We consider the problem of designing revenue-optimal auctions for selling two items and bidders' valuations are independent among bidders but negatively correlated among items. In this paper, we obtain the closed-form optimal auction for this setting, by directly addressing the two difficulties above. In particular, the first difficulty is that when pointwise maximizing virtual surplus under multi-dimensional feasibility (i.e., the Border feasibility), (1) neither the optimal interim allocation is trivially monotone in the virtual value, (2) nor the virtual value is monotone in the bidder's type. As a result, the optimal interim allocations resulting from virtual surplus maximization no longer guarantees BIC. To address (1), we prove a generalization of Border's theorem and show that optimal interim allocation is indeed monotone in the virtual value. To address (2), we adapt Myerson's ironing procedure to this setting by redefining the (ironed) virtual value as a function of the lowest utility point. The second difficulty, perhaps a more challenging one, is that the lowest utility type in general is no longer at the endpoints of the type interval. To address this difficulty, we show by construction that there exist an allocation rule and an induced lowest utility type such that they form a solution of the virtual surplus maximization and in the meanwhile guarantees IIR. In the single bidder case, the optimal auction consists of a randomized bundle menu and a deterministic bundle menu; while in the multiple bidder case, the optimal auction is a randomization between two extreme mechanisms. The optimal solutions of our setting can be implemented by a Bayesian IC and IR auction, however, perhaps surprisingly, the revenue of this auction cannot be achieved by any (dominant-strategy) IC and IR auction.
There are a number of papers that consider the equivalence between BIC and DIC with respect to the objective of social welfare @cite_16 @cite_22 . For the objective of revenue maximization, @cite_26 proves that in the independent private values model with linear utility, the outcome in terms of interim allocation rule and interim payment rule of any BIC mechanism, can also be obtained with a DIC mechanism (without any restriction on IR). Since the interim allocation rule and payment rule are same under the two IC notions, their work actually implies that any interim IR and BIC auction can be implemented in an interim IR and DIC auction. However, do notice that their result does not imply the equivalence between ex post IR and BIC mechanisms and ex post IR and DIC mechanisms, because equivalence in interim utilities does not imply equivalence in ex post utilities under the two notions of IC.
@cite_16 @cite_22 @cite_26
2311550555 1719407338 203000141 1495768673
How should one sell an item to a buyer whose value for the item will only be realized next week? E.g. consider selling a flight to some executive who may or may not have a meeting with a client next week. Suppose that both the seller and the buyer only know a distribution, F, from which the buyer's value, v, for the item will be drawn. One way the seller could go about this sale is to make a take-it-or-leave-it offer today. The offer reads "pay the expected value today to get the item next week". A risk-neutral buyer would find this offer attractive, hence the seller would extract the full surplus. The unsettling feature of the afore-described mechanism is that, for some realizations of v, the bidder ends up with negative utility. In particular, while our mechanism is interim Individually Rational (IR), it is not ex-post IR. How could we fix this? One way is to wait until next week when the value is realized and make a take-it-or-leave-it offer of the item at an optimal monopoly price. The new mechanism is clearly ex-post IR, but its revenue could be much smaller than that of the previous one. Still, this trivial mechanism extracts the best possible revenue among all ex-post IR mechanisms, as a simple argument can establish. However, this optimality argument fails when several items are to be sold over consecutive periods. In this paper, we provide a characterization of the revenue-optimal, ex-post IR, dynamic mechanism selling k items over k periods to a bidder whose values are independent. In particular, we optimize the seller's revenue subject to the following strong individual rationality condition: at each period, the stage utility of the agent, defined to be the surplus from that period's allocation minus the agent's payment, must be non-negative. In particular, the non-negativity of the stage utilities implies that, at the end of each period, the agent's realized utility from participating in the mechanism so far is non-negative. We provide extensions to multiple bidders and an infinite horizon with discount factors. We consider a standard social choice environment with linear utilities and independent, one-dimensional, private types. We prove that for any Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism there exists an equivalent dominant strategy incentive compatible mechanism that delivers the same interim expected utilities for all agents and the same ex ante expected social surplus. The short proof is based on an extension of an elegant result due to Gutmann, Kemperman, Reeds, and Shepp (1991). We also show that the equivalence between Bayesian and dominant strategy implementation generally breaks down when the main assumptions underlying the social choice model are relaxed or when the equivalence concept is strengthened to apply to interim expected allocations. 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. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for reducing the k-item n-bidder auction with additive valuation to k-item 1-bidder auctions. This approach, called the Best-Guess reduction, can be applied to address several central questions in optimal revenue auction theory such as the relative strength of simple versus complex mechanisms, the power of randomization, and Bayesian versus dominant-strategy implementations. First, when the items have independent valuation distributions, we present a deterministic mechanism called Deterministic Best-Guess that yields at least a constant fraction of the optimal revenue by any randomized mechanism. This also gives the first simple mechanism that achieves constant fraction optimal revenue for such multi-buyer multi-item auctions. Second, if all the nk valuation random variables are independent, the optimal revenue achievable in dominant strategy incentive compatibility (DSIC) is shown to be at least a constant fraction of that achievable in Bayesian incentive compatibility (BIC). Third, when all the nk values are identically distributed according to a common one-dimensional distribution F, the optimal revenue is shown to be expressible in the closed form Θ(k(r + ∫0mr(1 − F(x)n)dx)) where r = supx≥0 x(1 − F(x)n) and m = lk nr; this revenue is achievable by a simple mechanism called 2nd-Price Bundling. All our results apply to arbitrary distributions, regular or irregular.