An Incentive-Compatible Mechanism for Scheduling Non-Malleable Parallel Jobs with Individual Deadlines

Author(s):  
Thomas E. Carroll ◽  
Daniel Grosu
2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-25
Author(s):  
Calvin Blackwell

In a prediction contest participants compete for a prize by submitting guesses regarding an unknown variable; the winner of the contest is the participant who submits the most accurate guess. In this paper the results of a simple prediction contest are reported. In the contest, certain members of the administration of a medium-sized university were asked to predict the number of freshmen deposits the university would receive by its spring deadline. Contest participants were told that the contest participant who submitted the most accurate guess would receive a $100 prize. With this incentive-compatible mechanism in place, the average guess from the contest was used as a forecast for the number of deposits. This forecast was at least as accurate as any other simple forecast method.


Econometrica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 1367-1390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-Chun Chen ◽  
Wei He ◽  
Jiangtao Li ◽  
Yeneng Sun

We consider a general social choice environment that has multiple agents, a finite set of alternatives, independent types, and atomless type distribution. We show that for any Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism, there exists an equivalent deterministic mechanism that (1) is Bayesian incentive compatible; (2) delivers the same interim expected allocation probabilities and the same interim expected utilities for all agents; and (3) delivers the same ex ante expected social surplus. This result holds in settings with a rich class of utility functions, multidimensional types, interdependent valuations, and in settings without monetary transfers. To prove our result, we develop a novel methodology of mutual purification, and establish its link with the mechanism design literature.


Econometrica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 965-1005
Author(s):  
Haluk Ergin ◽  
Tayfun Sönmez ◽  
M. Utku Ünver

Liver exchange has been practiced in small numbers, mainly to overcome blood‐type incompatibility between patients and their living donors. A donor can donate either his smaller left lobe or the larger right lobe, although the former option is safer. Despite its elevated risk, right‐lobe transplantation is often utilized due to size‐compatibility requirement with the patient. We model liver exchange as a market‐design problem, focusing on logistically simpler two‐way exchanges, and introduce an individually rational, Pareto‐efficient, and incentive‐compatible mechanism. Construction of this mechanism requires novel technical tools regarding bilateral exchanges under partial‐order‐induced preferences. Through simulations we show that not only can liver exchange increase the number of transplants by more than 30%, it can also increase the share of the safer left‐lobe transplants.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document