Auctions in which agents' payoffs are random variables have received increased attention in recent years. In particular, recent work in algorithmic mechanism design has produced mechanisms employing internal randomization, partly in response to limitations on deterministic mechanisms imposed by computational complexity. For many of these mechanisms, which are often referred to as truthful-in-expectation, incentive compatibility is contingent on the assumption that agents are risk-neutral. These mechanisms have been criticized on the grounds that this assumption is too strong, because "real" agents are typically risk averse, and moreover their precise attitude towards risk is typically unknown a-priori. In response, researchers in algorithmic mechanism design have sought the design of universally-truthful mechanisms --- mechanisms for which incentive-compatibility makes no assumptions regarding agents' attitudes towards risk. We show that any truthful-in-expectation mechanism can be generically transformed into a mechanism that is incentive compatible even when agents are risk averse, without modifying the mechanism's allocation rule. The transformed mechanism does not require reporting of agents' risk profiles. Equivalently, our result can be stated as follows: Every (randomized) allocation rule that is implementable in dominant strategies when players are risk neutral is also implementable when players are endowed with an arbitrary and unknown concave utility function for money.
Most of the literature in mechanism design assumes risk neutrality, both for the principal (also known as the seller) and the agents (the buyers). However, risk aversion has been studied, and we mention a sample of those works. Maskin and Riley @cite_7 design a revenue-maximizing single-item auction in a Bayesian setting, where buyers are risk averse with given risk profiles. Es "o and Futo @cite_3 design a single-item auction that is optimal for a risk-averse seller, in a Bayesian setting where buyers are risk neutral. The mathematics underlying our result is similar to that underlying the mechanism of @cite_3 ; their mechanism is built from the revenue-maximizing auction of Myerson @cite_14 , and removes all risk from the seller's revenue by charging each player a random payment equal to that in @cite_14 in expectation, but appropriately correlated with the payments of other buyers such that the resulting revenue is deterministic.
@cite_14 @cite_3 @cite_7
203000141 2021734699 2949931135 2028289369
The VCG mechanism is the gold standard for combinatorial auctions (CAs), and it maximizes social welfare. In contrast, the revenue-maximizing (aka optimal) CA is unknown, and designing one is NP-hard. Therefore, research on optimal CAs has progressed into special settings. Notably, Levin [1997] derived the optimal CA for complements when each agent's private type is one-dimensional. (This does not fall inside the well-studied "single-parameter environment".) We introduce a new research avenue for increasing revenue where we poke holes in the allocation space--based on the bids--and then use a welfare-maximizing allocation rule within the remaining allocation set. In this paper, the first step down this avenue, we introduce a new form of "reserve pricing" into CAs. We show that Levin's optimal revenue can be 2-approximated by using "monopoly reserve prices" to curtail the allocation set, followed by welfare-maximizing allocation and Levin's payment rule. A key lemma of potential independent interest is that the expected revenue from any truthful allocation-monotonic mechanism equals the expected virtual valuation; this generalizes Myerson's lemma [1981] from the single-parameter environment. Our mechanism is close to the gold standard and thus easier to adopt than Levin's. It also requires less information about the prior over the bidders' types, and is always more efficient. Finally, we show that the optimal revenue can be 6- approximated even if the "reserve pricing" is required to be symmetric across bidders. We consider the problem of designing a revenue-maximizing auction for a single item, when the values of the bidders are drawn from a correlated distribution. We observe that there exists an algorithm that finds the optimal randomized mechanism that runs in time polynomial in the size of the support. We leverage this result to show that in the oracle model introduced by Ronen and Saberi [FOCS'02], there exists a polynomial time truthful in expectation mechanism that provides a (1.5+e)-approximation to the revenue achievable by an optimal truthful-in-expectation mechanism, and a polynomial time deterministic truthful mechanism that guarantees 5 3 approximation to the revenue achievable by an optimal deterministic truthful mechanism. We show that the 5 3-approximation mechanism provides the same approximation ratio also with respect to the optimal truthful-in-expectation mechanism. This shows that the performance gap between truthful-in-expectation and deterministic mechanisms is relatively small. En route, we solve an open question of Mehta and Vazirani [EC'04]. Finally, we extend some of our results to the multi-item case, and show how to compute the optimal truthful-in-expectation mechanisms for bidders with more complex valuations. We consider the provision of an abstract service to single-dimensional agents. Our model includes position auctions, single-minded combinatorial auctions, and constrained matching markets. When the agents' values are drawn from a distribution, the Bayesian optimal mechanism is given by Myerson (1981) as a virtual-surplus optimizer. We develop a framework for prior-free mechanism design and analysis. A good mechanism in our framework approximates the optimal mechanism for the distribution if there is a distribution; moreover, when there is no distribution this mechanism still performs well. We define and characterize optimal envy-free outcomes in symmetric single-dimensional environments. Our characterization mirrors Myerson's theory. Furthermore, unlike in mechanism design where there is no point-wise optimal mechanism, there is always a point-wise optimal envy-free outcome. Envy-free outcomes and incentive-compatible mechanisms are similar in structure and performance. We therefore use the optimal envy-free revenue as a benchmark for measuring the performance of a prior-free mechanism. A good mechanism is one that approximates the envy free benchmark on any profile of agent values. We show that good mechanisms exist, and in particular, a natural generalization of the random sampling auction of (2001) is a constant approximation. We study double auction market design where the market maker wants to maximize its total revenue by buying low from the sell- ers and selling high to the buyers. We consider a Bayesian setting where buyers and sellers have independent probability distributions on the val- ues of products on the market. For the simplest setting where each seller has one kind of item that can be sold in whole to a buyer, and each buyer's value can be represented by a single parameter, i.e., single-parameter setting, we develop a maximum mechanism for the market maker to maximize its own revenue. For the more general case where the product may be different, we consider various models in terms of supplies and demands constraints. For each of them, we develop a polynomial time computable truthful mechanism for the market maker to achieve a revenue at least a constant α times the revenue of any other truthful mechanism. We consider a double auction market maker who collects valuations from buy- ers and sellers about a certain product to decide on the prices each seller gets and each buyer pays. The buyers may want to buy many units and the sellers may have many units to part with. The buyers and sellers may have different valuations of the product, and there is public knowledge of the probability dis- tributions of the valuations (but each valuation, sampled from its distribution, is known only to its own buyer or seller). For simplicity, we assume that the probability distributions are independent. For the sellers and buyers, they know their own private values exactly. The market maker purchases the products from the sellers and sell them to the buyers. Our goal is to design a market mechanism that maximizes the revenue of the market maker. In other words, the market maker is to buy the same amount of products from the sellers as the amount sold to the buyers with the objective of maximizing the difference of its collected payment from the buyers and the total amount paid to the sellers. When in addi- tion we assume public knowledge of distributions of buyers' private values from the previous sales, we call it a revenue maximization Bayesian double auction market maker. � Supported by EPSRC grant EP G069239 1 "Efficient Decentralised Approaches in