Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.28722

From the Social Choice Problem to a Collusion-Proof Tendering Mechanism for Dynamic Stochastic Projects

Endre Csóka
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The VCG family and the AGV mechanism are two classical approaches to efficient implementation in the static social choice problem. In 2024, Csóka et al. showed that AGV has critical weaknesses. In contrast, the transferable-utility Guaranteed Utility Mechanism (TU-GUM) retains all the standard desirable properties of AGV while adding further ones, including collusion-proofness, because it implements efficiency in Guaranteed Utility Equilibrium. TU-GUM also applies to a more general dynamic setting with multiple extensions. Moreover, TU-GUM is a special case of an even more general and robust mechanism that combines contingent first-price tendering with the coordinated execution of dynamic stochastic multi-agent projects through a surprisingly simple rule. This paper summarizes and connects existing results from a different perspective, with some minor new observations.

Explore related subjects

econ.THcs.GT

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Endre Csóka. 2026-08-28. From the Social Choice Problem to a Collusion-Proof Tendering Mechanism for Dynamic Stochastic Projects. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28722

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.GT subjectecon.TH subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Mechanism Design for Alignment and Control

We develop a framework for mechanism design with AI agents whose alignment (preferences) and capabilities (feasible actions and information) are unknown. We want such agents to act on our behalf so mechanisms must incentivize both honesty and obedience. A one-sided imitation structure---capabilities can be concealed but not counterfeited---yields a revelation principle, a characterization of implementable policies via nested cyclical monotonicity, and conditions under which eliciting higher-order beliefs can discipline multiple agents. We apply our framework to stylized examples of (i) sandbagging in which a more capable agent pretends to be less capable; (ii) an alignment--interpretability trade-off, where the two are substitutes in the instrument but complements in value; (iii) discipline via peer scoring; (iv) coupling rewards to induce competition among multiple agents; and (v) scalable oversight and reward shaping.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

Scale-robust Auctions

We study auctions that are robust at any scale, i.e., they can be applied to sell both expensive and cheap items and achieve the best multiplicative approximation of the optimal revenue in the worst case. We first show that it is without loss of optimality to restrict attention to scale-invariant mechanisms whenever the family of possible distributions is closed under every positive rescaling. This conclusion uses no regularity or other distributional shape restriction. We then solve the two-agent, single-item problem with values drawn i.i.d. from an unknown regular distribution when only a high value bidder can receive a positive allocation. The robustly optimal mechanism in this class randomizes between the second-price auction, with probability approximately 0.806, and a markup auction that offers the item to the highest-valued bidder at a price equal to 2.447 times the second-highest value. Its worst-case approximation ratio is approximately 1.907.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Refundable Deposits: How to Restore Cooperation in Finitely Repeated Games

While infinitely repeated games admit a rich set of Nash equilibria, finitely repeated games typically have a much smaller and often inefficient one. We show how to enlarge this set using deposits: in each period a player may place a refundable sum with a neutral intermediary, returned when the game ends and forfeited following a deviation. Paying these deposits is voluntary and incentive compatible at every stage, so no commitment by the players is assumed, the only commitment required being that of the intermediary to a refund rule fixed before play begins. The mechanism sustains payoff profiles more efficient than those of the standard equilibria, without altering the underlying game and without transfers between players. We demonstrate it on the prisoner's dilemma, a congestion game, and a public goods game, all settings where cooperation cannot emerge in the standard finitely repeated version. We also apply it to a dynamic common-pool resource, suggesting that the construction extends beyond repeated stage-games.

cs.GT↗