  Recently, a randomized mechanism has been discovered [Dughmi, Roughgarden and
Yan; STOC'11] for combinatorial auctions that is truthful in expectation and
guarantees a (1-1/e)-approximation to the optimal social welfare when players
have coverage valuations. This approximation ratio is the best possible even
for non-truthful algorithms, assuming $P \neq NP$. Given the recent sequence of
negative results for combinatorial auctions under more restrictive notions of
incentive compatibility, this development raises a natural question: Are
truthful-in-expectation mechanisms compatible with polynomial-time
approximation in a way that deterministic or universally truthful mechanisms
are not? In particular, can polynomial-time truthful-in-expectation mechanisms
guarantee a near-optimal approximation ratio for more general variants of
combinatorial auctions?
  We prove that this is not the case. Specifically, the result of Dughmi,
Roughgarden and Yan cannot be extended to combinatorial auctions with
submodular valuations in the value oracle model. (Absent strategic
considerations, a (1-1/e)-approximation is still achievable in this setting.)
More precisely, we prove that there is a constant \gamma>0 such that there is
no randomized mechanism that is truthful-in-expectation--- or even
approximately truthful-in-expectation --- and guarantees an
m^{-\gamma}-approximation to the optimal social welfare for combinatorial
auctions with submodular valuations in the value oracle model. We also prove an
analogous result for the flexible combinatorial public projects (CPP) problem.
Both our results present an unexpected separation between coverage functions
and submodular functions, which does not occur for these problems without
strategic considerations.
