Explicit shading strategies for repeated truthful auctions

With the increasing use of auctions in online advertising, there has been a large effort to study seller revenue maximization, following Myerson's seminal work, both theoretically and practically. We take the point of view of the buyer in classical auctions and ask the question of whether she has an incentive to shade her bid even in auctions that are reputed to be truthful, when aware of the revenue optimization mechanism. We show that in auctions such as the Myerson auction or a VCG with reserve price set as the monopoly price, the buyer who is aware of this information has indeed an incentive to shade. Intuitively, by selecting the revenue maximizing auction, the seller introduces a dependency on the buyers' distributions in the choice of the auction. We study in depth the case of the Myerson auction and show that a symmetric equilibrium exists in which buyers shade non-linearly what would be their first price bid. They then end up with an expected payoff that is equal to what they would get in a first price auction with no reserve price. We conclude that a return to simple first price auctions with no reserve price or at least non-dynamic anonymous ones is desirable from the point of view of both buyers, sellers and increasing transparency

A General Theory of Sample Complexity for Multi-Item Profit Maximization

The design of profit-maximizing multi-item mechanisms is a notoriously challenging problem with tremendous real-world impact. The mechanism designer's goal is to field a mechanism with high expected profit on the distribution over buyers' values. Unfortunately, if the set of mechanisms he optimizes over is complex, a mechanism may have high empirical profit over a small set of samples but low expected profit. This raises the question, how many samples are sufficient to ensure that the empirically optimal mechanism is nearly optimal in expectation? We uncover structure shared by a myriad of pricing, auction, and lottery mechanisms that allows us to prove strong sample complexity bounds: for any set of buyers' values, profit is a piecewise linear function of the mechanism's parameters. We prove new bounds for mechanism classes not yet studied in the sample-based mechanism design literature and match or improve over the best known guarantees for many classes. The profit functions we study are significantly different from well-understood functions in machine learning, so our analysis requires a sharp understanding of the interplay between mechanism parameters and buyer values. We strengthen our main results with data-dependent bounds when the distribution over buyers' values is "well-behaved." Finally, we investigate a fundamental tradeoff in sample-based mechanism design: complex mechanisms often have higher profit than simple mechanisms, but more samples are required to ensure that empirical and expected profit are close. We provide techniques for optimizing this tradeoff

The Value of Knowing Your Enemy

Many auction settings implicitly or explicitly require that bidders are treated equally ex-ante. This may be because discrimination is philosophically or legally impermissible, or because it is practically difficult to implement or impossible to enforce. We study so-called {\em anonymous} auctions to understand the revenue tradeoffs and to develop simple anonymous auctions that are approximately optimal. We consider digital goods settings and show that the optimal anonymous, dominant strategy incentive compatible auction has an intuitive structure --- imagine that bidders are randomly permuted before the auction, then infer a posterior belief about bidder i's valuation from the values of other bidders and set a posted price that maximizes revenue given this posterior. We prove that no anonymous mechanism can guarantee an approximation better than O(n) to the optimal revenue in the worst case (or O(log n) for regular distributions) and that even posted price mechanisms match those guarantees. Understanding that the real power of anonymous mechanisms comes when the auctioneer can infer the bidder identities accurately, we show a tight O(k) approximation guarantee when each bidder can be confused with at most k "higher types". Moreover, we introduce a simple mechanism based on n target prices that is asymptotically optimal and build on this mechanism to extend our results to m-unit auctions and sponsored search

Optimal Crowdsourcing Contests

We study the design and approximation of optimal crowdsourcing contests. Crowdsourcing contests can be modeled as all-pay auctions because entrants must exert effort up-front to enter. Unlike all-pay auctions where a usual design objective would be to maximize revenue, in crowdsourcing contests, the principal only benefits from the submission with the highest quality. We give a theory for optimal crowdsourcing contests that mirrors the theory of optimal auction design: the optimal crowdsourcing contest is a virtual valuation optimizer (the virtual valuation function depends on the distribution of contestant skills and the number of contestants). We also compare crowdsourcing contests with more conventional means of procurement. In this comparison, crowdsourcing contests are relatively disadvantaged because the effort of losing contestants is wasted. Nonetheless, we show that crowdsourcing contests are 2-approximations to conventional methods for a large family of "regular" distributions, and 4-approximations, otherwise.Comment: The paper has 17 pages and 1 figure. It is to appear in the proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 201

