On the hardness of dominant strategy mechanism design
Shahar Dobzinski, Shiri Ron, Jan Vondrák
Abstract
We study the communication complexity of dominant strategy implementations of combinatorial auctions. We start with two domains that are generally considered "easy": multi-unit auctions with decreasing marginal values and combinatorial auctions with gross substitutes valuations. For both domains we have fast algorithms that find the welfare-maximizing allocation with communication complexity that is poly-logarithmic in the input size. This immediately implies that welfare maximization can be achieved in ex-post equilibrium with no significant communication cost, by using VCG payments. In contrast, we show that in both domains the communication complexity of any dominant strategy implementation that achieves the optimal welfare is polynomial in the input size.
We then move on to studying the approximation ratios achievable by dominant strategy mechanisms. For multi-unit auctions with decreasing marginal values, we provide a dominant-strategy communication FPTAS. For combinatorial auctions with general valuations, we show that there is no dominant strategy mechanism that achieves an approximation ratio better than m 1-ε that uses poly(m, n) bits of communication, where m is the number of items and n is the number of bidders. In contrast, a randomized dominant strategy mechanism that achieves an O( √ m) approximation with poly(m, n) communication is known. This proves the first gap between computationally efficient deterministic dominant strategy mechanisms and randomized ones. En route, we answer an open question on the communication cost of implementing dominant strategy mechanisms for more than two players, and also solve some open problems in the area of simultaneous combinatorial auctions.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- Structural Complexities of Matching MechanismsYannai A. Gonczarowski, Clayton ThomasSTOC 2024 · 4 citations
- On the Power of Randomization for Obviously Strategy-Proof MechanismsShiri Ron, Daniel SchoepflinAAAI 2025 · 2 citations
- Communication Separations for Truthful Auctions: Breaking the Two-Player BarrierShiri Ron, Clayton Thomas, S. Matthew Weinberg, Qianfan ZhangFOCS 2024 · 2 citations
- Settling the Communication Complexity of VCG-Based Mechanisms for All Approximation GuaranteesFrederick V. Qiu, S. Matthew WeinbergSTOC 2024 · 1 citation
- Selling Data as a Digital Good with Scaling ValuationsNingyuan Li, Yanru Guan, Xiaotie Deng, Zihe Wang et al.ICML 2026
Builds on2
- Improved Truthful Mechanisms for Subadditive Combinatorial Auctions: Breaking the Logarithmic BarrierSepehr Assadi, Thomas Kesselheim, Sahil SinglaSODA 2021 · 22 citations
- Separating the communication complexity of truthful and non-truthful combinatorial auctionsSepehr Assadi, Hrishikesh Khandeparkar, Raghuvansh R. Saxena, S. Matthew WeinbergSTOC 2020 · 10 citations
Related papers
- The Communication Complexity of Combinatorial Auctions with Additional Succinct BiddersFrederick V. Qiu, S. Matthew Weinberg, Qianfan ZhangSODA 2026
- Impossibilities for Obviously Strategy-Proof MechanismsShiri RonSODA 2024 · 4 citations
- The randomized communication complexity of randomized auctionsAviad Rubinstein, Junyao ZhaoSTOC 2021 · 2 citations
- Online Combinatorial AuctionsYuan Deng, Debmalya Panigrahi, Hanrui ZhangSODA 2021 · 2 citations
- Computing Perfect Bayesian Equilibria in Sequential Auctions with VerificationVinzenz Thoma, Vitor Bosshard, Sven SeukenAAAI 2025 · 3 citations
