9 requires agents to compare the planner's estimate with the true fair winning probability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the regret and audit bounds are derived from a constructed mechanism and an auxiliary-game reduction, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper does not exhibit a circular derivation chain. AdaAudit is a constructive mechanism: audit probabilities are hand-chosen functions of the online estimate bq, and bq is produced by a defined estimation-and-flagging procedure; no parameter is fitted to a target quantity and then renamed a prediction. The equilibrium proof has the standard self-referential structure of a Bayesian game: it postulates a PBE π*^r in a distinct auxiliary game (Definition 8/Algorithm 2) and then proves transfer lemmas (Lemma 18 and Theorem 10) showing that π*^r together with the well-behaved flagging strategy is a PBE of the original game. The original PBE is therefore derived from a separate game rather than assumed in the statement. The cited works by co-authors appear only as contextual prior work or as an external information-theoretic lemma (Blanchard and Voracek 2024, Lemma 16) in the lower-bound proof; they are not the load-bearing source of the main regret or audit guarantees. The lower-bound arguments use the revelation principle only in a fixed-known-distribution hard instance, which is a standard reduction and does not smuggle in the upper-bound conclusion. The main rigor concern is that existence of a PBE in the auxiliary game is asserted without proof, so Theorem 5 is conditional on that existence; this is a proof gap or a missing existence argument, not a circular reduction, because the auxiliary PBE is not defined in terms of the original PBE and no equation reintroduces a fitted quantity as a prediction. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting; the listed constants are proof parameters rather than estimated quantities. The main load-bearing axioms are informational: agents know all distributions while the planner knows none, Assumption 1, and the existence of a PBE in the auxiliary game. The flagging component and auxiliary game are analytical constructs, not new physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Audit multiplier 8 in \hat p_{t,i} = min(8K^2 / ((T-t) \hat q c), 1) = 8
    Hand-chosen constant in Algorithm 1 Line 6, large enough to make Lemma 20's inequality 2K^2 - K^2 - K - 1 >= 0 hold. Scaling is unaffected.
  • Flagging thresholds 4 and 1/4 = 4, 1/4
    Definition 9 / Definition 17; chosen to make the correspondence proof work and keep estimates within a constant factor. Not fitted to data.
  • Auxiliary game multiplier 2 in p_{t,i} = 2K^2 / ((T-t) q_{t,i} c) = 2
    Definition 8; chosen so the original game's audit probability dominates p_{t,i} via \hat q <= 4q. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Utility distributions are public knowledge among agents but unknown to the planner
    Section 3 states this is necessary to define a Bayesian equilibrium; the well-behaved flagging strategy in Definition 9 requires agents to compare estimates to true q_{t,i}, so exact knowledge of all distributions is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption At least one agent's utility distribution is supported on [c,1] for known c>0 (Assumption 1)
    Used in Definition 8 and Section 4.1 to relate q_i <= mu_i / c and in Theorem 21 to lower bound social welfare; if no agent is bounded away from 0, the audit-probability and regret bounds degrade.
  • domain assumption A PBE exists in the auxiliary game of Definition 8
    Theorem 10 takes pi*,r as a PBE in the auxiliary game without proving or citing an existence theorem. This is needed for the existence claim in Theorem 5.
  • standard math Revelation principle for fixed known distributions in the lower bound
    Appendix D, Theorem 28 applies the revelation principle to a fixed distribution family to assume truth-telling is the PBE; standard for Bayesian games with a common prior.
  • domain assumption Audits reveal the winner's true utility exactly and cannot revoke the allocation
    Model assumption in Section 3 Step 4; elimination is the only sanction available to the planner.
  • domain assumption Utilities are i.i.d. across rounds and agents, with support on [0,1], independent of history
    Section 3 model; needed for concentration arguments and the definition of fair shares.
  • standard math Measurable randomized strategies and public histories form a valid game-theoretic framework
    Definitions 1 and 2 use measurable functions and a randomization space; this is the standard measure-theoretic framework for Bayesian games.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Monetary Mechanism Design without Priors: Achieving Efficiency via Adaptive Costly Audits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3SXPADJ

