Limitations of Cross-Monotonic Cost-Sharing Schemes
A cost-sharing scheme is a set of rules defining how to share the cost of a service (often computed by solving a combinatorial optimization problem) amongs serviced customers. A cost-sharing scheme is cross-monotonic if it satisfies the property that everyone is better off when the set of people who receive the service expands. In this article, we develop a novel technique for proving upper bounds on the budget-balance factor of cross-monotonic cost-sharing schemes or the worst-case ratio of recovered cost to total cost. We apply this technique to games defined, based on several combinatorial optimization problems, including the problems of edge cover, vertex cover, set cover, and metric facility location and, in each case, derive tight or nearly-tight bounds. In particular, we show that for the facility location game, there is no cross-monotonic cost-sharing scheme that recovers more than a third of the total cost. This result, together with a recent 1/3-budget-balanced cross-monotonic cost-sharing scheme of Pal and Tardos [2003] closes the gap for the facility location game. For the vertex cover and set cover games, we show that no cross-monotonic cost-sharing scheme can recover more than a O(n(-1/3)) and O(1/n)fraction of the total cost, respectively. Finally, we study the implications of our results on the existence of group-strategyproof mechanisms. We show that every group-strategyproof mechanism corresponds to a cost-sharing scheme that satisfies a condition weaker than cross-monotonicity. Using this, we prove that group-strategyproof mechanisms satisfying additional properties give rise to cross-monotonic cost-sharing schemes and therefore our upper bounds hold.
cross-monotonic cost-sharing schemes group-strategyproof mechanism design probabilistic method