There has been much recent work on the revenue-raising properties of truthful mechanisms for selling goods to selfish bidders. Typically the revenue of a mechanism is compared against a benchmark (such as, the maximum revenue obtainable by an omniscient seller selling at a fixed price to at least two customers), with a view to understanding how much lower the mechanism's revenue is than the benchmark, in the worst case. We study this issue in the context of lotteries , where the seller may sell a probability of winning an item. We are interested in two general issues. Firstly, we aim at using the true optimum revenue as benchmark for our auctions. Secondly, we study the extent to which the expressive power resulting from lotteries, helps to improve the worst-case ratio. We study this in the well-known context of digital goods , where the production cost is zero. We show that in this scenario, collusion-resistant lotteries (these are lotteries for which no coalition of bidders exchanging side payments has an advantage in lying) are as powerful as truthful ones.
Other benchmarks are defined in the literature to compare the revenue of incentive-compatible auctions, see, e.g., @cite_4 . To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first in which revenue is compared to . However, in certain combinatorial settings, such as the one considered in e.g. @cite_10 , , as social welfare, is used as benchmark for revenue maximization.
@cite_10 @cite_4
2031502124 2404718321
We consider the problem of pricing n items to maximize revenue when faced with a series of unknown buyers with complex preferences, and show that a simple pricing scheme achieves surprisingly strong guarantees. We show that in the unlimited supply setting, a random single price achieves expected revenue within a logarithmic factor of the total social welfare for customers with general valuation functions, which may not even necessarily be monotone. This generalizes work of Guruswami et. al [18], who show a logarithmic factor for only the special cases of single-minded and unit-demand customers. In the limited supply setting, we show that for subadditive valuations, a random single price achieves revenue within a factor of 2O(√(log n loglog n) of the total social welfare, i.e., the optimal revenue the seller could hope to extract even if the seller could price each bundle differently for every buyer. This is the best approximation known for any item pricing scheme for subadditive (or even submodular) valuations, even using multiple prices. We complement this result with a lower bound showing a sequence of subadditive (in fact, XOS) buyers for which any single price has approximation ratio 2Ω(log1 4 n), thus showing that single price schemes cannot achieve a polylogarithmic ratio. This lower bound demonstrates a clear distinction between revenue maximization and social welfare maximization in this setting, for which [12,10] show that a fixed price achieves a logarithmic approximation in the case of XOS [12], and more generally subadditive [10], customers. We also consider the multi-unit case examined by [1111] in the context of social welfare, and show that so long as no buyer requires more than a 1 -- e fraction of the items, a random single price now does in fact achieve revenue within an O(log n) factor of the maximum social welfare. We consider the problem of maximizing revenue in prior-free auctions for general single parameter settings. The setting is modeled by an arbitrary downward-closed set system, which captures many special cases such as single item, digital goods and single-minded combinatorial auctions. We relax the truthfulness requirement by the solution concept of Nash equilibria. Implementation by Nash equilibria is a natural and relevant framework in many applications of computer science, where auctions are run repeatedly and bidders can observe others’ strategies, but the auctioneer needs to design a mechanism in advance and cannot use any information on the bidders’ private valuations. We introduce a worst-case revenue benchmark which generalizes the second price of single item auction and the F2 benchmark, introduced by , for digital goods. We design a mechanism whose Nash equilibria obtains at least a constant factor of this benchmark and prove that no truthful mechanisms can achieve a constant approximation.