@misc{pith2026250208412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Monetary Mechanism Design without Priors: Achieving Efficiency via Adaptive Costly Audits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3SXPADJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08412}
}
abstract

We study repeated resource allocation with strategic agents, where monetary transfers are disallowed and the planner has no prior information on agents' utility distributions. Inspired by the costly state verification literature, we assume the planner can request costly audits on the winning agent after allocation, revealing their true utility but without the ability to revoke the allocation. We design a mechanism achieving $T$-independent $\mathcal O(K^2)$ regret in social welfare while requesting $\mathcal O(K^3 \log T)$ audits in expectation, where $K$ is the number of agents and $T$ is the number of rounds. We further show an $\Omega(K)$ lower bound on the regret and an $\Omega(1)$ lower bound on the number of audits required for low regret. We also generalize our mechanism and analysis to imperfect audit models. Algorithmically, we show that incentivizing truthful behavior relies on accurately estimating agents' truthful winning probability online. To achieve this, we impose future punishments via adaptive audits; we also introduce an incentive-aligned flagging component allowing agents to flag biased estimates, which we prove is in their best interest. Analytically, without distributional information, the revelation principle cannot dictate a truth-telling equilibrium. Instead, we characterize a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium via a reduction to an auxiliary game with only benign strategies. The technical tools developed herein can be of independent interest for other robust mechanism design problems where the revelation principle is inapplicable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Known trade-offs between regret and expected number of audits. The dashed green (resp. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Efficiency, Feasibility, and Incentive-Awareness in Constrained Online Resource Allocation

    cs.GT 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A primal-dual mechanism with lazy dual updates, randomized exploration, and a fixed-point optimistic learning rule achieves Õ(√T) regret with near-truthful strategic agents under long-term constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A dynamic near-optimal algorithm for online linear programming

    Shipra Agrawal, Zizhuo Wang, and Yinyu Ye. A dynamic near-optimal algorithm for online linear programming. Operations Research, 62 0 (4): 0 876--890, 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    A difficulty in the concept of social welfare

    Kenneth J Arrow. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of political economy, 58 0 (4): 0 328--346, 1950

    1950

  3. [3]

    The property rights doctrine and demand revelation under incomplete information

    Kenneth J Arrow. The property rights doctrine and demand revelation under incomplete information. In Economics and human welfare, pages 23--39. Elsevier, 1979

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Multiagent mechanism design without money

    Santiago R Balseiro, Huseyin Gurkan, and Peng Sun. Multiagent mechanism design without money. Operations Research, 67 0 (5): 0 1417--1436, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    The best of many worlds: Dual mirror descent for online allocation problems

    Santiago R Balseiro, Haihao Lu, and Vahab Mirrokni. The best of many worlds: Dual mirror descent for online allocation problems. Operations Research, 71 0 (1): 0 101--119, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Robust pseudo-markets for reusable public resources

    Siddhartha Banerjee, Giannis Fikioris, and Eva Tardos. Robust pseudo-markets for reusable public resources. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 241--241, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Algorithmic fairness and vertical equity: Income fairness with irs tax audit models

    Emily Black, Hadi Elzayn, Alexandra Chouldechova, Jacob Goldin, and Daniel Ho. Algorithmic fairness and vertical equity: Income fairness with irs tax audit models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1479--1503, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Near-optimal mechanisms for resource allocation without monetary transfers

    Moise Blanchard and Patrick Jaillet. Near-optimal mechanisms for resource allocation without monetary transfers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10066, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Tight bounds for local glivenko-cantelli

    Mo \" se Blanchard and Vaclav Voracek. Tight bounds for local glivenko-cantelli. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages 179--220. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes

    Eric Budish. The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119 0 (6): 0 1061--1103, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Bringing real market participants' real preferences into the lab: An experiment that changed the course allocation mechanism at Wharton

