IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2609.17406.html

On testing the incentive compatibility of single-parameter allocation mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Milionis
  • William Pires

Abstract

This paper is the first work at the intersection of game theory and property testing, giving algorithms and lower bounds for efficiently testing whether an allocation mechanism is incentive compatible (IC). We propose distinguishing whether a mechanism is $\epsilon$-far from being IC, i.e., when it observes many monotonicity "violations." Conceptually, inspired by the literature on Boolean function monotonicity testing, we construct a tester for discrete single-parameter allocation rules. Technically, our work is the first to consider monotonicity testing of vector-valued functions on the hypergrid. We give a $\tilde{O}(n/\epsilon)$-query algorithm to test whether a function (representing n-player allocation mechanisms) is coordinate-wise monotone versus $\epsilon$-far from it. We also show a matching lower bound: the class of coordinate-wise monotone vector-valued functions on a Boolean hypercube or hypergrid requires $\tilde{\Omega}(n/\epsilon)$ queries to test whether it is $\epsilon$-far from monotonicity, and this holds even if the tester is two-sided and allowed to make adaptive queries. Finally, we extend our upper bound to and give a tester of the same query complexity for pricing functions of allocation mechanisms. This requires overcoming the technical challenge that the path in function space to the closest IC mechanism may involve interdependent changes to both the price and the allocation rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Milionis & William Pires, 2026. "On testing the incentive compatibility of single-parameter allocation mechanisms," Papers 2609.17406, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.17406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.17406
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:cbooks:9781316779309 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    3. Roughgarden,Tim, 2016. "Twenty Lectures on Algorithmic Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316624791, June.
    4. Roughgarden,Tim, 2016. "Twenty Lectures on Algorithmic Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107172661, June.
    5. Mohammad Akbarpour & Shengwu Li, 2020. "Credible Auctions: A Trilemma," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 425-467, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tim Roughgarden, 2018. "Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics: The Barbados Lectures," Papers 1801.00734, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    2. Shunta Akiyama & Mitsuaki Obara & Yasushi Kawase, 2022. "Optimal design of lottery with cumulative prospect theory," Papers 2209.00822, arXiv.org, revised May 2026.
    3. Maryam Bahrani & Pranav Garimidi & Tim Roughgarden, 2023. "Transaction Fee Mechanism Design with Active Block Producers," Papers 2307.01686, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    4. Chaturvedi, Rakesh, 2020. "Fairness and partial coercion in land assembly," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 325-335.
    5. Paul Duetting & Michal Feldman & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2024. "Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Survey," Papers 2412.16384, arXiv.org.
    6. Tim Roughgarden & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2018. "Approximately Optimal Mechanism Design," Papers 1812.11896, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    7. Vijay Mohan & Peyman Khezr, 2024. "Blockchains, MEV and the knapsack problem: a primer," Papers 2403.19077, arXiv.org.
    8. Tim Roughgarden, 2020. "Transaction Fee Mechanism Design for the Ethereum Blockchain: An Economic Analysis of EIP-1559," Papers 2012.00854, arXiv.org.
    9. Krzysztof R. Apt & Jan Heering, 2022. "Characterization of incentive compatible single-parameter mechanisms revisited," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 7(1), pages 113-129, December.
    10. Benjamin Heymann & Alejandro Jofr'e, 2019. "Optimal auctions for networked markets with externalities," Papers 1907.10080, arXiv.org.
    11. Tom Johnston & Michael Savery & Alex Scott & Bassel Tarbush, 2023. "Game Connectivity and Adaptive Dynamics," Papers 2309.10609, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    12. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    13. Emerson Melo, 2025. "Learning in random utility models via online decision problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 21(4), pages 494-526, December.
    14. Tommaso Denti & Doron Ravid, 2023. "Robust Predictions in Games with Rational Inattention," Papers 2306.09964, arXiv.org.
    15. Irene Aldridge, 2026. "Evaluating AI Investment Strategies," Papers 2606.08791, arXiv.org.
    16. Tom Johnston & Michael Savery & Alex Scott & Bassel Tarbush, 2026. "Game connectivity and adaptive dynamics in many-action games," Papers 2601.05965, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    17. Emerson Melo, 2021. "Learning in Random Utility Models Via Online Decision Problems," Papers 2112.10993, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    18. Alireza Fallah & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2024. "Optimal and Differentially Private Data Acquisition: Central and Local Mechanisms," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 72(3), pages 1105-1123, May.
    19. Andrew Komo & Scott Duke Kominers & Tim Roughgarden, 2024. "Shill-Proof Auctions," Papers 2404.00475, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    20. Wenqian Wang & Zhiwen Zheng, 2025. "On the Dominance of Truth-Telling in Gradual Mechanisms," Papers 2501.08802, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.17406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.