Bounding the Optimal Revenue of Selling Multiple Goods

Using duality theory techniques we derive simple, closed-form formulas for bounding the optimal revenue of a monopolist selling many heterogeneous goods, in the case where the buyer's valuations for the items come i.i.d. from a uniform distribution and in the case where they follow independent (but not necessarily identical) exponential distributions. We apply this in order to get in both these settings specific performance guarantees, as functions of the number of items $m$, for the simple deterministic selling mechanisms studied by Hart and Nisan [EC 2012], namely the one that sells the items separately and the one that offers them all in a single bundle. We also propose and study the performance of a natural randomized mechanism for exponential valuations, called Proportional. As an interesting corollary, for the special case where the exponential distributions are also identical, we can derive that offering the goods in a single full bundle is the optimal selling mechanism for any number of items. To our knowledge, this is the first result of its kind: finding a revenue-maximizing auction in an additive setting with arbitrarily many goods

A Note on Selling Optimally Two Uniformly Distributed Goods

We provide a new, much simplified and straightforward proof to a result of Pavlov [2011] regarding the revenue maximizing mechanism for selling two goods with uniformly i.i.d. valuations over intervals $[c,c+1]$, to an additive buyer. This is done by explicitly defining optimal dual solutions to a relaxed version of the problem, where the convexity requirement for the bidder's utility has been dropped. Their optimality comes directly from their structure, through the use of exact complementarity. For $c=0$ and $c\geq 0.092$ it turns out that the corresponding optimal primal solution is a feasible selling mechanism, thus the initial relaxation comes without a loss, and revenue maximality follows. However, for $0<c<0.092$ that's not the case, providing the first clear example where relaxing convexity provably does not come for free, even in a two-item regularly i.i.d. setting

Multi-dimensional Virtual Values and Second-degree Price Discrimination

We consider a multi-dimensional screening problem of selling a product with multiple quality levels and design virtual value functions to derive conditions that imply optimality of only selling highest quality. A challenge of designing virtual values for multi-dimensional agents is that a mechanism that pointwise optimizes virtual values resulting from a general application of integration by parts is not incentive compatible, and no general methodology is known for selecting the right paths for integration by parts. We resolve this issue by first uniquely solving for paths that satisfy certain necessary conditions that the pointwise optimality of the mechanism imposes on virtual values, and then identifying distributions that ensure the resulting virtual surplus is indeed pointwise optimized by the mechanism. Our method of solving for virtual values is general, and as a second application we use it to derive conditions of optimality for selling only the grand bundle of items to an agent with additive preferences

Strong Duality for a Multiple-Good Monopolist

We characterize optimal mechanisms for the multiple-good monopoly problem and provide a framework to find them. We show that a mechanism is optimal if and only if a measure $\mu$ derived from the buyer's type distribution satisfies certain stochastic dominance conditions. This measure expresses the marginal change in the seller's revenue under marginal changes in the rent paid to subsets of buyer types. As a corollary, we characterize the optimality of grand-bundling mechanisms, strengthening several results in the literature, where only sufficient optimality conditions have been derived. As an application, we show that the optimal mechanism for $n$ independent uniform items each supported on $[c,c+1]$ is a grand-bundling mechanism, as long as $c$ is sufficiently large, extending Pavlov's result for $2$ items [Pavlov'11]. At the same time, our characterization also implies that, for all $c$ and for all sufficiently large $n$, the optimal mechanism for $n$ independent uniform items supported on $[c,c+1]$ is not a grand bundling mechanism

Fixed-Prize Tournaments versus First-Price Auctions in Innovation Contests

This paper analyzes a procurement setting with two identical firms and stochastic innovations. In contrast to the previous literature, I show that a procurer who cannot charge entry fees may prefer a fixed-prize tournament to a first-price auction since holding an auction may leave higher rents to firms when the innovation technology is subject to large random factors.innovation contest, auction, tournament, quality

On Optimal Mechanisms in the Two-Item Single-Buyer Unit-Demand Setting

We consider the problem of designing a revenue-optimal mechanism in the two-item, single-buyer, unit-demand setting when the buyer's valuations, $(z_1, z_2)$, are uniformly distributed in an arbitrary rectangle $[c,c+b_1]\times[c,c+b_2]$ in the positive quadrant. We provide a complete and explicit solution for arbitrary nonnegative values of $(c,b_1,b_2)$. We identify five simple structures, each with at most five (possibly stochastic) menu items, and prove that the optimal mechanism has one of the five structures. We also characterize the optimal mechanism as a function of $b_1, b_2$, and $c$. When $c$ is low, the optimal mechanism is a posted price mechanism with an exclusion region; when $c$ is high, it is a posted price mechanism without an exclusion region. Our results are the first to show the existence of optimal mechanisms with no exclusion region, to the best of our knowledge

Rate of Price Discovery in Iterative Combinatorial Auctions

We study a class of iterative combinatorial auctions which can be viewed as subgradient descent methods for the problem of pricing bundles to balance supply and demand. We provide concrete convergence rates for auctions in this class, bounding the number of auction rounds needed to reach clearing prices. Our analysis allows for a variety of pricing schemes, including item, bundle, and polynomial pricing, and the respective convergence rates confirm that more expressive pricing schemes come at the cost of slower convergence. We consider two models of bidder behavior. In the first model, bidders behave stochastically according to a random utility model, which includes standard best-response bidding as a special case. In the second model, bidders behave arbitrarily (even adversarially), and meaningful convergence relies on properly designed activity rules

Optimising Trade-offs Among Stakeholders in Ad Auctions

We examine trade-offs among stakeholders in ad auctions. Our metrics are the revenue for the utility of the auctioneer, the number of clicks for the utility of the users and the welfare for the utility of the advertisers. We show how to optimize linear combinations of the stakeholder utilities, showing that these can be tackled through a GSP auction with a per-click reserve price. We then examine constrained optimization of stakeholder utilities. We use simulations and analysis of real-world sponsored search auction data to demonstrate the feasible trade-offs, examining the effect of changing the allowed number of ads on the utilities of the stakeholders. We investigate both short term effects, when the players do not have the time to modify their behavior, and long term equilibrium conditions. Finally, we examine a combinatorially richer constrained optimization problem, where there are several possible allowed configurations (templates) of ad formats. This model captures richer ad formats, which allow using the available screen real estate in various ways. We show that two natural generalizations of the GSP auction rules to this domain are poorly behaved, resulting in not having a symmetric Nash equilibrium or having one with poor welfare. We also provide positive results for restricted cases.Comment: 18 pages, 10 figures, ACM Conference on Economics and Computation 201