We study dynamic mechanisms for optimizing revenue in repeated auctions, that are robust to heterogeneous forward-looking and learning behavior of the buyers. Typically it is assumed that the buyers are either all myopic or are all infinite lookahead, and that buyers understand and trust the mechanism. These assumptions raise the following question: is it possible to design approximately revenue optimal mechanisms when the buyer pool is heterogeneous? Facing a heterogeneous population of buyers with an unknown mixture of @math -lookahead buyers, myopic buyers, no-regret-learners and no-policy-regret learners, we design a simple state-based mechanism that achieves a constant fraction of the optimal achievable revenue.
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 the problem of a single seller repeatedly selling a single item to a single buyer (specifically, the buyer has a value drawn fresh from known distribution D in every round). Prior work assumes that the buyer is fully rational and will perfectly reason about how their bids today affect the seller's decisions tomorrow. In this work we initiate a different direction: the buyer simply runs a no-regret learning algorithm over possible bids. We provide a fairly complete characterization of optimal auctions for the seller in this domain. Specifically: - If the buyer bids according to EXP3 (or any "mean-based" learning algorithm), then the seller can extract expected revenue arbitrarily close to the expected welfare. This auction is independent of the buyer's valuation D , but somewhat unnatural as it is sometimes in the buyer's interest to overbid. - There exists a learning algorithm A such that if the buyer bids according to A then the optimal strategy for the seller is simply to post the Myerson reserve for D every round. - If the buyer bids according to EXP3 (or any "mean-based" learning algorithm), but the seller is restricted to "natural" auction formats where overbidding is dominated (e.g. Generalized First-Price or Generalized Second-Price), then the optimal strategy for the seller is a pay-your-bid format with decreasing reserves over time. Moreover, the seller's optimal achievable revenue is characterized by a linear program, and can be unboundedly better than the best truthful auction yet simultaneously unboundedly worse than the expected welfare.  We study the dynamic mechanism design problem of a seller who repeatedly sells independent items to a buyer with private values. In this setting, the seller could potentially extract the entire buyer surplus by running efficient auctions and charging an upfront participation fee at the beginning of the horizon. In some markets, such as internet advertising, participation fees are not practical since buyers expect to inspect items before purchasing them. This motivates us to study the design of dynamic mechanisms under successively more stringent requirements that capture the implicit business constraints of these markets. We first consider a periodic individual rationality constraint, which limits the mechanism to charge at most the buyer's value in each period. While this prevents large upfront participation fees, the seller can still design mechanisms that spread a participation fee across the first few auctions. These mechanisms have the unappealing feature that they provide close-to-zero buyer utility in earlier auctions in exchange for higher utility in later auctions. To address this problem, we introduce a martingale utility constraint, which imposes the requirement that from the perspective of the buyer, the next item's expected utility is equal to the present one's. Our main result is providing a dynamic auction satisfying martingale utility and periodic individual rationality whose loss in profit with respect to first-best (full extraction of buyer surplus) is optimal up to polylogarithmic factors. The proposed mechanism is a dynamic two-tier auction with a hard floor and a soft floor that allocates the item whenever the buyer's bid is above the hard floor and charges the minimum of the bid and the soft floor.  Consider a buyer with independent additive valuations for a set of goods, and a seller who is constrained to sell one item at a time in an online fashion. If the seller is constrained to run independent auctions for each item, then he would run Myerson's optimal auction for each item. If the seller is allowed to use the full power of dynamic mechanism design and have the auction for each item depend on the outcome of the previous auctions, he is able to perform much better. The main issues in implementing such strategies in online settings where items arrive over time are that the auction might be too complicated or it makes too strong assumptions on the buyer's rationality or seller's commitment over time. This motivates us to explore a restricted family of dynamic auctions that can be implemented in an online fashion and without too much commitment from the seller ahead of time. In particular, we study a set of auction in which the space of single-shot auctions is augmented with a structure that we call bank account, a real number for each node that summarizes the history so far. This structure allows the seller to store deficits or surpluses of buyer utility from each individual auction and even them out on the long run. This is akin to enforcing individual rationality constraint on average rather than per auction. We also study the effect of enforcing a maximum limit to the values that bank account might grow, which means that we enforce that besides the auction being individually rational on average it is also not far from being individually rational at any given interval. Interestingly, even with these restrictions, we can achieve significantly better revenue and social welfare compared to separate Myerson auctions. We introduce a dynamic mechanism design problem in which the designer wants to offer for sale an item to an agent, and another item to the same agent at some point in the future. The agent's joint distribution of valuations for the two items is known, and the agent knows the valuation for the current item (but not for the one in the future). The designer seeks to maximize expected revenue, and the auction must be deterministic, truthful, and ex post individually rational. The optimum mechanism involves a protocol whereby the seller elicits the buyer's current valuation, and based on the bid makes two take-it-or-leave-it offers, one for now and one for the future. We show that finding the optimum deterministic mechanism in this situation --- arguably the simplest meaningful dynamic mechanism design problem imaginable --- is NP-hard. We also prove several positive results, among them a polynomial linear programming-based algorithm for the optimum randomized auction (even for many bidders and periods), and we show strong separations in revenue between non-adaptive, adaptive, and randomized auctions, even when the valuations in the two periods are uncorrelated. Finally, for the same problem in an environment in which contracts cannot be enforced, and thus perfection of equilibrium is necessary, we show that the optimum randomized mechanism requires multiple rounds of cheap talk-like interactions. We study revenue optimization in a repeated auction between a single seller anda single buyer. Traditionally, the design of repeated auctions requires strong modeling assumptions about the bidder behavior, such as it being myopic, infinite lookahead, or some specific form of learning behavior. Is it possible to design mechanisms which are simultaneously optimal against a multitude of possible buyer behaviors? We answer this question by designing a simple state-based mechanism that is simultaneously approximately optimal against a k -lookahead buyer for all k , a buyer who is a no-regret learner, and a buyer who is a policy-regret learner. Against each type of buyer our mechanism attains a constant fraction of the optimal revenue attainable against that type of buyer. We complement our positive results with almost tight impossibility results, showing that the revenue approximation tradeoffs achieved by our mechanism for different lookahead attitudes are near-optimal.  