Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for a Buyer with Complements
124
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Ophir Friedler
Publication date
2016
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We consider a revenue-maximizing seller with $m$ heterogeneous items and a single buyer whose valuation $v$ for the items may exhibit both substitutes (i.e., for some $S, T$, $v(S cup T) < v(S) + v(T)$) and complements (i.e., for some $S, T$, $v(S cup T) > v(S) + v(T)$). We show that the mechanism first proposed by Babaioff et al. [2014] - the better of selling the items separately and bundling them together - guarantees a $Theta(d)$ fraction of the optimal revenue, where $d$ is a measure on the degree of complementarity. Note that this is the first approximately optimal mechanism for a buyer whose valuation exhibits any kind of complementarity, and extends the work of Rubinstein and Weinberg [2015], which proved that the same simple mechanisms achieve a constant factor approximation when buyer valuations are subadditive, the most general class of complement-free valuations. Our proof is enabled by the recent duality framework developed in Cai et al. [2016], which we use to obtain a bound on the optimal revenue in this setting. Our main technical contributions are specialized to handle the intricacies of settings with complements, and include an algorithm for partitioning edges in a hypergraph. Even nailing down the right model and notion of degree of complementarity to obtain meaningful results is of interest, as the natural extensions of previous definitions provably fail.
rate research
Read More
We identify the first static credible mechanism for multi-item additive auctions that achieves a constant factor of the optimal revenue. This is one instance of a more general framework for designing two-part tariff auctions, adapting the duality framework of Cai et al [CDW16]. Given a (not necessarily incentive compatible) auction format $A$ satisfying certain technical conditions, our framework augments the auction with a personalized entry fee for each bidder, which must be paid before the auction can be accessed. These entry fees depend only on the prior distribution of bidder types, and in particular are independent of realized bids. Our framework can be used with many common auction formats, such as simultaneous first-price, simultaneous second-price, and simultaneous all-pay auctions. If all-pay auctions are used, we prove that the resulting mechanism is credible in the sense that the auctioneer cannot benefit by deviating from the stated mechanism after observing agent bids. If second-price auctions are used, we obtain a truthful $O(1)$-approximate mechanism with fixed entry fees that are amenable to tuning via online learning techniques. Our results for first price and all-pay are the first revenue guarantees of non-truthful mechanisms in multi-dimensional environments; an open question in the literature [RST17].
We study revenue maximization by deterministic mechanisms for the simplest case for which Myersons characterization does not hold: a single seller selling two items, with independently distributed values, to a single additive buyer. We prove that optimal mechanisms are submodular and hence monotone. Furthermore, we show that in the IID case, optimal mechanisms are symmetric. Our characterizations are surprisingly non-trivial, and we show that they fail to extend in several natural ways, e.g. for correlated distributions or more than two items. In particular, this shows that the optimality of symmetric mechanisms does not follow from the symmetry of the IID distribution.
A patient seller aims to sell a good to an impatient buyer (i.e., one who discounts utility over time). The buyer will remain in the market for a period of time $T$, and her private value is drawn from a publicly known distribution. What is the revenue-optimal pricing-curve (sequence of (price, time) pairs) for the seller? Is randomization of help here? Is the revenue-optimal pricing-curve computable in polynomial time? We answer these questions in this paper. We give an efficient algorithm for computing the revenue-optimal pricing curve. We show that pricing curves, that post a price at each point of time and let the buyer pick her utility maximizing time to buy, are revenue-optimal among a much broader class of sequential lottery mechanisms: namely, mechanisms that allow the seller to post a menu of lotteries at each point of time cannot get any higher revenue than pricing curves. We also show that the even broader class of mechanisms that allow the menu of lotteries to be adaptively set, can earn strictly higher revenue than that of pricing curves, and the revenue gap can be as big as the support size of the buyers value distribution.
Incentives are more likely to elicit desired outcomes when they are designed based on accurate models of agents strategic behavior. A growing literature, however, suggests that people do not quite behave like standard economic agents in a variety of environments, both online and offline. What consequences might such differences have for the optimal design of mechanisms in these environments? In this paper, we explore this question in the context of optimal contest design for simple agents---agents who strategically reason about whether or not to participate in a system, but not about the input they provide to it. Specifically, consider a contest where $n$ potential contestants with types $(q_i,c_i)$ each choose between participating and producing a submission of quality $q_i$ at cost $c_i$, versus not participating at all, to maximize their utilities. How should a principal distribute a total prize $V$ amongst the $n$ ranks to maximize some increasing function of the qualities of elicited submissions in a contest with such simple agents? We first solve the optimal contest design problem for settings with homogenous participation costs $c_i = c$. Here, the optimal contest is always a simple contest, awarding equal prizes to the top $j^*$ contestants for a suitable choice of $j^*$. (In comparable models with strategic effort choices, the optimal contest is either a winner-take-all contest or awards possibly unequal prizes, depending on the curvature of agents effort cost functions.) We next address the general case with heterogeneous costs where agents types are inherently two-dimensional, significantly complicating equilibrium analysis. Our main result here is that the winner-take-all contest is a 3-approximation of the optimal contest when the principals objective is to maximize the quality of the best elicited contribution.
Optimal mechanism design enjoys a beautiful and well-developed theory, and also a number of killer applications. Rules of thumb produced by the field influence everything from how governments sell wireless spectrum licenses to how the major search engines auction off online advertising. There are, however, some basic problems for which the traditional optimal mechanism design approach is ill-suited---either because it makes overly strong assumptions, or because it advocates overly complex designs. This survey reviews several common issues with optimal mechanisms, including exorbitant communication, computation, and informational requirements; and it presents several examples demonstrating that passing to the relaxed goal of an approximately optimal mechanism allows us to reason about fundamental questions that seem out of reach of the traditional theory.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
