Skip to main content
Log in

Incentive Compatible Cost Sharing of a Coalition Initiative with Probabilistic Inspection and Penalties for Misrepresentation

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research proposes cost sharing mechanisms such that payments for a coalition initiative are allocated among players based on their honest valuations of the initiative, probabilistic inspection efforts, and deception penalties. Specifically, we develop a set of multiobjective, nonlinear optimization problem formulations that alternatively impose Bayesian incentive compatible, strategyproof, or group strategyproof mechanisms with generalized cost sharing and penalty functions that can be tailored to specific applications. Any feasible solution to these problems corresponds to a Bayesian game with stochastic payoffs wherein a collectively honest declaration is a Bayes–Nash equilibrium, a Nash equilibrium in dominant strategies, or a collusion resistant Nash equilibrium, respectively, and wherein an optimal solution considers the central authority’s relative priorities between inspection and penalization. In addition to this general framework, we introduce special cases having specific cost sharing and penalty functions such that the set of mechanisms are budget-balanced-in-equilibrium and proportional by design. The convexity of the resulting mathematical programs are examined, and formulation size reductions due to constraint redundancy analyses are presented. The Pareto fronts associated with each multiobjective optimization problem are assessed, as are computer memory limitations. Finally, an experiment considers the clustering of available valuations and the player probability distributions over them to examine their effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. BBiE is a relaxation of the traditional concept of budget balance wherein only the equilibrium profiles are required to achieve budget-balanced outcomes (Christodoulou et al. 2019).

References

  • Bag PK 1997) Public goods provision: applying Jackson–Moulin mechanism for restricted agent characteristics. J Econ Theory 73(2):460–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball I, Kattwinkel D (2019) Probabilistic verification in mechanism design. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM conference on economics and computation. ACM, pp 389–390

  • Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM (2013) Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath E, Dekel E, Lipman BL (2014) Optimal allocation with costly verification. Am Econ Rev 104(12):3779–3813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caragiannis I, Kaklamanis C, Kanellopoulos P (2010) Taxes for linear atomic congestion games. ACM Trans Algorithms 7(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramia M, & Dell’Olmo P (2008). Multi-objective optimization. In: Multi-objective management in freight logistics: increasing capacity, service level and safety with optimization algorithms, pp 11–36

  • Christodoulou G, Koutsoupias E, Nanavati A (2009) Coordination mechanisms. Theor Comput Sci 410(36):3327–3336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou G, Gkatzelis V, Sgouritsa A (2017). Cost-sharing methods for scheduling games under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on economics and computation, pp 441–458

  • Christodoulou G, Leonardi S, Sgouritsa A (2019) Designing cost-sharing methods for Bayesian games. Theory Comput Syst 63(1):4–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czyzyk J, Mesnier MP, Moré JJ (1998) The NEOS server. IEEE J Comput Sci Eng 5(3):68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan E (2001). The NEOS Server 4.0 administrative guide. In: Tech. rept. mathematics and computer science division, Argonne National Laboratory

  • Ehrgott M (2005) Multicriteria optimization, vol 491. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Epitropou M, Vohra R (2019) Dynamic mechanisms with verification. PIER working paper

  • Gill E, Murray W, Saunders MA (2005) SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM Rev 47(1):99–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, PE, Murray, W, Saunders, MA (2006) User’s guide for SNOPT version 7: software for large-scale nonlinear programming

  • Gkatzelis V, Kollias K, Roughgarden T (2016) Optimal cost-sharing in general resource selection games. Oper Res 64(6):1230–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gropp W, Moré J (1997) Optimization environments and the NEOS server. In: Buhman MD, Iserles A (eds) Approximation theory and optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 167–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström K, Göran AO, Edvall M (2009) User’s guide for TOMLAB/KNITRO V6

  • Immorlica N, Mahdian M, Mirrokni VS (2008) Limitations of cross-monotonic cost-sharing schemes. ACM Trans Algorithms 4(2):602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M, Moulin H (1992) Implementing a public project and distributing its cost. J Econ Theory 57(1):125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain K, Vazirani V (2001) Applications of approximation algorithms to cooperative games. In: Proceedings of the thirty-third annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. ACM, pp 364–372

  • Li X-Y, Sun Z, Wang W, Lou W (2010) Cost sharing and strategyproof mechanisms for set cover games. J Comb Optim 20(3):259–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litman T (2013) Local funding options for public transportation. In: Transportation research board 92nd annual meeting

  • Loehman ET, Kiser R, Rassenti SJ (2014) Cost share adjustment processes for cooperative group decisions about shared goods: a design approach. Group Decis Negot 23(5):1085–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundell A (2009) Transformation techniques for signomial functions in global optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Åbo Akademi University

  • McKenna C (2017) August. Counties working on mandated cost-sharing plans. http://www.recordonline.com/news/20170804/counties-working-on-mandated-cost-sharing-plans. Retrieved 1 Dec 2017

  • Mehta A, Roughgarden T, Sundararajan M (2009) Beyond Moulin mechanisms. Games Econ Behav 67(1):125–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H, Shenker S (2001) Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs: budget balance versus efficiency. Econ Theory 18(3):511–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murtagh B, Saunders M (2012) MINOS 5.51 user’s guide

  • Pountourakis E, Vidali A (2010). A complete characterization of group-strategyproof mechanisms of cost-sharing. In: European symposium on algorithms. Springer, pp 146–157

  • Pusillo L (2008) Interactive decisions and potential games. J Global Optim 40(1–3):339–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RHIhub (2017) The Hospital cooperative mobile MRI. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/community-health/project-examples/715. Retrieved on 1 Dec 2017

  • Russo JC, Dias G, Antonio M, Rocha S, Barreira A, Oliveira C, Luiz F(2018) Renegotiation in public-private partnerships: an incentive mechanism approach. Group Decis Negot 27(6):949–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage C (2020). Problems in F.B.I. Wiretap applications go beyond trump aide surveillance, review finds. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/politics/fbi-fisa-wiretap-trump.html

  • Shoham Y, Leyton-Brown K (2008) Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tazari S (2005) Crossmonotonic cost sharing schemes for combinatorial optimization games: a survey. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Workforce Commission. (2020). TWC audits. https://www.twc.texas.gov/news/efte/twc_audits.html

  • U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Management controls over monitoring and closeout of small business innovation research phase II grants. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/igprod/documents/OAS-M-08-09.pdf

  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2016) DHS OIG completes three rounds of unannounced random inspections of CBP and ICE detention facilities. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pr/2016/oigpr-072816.pdf

  • U.S. Internal Revenue Service (2020) IRS audits. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/irs-audits

  • Vohra Rakesh V (2011) Mechanism design: a linear programming approach, vol 47. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winston WL, Goldberg JB (2004) Operations research: applications and algorithms, vol 3. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully thank the Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that have helped improve both the content and presentation of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William N. Caballero.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caballero, W.N., Lunday, B.J. & Ahner, D.K. Incentive Compatible Cost Sharing of a Coalition Initiative with Probabilistic Inspection and Penalties for Misrepresentation. Group Decis Negot 29, 1021–1055 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09693-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09693-z

Keywords

Navigation