16,510 research outputs found

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

    Full text link
    We consider the problem of designing a revenue-optimal mechanism in the two-item, single-buyer, unit-demand setting when the buyer's valuations, (z1,z2)(z_1, z_2), are uniformly distributed in an arbitrary rectangle [c,c+b1]Γ—[c,c+b2][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,b1,b2)(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 b1,b2b_1, b_2, and cc. When cc is low, the optimal mechanism is a posted price mechanism with an exclusion region; when cc 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

    Pricing Ad Slots with Consecutive Multi-unit Demand

    Full text link
    We consider the optimal pricing problem for a model of the rich media advertisement market, as well as other related applications. In this market, there are multiple buyers (advertisers), and items (slots) that are arranged in a line such as a banner on a website. Each buyer desires a particular number of {\em consecutive} slots and has a per-unit-quality value viv_i (dependent on the ad only) while each slot jj has a quality qjq_j (dependent on the position only such as click-through rate in position auctions). Hence, the valuation of the buyer ii for item jj is viqjv_iq_j. We want to decide the allocations and the prices in order to maximize the total revenue of the market maker. A key difference from the traditional position auction is the advertiser's requirement of a fixed number of consecutive slots. Consecutive slots may be needed for a large size rich media ad. We study three major pricing mechanisms, the Bayesian pricing model, the maximum revenue market equilibrium model and an envy-free solution model. Under the Bayesian model, we design a polynomial time computable truthful mechanism which is optimum in revenue. For the market equilibrium paradigm, we find a polynomial time algorithm to obtain the maximum revenue market equilibrium solution. In envy-free settings, an optimal solution is presented when the buyers have the same demand for the number of consecutive slots. We conduct a simulation that compares the revenues from the above schemes and gives convincing results.Comment: 27page

    On Revenue Monotonicity in Combinatorial Auctions

    Full text link
    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 mm items and nn buyers in the Bayesian setting, specified by a valuation function vv and a set FF of nmnm independent item-type distributions. Let REV(v,F)REV(v, F) denote the maximum revenue achievable under FF by any incentive compatible mechanism. Intuitively, one would expect that REV(v,G)β‰₯REV(v,F)REV(v, G)\geq REV(v, F) if distribution GG stochastically dominates FF. Surprisingly, Hart and Reny (2012) showed that this is not always true even for the simple case when vv 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 vv, showing that REV(v,G)β‰₯c REV(v,F)REV(v, G)\geq c\,REV(v, F) if GG stochastically dominates FF under vv where c>0c>0 is a universal constant. Previously, approximate monotonicity was known only for the case n=1n=1: Babaioff et al. (2014) for the class of additive valuations, and Rubinstein and Weinberg (2015) for all subaddtive valuation functions.Comment: 10 page

    Pricing Multi-Unit Markets

    Full text link
    We study the power and limitations of posted prices in multi-unit markets, where agents arrive sequentially in an arbitrary order. We prove upper and lower bounds on the largest fraction of the optimal social welfare that can be guaranteed with posted prices, under a range of assumptions about the designer's information and agents' valuations. Our results provide insights about the relative power of uniform and non-uniform prices, the relative difficulty of different valuation classes, and the implications of different informational assumptions. Among other results, we prove constant-factor guarantees for agents with (symmetric) subadditive valuations, even in an incomplete-information setting and with uniform prices
    • …
    corecore