    Eric Budish, Judd B Kessler, et al. Bringing real market participants' real preferences into the lab: An experiment that changed the course allocation mechanism at Wharton. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare

    Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Herv \'e Moulin, Ariel D Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. The unreasonable fairness of maximum nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 7 0 (3): 0 1--32, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Multipart pricing of public goods

    Edward H Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public choice, pages 17--33, 1971

    1971

  6. [14]

    Positive results for mechanism design without money

    Richard Cole, Vasilis Gkatzelis, and Gagan Goel. Positive results for mechanism design without money. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pages 1165--1166, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    What money can't buy: Efficient mechanism design with costly signals

    Daniele Condorelli. What money can't buy: Efficient mechanism design with costly signals. Games and Economic Behavior, 75 0 (2): 0 613--624, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Incentives and incomplete information

    Claude d'Aspremont and Louis-Andr \'e G \'e rard-Varet. Incentives and incomplete information. Journal of Public economics, 11 0 (1): 0 25--45, 1979

    1979

  9. [17]

    The adwords problem: online keyword matching with budgeted bidders under random permutations

    Nikhil R Devanur and Thomas P Hayes. The adwords problem: online keyword matching with budgeted bidders under random permutations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 71--78, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Near optimal online algorithms and fast approximation algorithms for resource allocation problems

    Nikhil R Devanur, Kamal Jain, Balasubramanian Sivan, and Christopher A Wilkens. Near optimal online algorithms and fast approximation algorithms for resource allocation problems. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 66 0 (1): 0 1--41, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Incentivizing truthfulness through audits in strategic classification

    Andrew Estornell, Sanmay Das, and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik. Incentivizing truthfulness through audits in strategic classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 5347--5354, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Incentivizing recourse through auditing in strategic classification

    Andrew Estornell, Yatong Chen, Sanmay Das, Yang Liu, and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik. Incentivizing recourse through auditing in strategic classification. In IJCAI, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Online stochastic packing applied to display ad allocation

    Jon Feldman, Monika Henzinger, Nitish Korula, Vahab S Mirrokni, and Cliff Stein. Online stochastic packing applied to display ad allocation. In European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 182--194. Springer, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Online resource sharing via dynamic max-min fairness: efficiency, robustness and non-stationarity

    Giannis Fikioris, Siddhartha Banerjee, and \'E va Tardos. Online resource sharing via dynamic max-min fairness: efficiency, robustness and non-stationarity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08881, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Efficiency and nash equilibria in a scrip system for p2p networks

    Eric J Friedman, Joseph Y Halpern, and Ian Kash. Efficiency and nash equilibria in a scrip system for p2p networks. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 140--149, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    The folk theorem with imperfect public information

    Drew Fudenberg, David Levine, and Eric Maskin. The folk theorem with imperfect public information. Econometrica, 62 0 (5): 0 997, 1994

    1994

  17. [25]

    A. Gibbard. Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41 0 (4): 0 587--601, 1973

    1973

  18. [26]

    The remarkable robustness of the repeated fisher market

    Artur Gorokh, Siddhartha Banerjee, and Krishnamurthy Iyer. The remarkable robustness of the repeated fisher market. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '21, page 562, 2021 a

    2021

  19. [27]

    From monetary to nonmonetary mechanism design via artificial currencies

    Artur Gorokh, Siddhartha Banerjee, and Krishnamurthy Iyer. From monetary to nonmonetary mechanism design via artificial currencies. Mathematics of Operations Research, 46 0 (3): 0 835--855, 2021 b

    2021

  20. [28]

    Incentives in teams

    Theodore Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 617--631, 1973

    1973

  21. [29]

    Strategy-proof allocation of multiple items between two agents without payments or priors

    Mingyu Guo and Vincent Conitzer. Strategy-proof allocation of multiple items between two agents without payments or priors. In AAMAS, pages 881--888, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Competitive repeated allocation without payments

    Mingyu Guo, Vincent Conitzer, and Daniel M Reeves. Competitive repeated allocation without payments. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics, pages 244--255. Springer, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    On strategy-proof allocation without payments or priors

