In a combinatorial auction with item bidding, agents participate in multiple single-item second-price auctions at once. As some items might be substitutes, agents need to strategize in order to maximize their utilities. A number of results indicate that high welfare can be achieved this way, giving bounds on the welfare at equilibrium. Recently, however, criticism has been raised that equilibria are hard to compute and therefore unlikely to be attained. In this paper, we take a different perspective. We study simple best-response dynamics. That is, agents are activated one after the other and each activated agent updates his strategy myopically to a best response against the other agents' current strategies. Often these dynamics may take exponentially long before they converge or they may not converge at all. However, as we show, convergence is not even necessary for good welfare guarantees. Given that agents' bid updates are aggressive enough but not too aggressive, the game will remain in states of good welfare after each agent has updated his bid at least once. In more detail, we show that if agents have fractionally subadditive valuations, natural dynamics reach and remain in a state that provides a @math approximation to the optimal welfare after each agent has updated his bid at least once. For subadditive valuations, we can guarantee an @math approximation in case of @math items that applies after each agent has updated his bid at least once and at any point after that. The latter bound is complemented by a negative result, showing that no kind of best-response dynamics can guarantee more than an @math fraction of the optimal social welfare.
The study of the Price of Anarchy in combinatorial auctions with item bidding was initiated by @cite_10 , and subsequently refined and improved upon in @cite_0 @cite_21 @cite_2 @cite_15 @cite_13 . Some of these bounds are based on mechanism smoothness, others are not. They provide welfare guarantees for a broad range of equilibrium concepts ranging from pure Nash equilibria, over (coarse) correlated equilibria, to Bayes-Nash equilibria. For fractionally subadditive valuations there is a smoothness-based proof that shows that the Price of Anarchy with respect to pure Nash equilibria is at most @math @cite_10 @cite_2 . For subadditive valuations the Price of Anarchy with respect to pure Nash equilibria is also at most @math @cite_0 , but the best smoothness-based proof gives a bound of @math @cite_0 @cite_2 . In fact, as shown by Roughgarden @cite_12 , combinatorial auctions with item bidding achieve (near-)optimal Price of Anarchy among a broad class of simple'' mechanisms.
@cite_13 @cite_21 @cite_0 @cite_2 @cite_15 @cite_10 @cite_12
2060346604 2052719152 2953389549 2326228838 2030208840
We study markets of indivisible items in which price-based (Walrasian) equilibria often do not exist due to the discrete non-convex setting. Instead we consider Nash equilibria of the market viewed as a game, where players bid for items, and where the highest bidder on an item wins it and pays his bid. We first observe that pure Nash-equilibria of this game excatly correspond to price-based equilibiria (and thus need not exist), but that mixed-Nash equilibria always do exist, and we analyze their structure in several simple cases where no price-based equilibrium exists. We also undertake an analysis of the welfare properties of these equilibria showing that while pure equilibria are always perfectly efficient (“first welfare theorem”), mixed equilibria need not be, and we provide upper and lower bounds on their amount of inefficiency. We analyze the price of anarchy (POA) in a simple and practical non-truthful combinatorial auction when players have subadditive valuations for goods. We study the mechanism that sells every good in parallel with separate second-price auctions. We first prove that under a standard "no overbidding" assumption, for every subadditive valuation profile, every pure Nash equilibrium has welfare at least 50 of optimal --- i.e., the POA is at most 2. For the incomplete information setting, we prove that the POA with respect to Bayes-Nash equilibria is strictly larger than 2 --- an unusual separation from the full-information model --- and is at most 2 ln m, where m is the number of goods. The focus of classic mechanism design has been on truthful direct-revelation mechanisms. In the context of combinatorial auctions the truthful direct-revelation mechanism that maximizes social welfare is the VCG mechanism. For many valuation spaces computing the allocation and payments of the VCG mechanism, however, is a computationally hard problem. We thus study the performance of the VCG mechanism when bidders are forced to choose bids from a subspace of the valuation space for which the VCG outcome can be computed efficiently. We prove improved upper bounds on the welfare loss for restrictions to additive bids and upper and lower bounds for restrictions to non-additive bids. These bounds show that the welfare loss increases in expressiveness. All our bounds apply to equilibrium concepts that can be computed in polynomial time as well as to learning outcomes. We study the following simple Bayesian auction setting: m items are sold to n selfish bidders in m independent second-price auctions. Each bidder has a private valuation function that specifies his or her complex preferences over all subsets of items. Bidders only have beliefs about the valuation functions of the other bidders, in the form of probability distributions. The objective is to allocate the items to the bidders in a way that provides a good approximation to the optimal social welfare value. We show that if bidders have submodular or, more generally, fractionally subadditive (aka XOS) valuation functions, every Bayes-Nash equilibrium of the resulting game provides a 2-approximation to the optimal social welfare. Moreover, we show that in the full-information game, a pure Nash always exists and can be found in time that is polynomial in both m and n. This paper explains when and how communication and computational lower bounds for algorithms for an optimization problem translate to lower bounds on the worst-case quality of equilibria in games derived from the problem. We give three families of lower bounds on the quality of equilibria, each motivated by a different set of problems: congestion, scheduling, and distributed welfare games, welfare-maximization in combinatorial auctions with "black-box" bidder valuations, and welfare-maximization in combinatorial auctions with succinctly described valuations. The most straightforward use of our lower bound framework is to harness an existing computational or communication lower bound to derive a lower bound on the worst-case price of anarchy (POA) in a class of games. This is a new approach to POA lower bounds, which relies on reductions in lieu of explicit constructions. More generally, the POA lower bounds implied by our framework apply to all classes of games that share the same underlying optimization problem, independent of the details of players' utility functions. For this reason, our lower bounds are particularly significant for problems of game design--ranging from the design of simple combinatorial auctions to the computation of tolls for routing networks--where the goal is to design a game that has only near-optimal equilibria. For example, our results imply that the simultaneous first-price auction format is optimal among all "simple combinatorial auctions" in several settings.