Core-competitive Auctions

One of the major drawbacks of the celebrated VCG auction is its low (or zero) revenue even when the agents have high value for the goods and a {\em competitive} outcome could have generated a significant revenue. A competitive outcome is one for which it is impossible for the seller and a subset of buyers to `block' the auction by defecting and negotiating an outcome with higher payoffs for themselves. This corresponds to the well-known concept of {\em core} in cooperative game theory. In particular, VCG revenue is known to be not competitive when the goods being sold have complementarities. A bottleneck here is an impossibility result showing that there is no auction that simultaneously achieves competitive prices (a core outcome) and incentive-compatibility. In this paper we try to overcome the above impossibility result by asking the following natural question: is it possible to design an incentive-compatible auction whose revenue is comparable (even if less) to a competitive outcome? Towards this, we define a notion of {\em core-competitive} auctions. We say that an incentive-compatible auction is $\alpha$-core-competitive if its revenue is at least $1/\alpha$ fraction of the minimum revenue of a core-outcome. We study the Text-and-Image setting. In this setting, there is an ad slot which can be filled with either a single image ad or $k$ text ads. We design an $O(\ln \ln k)$ core-competitive randomized auction and an $O(\sqrt{\ln(k)})$ competitive deterministic auction for the Text-and-Image setting. We also show that both factors are tight

Auctions with Severely Bounded Communication

We study auctions with severe bounds on the communication allowed: each bidder may only transmit t bits of information to the auctioneer. We consider both welfare- and profit-maximizing auctions under this communication restriction. For both measures, we determine the optimal auction and show that the loss incurred relative to unconstrained auctions is mild. We prove non-surprising properties of these kinds of auctions, e.g., that in optimal mechanisms bidders simply report the interval in which their valuation lies in, as well as some surprising properties, e.g., that asymmetric auctions are better than symmetric ones and that multi-round auctions reduce the communication complexity only by a linear factor

On Ascending Vickrey Auctions for Heterogeneous Objects

Vickrey auctions, multi-item auctions, combinatorial auctions,

On Revenue Monotonicity in Combinatorial Auctions

Along with substantial progress made recently in designing near-optimal mechanisms for multi-item auctions, interesting structural questions have also been raised and studied. In particular, is it true that the seller can always extract more revenue from a market where the buyers value the items higher than another market? In this paper we obtain such a revenue monotonicity result in a general setting. Precisely, consider the revenue-maximizing combinatorial auction for $m$ items and $n$ buyers in the Bayesian setting, specified by a valuation function $v$ and a set $F$ of $nm$ independent item-type distributions. Let $REV(v, F)$ denote the maximum revenue achievable under $F$ by any incentive compatible mechanism. Intuitively, one would expect that $REV(v, G)\geq REV(v, F)$ if distribution $G$ stochastically dominates $F$. Surprisingly, Hart and Reny (2012) showed that this is not always true even for the simple case when $v$ is additive. A natural question arises: Are these deviations contained within bounds? To what extent may the monotonicity intuition still be valid? We present an {approximate monotonicity} theorem for the class of fractionally subadditive (XOS) valuation functions $v$, showing that $REV(v, G)\geq c\,REV(v, F)$ if $G$ stochastically dominates $F$ under $v$ where $c>0$ is a universal constant. Previously, approximate monotonicity was known only for the case $n=1$: Babaioff et al. (2014) for the class of additive valuations, and Rubinstein and Weinberg (2015) for all subaddtive valuation functions.Comment: 10 page