  Motivated by large-market applications such as crowdsourcing, we revisit the
problem of budget-feasible mechanism design under a "small-bidder assumption".
Anari, Goel, and Nikzad (2018) gave a mechanism that has optimal competitive
ratio $1-1/e$ on worst-case instances. However, we observe that on many
realistic instances, their mechanism is significantly outperformed by a simpler
open clock auction by Ensthaler and Giebe (2014), although the open clock
auction only achieves competitive ratio $1/2$ in the worst case. Is there a
mechanism that gets the best of both worlds, i.e., a mechanism that is
worst-case optimal and performs favorably on realistic instances?
  Our first main result is the design and the analysis of a natural mechanism
that gives an affirmative answer to our question above: (i) We prove that on
every instance, our mechanism performs at least as good as all uniform
mechanisms, including Anari, Goel, and Nikzad's and Ensthaler and Giebe's
mechanisms. (ii) Moreover, we empirically evaluate our mechanism on various
realistic instances and observe that it beats the worst-case $1-1/e$
competitive ratio by a large margin and compares favorably to both mechanisms
mentioned above.
  Our second main result is more interesting in theory: We show that in the
semi-adversarial model of budget-smoothed analysis, where the adversary designs
a single worst-case market for a distribution of budgets, our mechanism is
optimal among all (including non-uniform) mechanisms; furthermore our mechanism
guarantees a strictly better-than-$(1-1/e)$ expected competitive ratio for any
non-trivial budget distribution regardless of the market. We complement the
positive result with a characterization of the worst-case markets for any given
budget distribution and prove a fairly robust hardness result that holds
against any budget distribution and any mechanism.