    Li Han, Chunzhi Su, Linpeng Tang, and Hongyang Zhang. On strategy-proof allocation without payments or priors. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics, pages 182--193. Springer, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Optimal mechanism design and money burning

    Jason D Hartline and Tim Roughgarden. Optimal mechanism design and money burning. In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 75--84, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    The theory of assortative matching based on costly signals

    Heidrun C Hoppe, Benny Moldovanu, and Aner Sela. The theory of assortative matching based on costly signals. The Review of Economic Studies, 76 0 (1): 0 253--281, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Overcoming incentive constraints by linking decisions 1

    Matthew O Jackson and Hugo F Sonnenschein. Overcoming incentive constraints by linking decisions 1. Econometrica, 75 0 (1): 0 241--257, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    Catch me if you can: Combatting fraud in artificial currency based government benefits programs

    Devansh Jalota, Matthew Tsao, and Marco Pavone. Catch me if you can: Combatting fraud in artificial currency based government benefits programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16162, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Analyzing scrip systems

    Kris Johnson, David Simchi-Levi, and Peng Sun. Analyzing scrip systems. Operations Research, 62 0 (3): 0 524--534, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Approximately optimal approximate reinforcement learning

    Sham Kakade and John Langford. Approximately optimal approximate reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 267--274, 2002

    2002

  30. [38]

    Optimizing scrip systems: Efficiency, crashes, hoarders, and altruists

    Ian A Kash, Eric J Friedman, and Joseph Y Halpern. Optimizing scrip systems: Efficiency, crashes, hoarders, and altruists. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 305--315, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    An equilibrium analysis of scrip systems

    Ian A Kash, Eric J Friedman, and Joseph Y Halpern. An equilibrium analysis of scrip systems. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 3 0 (3): 0 1--32, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Allocation for social good: auditing mechanisms for utility maximization

    Taylor Lundy, Alexander Wei, Hu Fu, Scott Duke Kominers, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. Allocation for social good: auditing mechanisms for utility maximization. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 785--803, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Redesigning volunteermatch's ranking algorithm: Toward more equitable access to volunteers

    Vahideh Manshadi, Scott Rodilitz, Daniela Saban, and Akshaya Suresh. Redesigning volunteermatch's ranking algorithm: Toward more equitable access to volunteers. Available at SSRN 4497747, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Cardinal bayesian allocation mechanisms without transfers

    Antonio Miralles. Cardinal bayesian allocation mechanisms without transfers. Journal of Economic Theory, 147 0 (1): 0 179--206, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    The proportional random allocation of indivisible units

    Herv \'e Moulin. The proportional random allocation of indivisible units. Social Choice and Welfare, pages 381--413, 2002

    2002

  36. [44]

    Online Mechanism and Virtual Currency Design for Distributed Systems

    Chaki Ng. Online Mechanism and Virtual Currency Design for Distributed Systems. Harvard University, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    How food banks use markets to feed the poor

    Canice Prendergast. How food banks use markets to feed the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 0 (4): 0 145--162, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    The allocation of food to food banks

    Canice Prendergast. The allocation of food to food banks. Journal of Political Economy, 130 0 (8): 0 1993--2017, 2022

    1993

  39. [47]

    Approximate mechanism design without money

    Ariel D Procaccia and Moshe Tennenholtz. Approximate mechanism design without money. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 1 0 (4): 0 1--26, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Satterthwaite

    N.A. Satterthwaite. Strategy-proofness and A rrow's conditions: E xistence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10 0 (2): 0 187--217, 1975

    1975

  41. [49]

    Mechanism design without money

    James Schummer and Rakesh V Vohra. Mechanism design without money. Algorithmic game theory, 10: 0 243--299, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders

    William Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of finance, 16 0 (1): 0 8--37, 1961

    1961

  43. [51]

    Online allocation and learning in the presence of strategic agents

    Steven Yin, Shipra Agrawal, and Assaf Zeevi. Online allocation and learning in the presence of strategic agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 6333--6344, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.