Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKeith Brann Modified over 3 years ago

1
Simple and Near-Optimal Auctions Tim Roughgarden (Stanford)

2
2 Motivation Optimal auction design: what's the point? One primary reason: suggests auction formats likely be useful in practice. Exhibit A: single-item Vickrey auction. maximizes welfare (ex post) [Vickrey 61] with suitable reserve price, maximizes expected revenue with i.i.d. bidder valuations [Meyerson 81 ]

3
3 The Dark Side Issue: in more complex settings, optimal auction can say little about how to really solve problem. Example #1: single-item auction, independent but non-identical bidders. to maximize revenue: winner = use highest "virtual bid" charge winner its "threshold bid" Example #2: combinatorial auctions (max welfare) VCG hard to implement, provable approximations are mostly theoretical

4
4 Alternative Approach Standard Approach: solve for optimal auction over huge set, hope optimal solution is reasonable Alternative: optimize only over "plausibly implementable" auctions. Sanity Check: want performance of optimal restricted auction close to that of optimal (unrestricted) auction. if so, have theoretically justified and potentially practically useful solution

5
5 Plan for Talk Part I: simple near-optimal auctions for revenue maximization in single-parameter problems. VCG + monopoly reserves almost as good as OPT [Hartline/Roughgarden EC 09] follow-ups: [Chakraborty et al. WINE 10], [Chawla et al STOC 10], [Yan SODA 11] Part II: equilibrium welfare guarantees for combinatorial auctions with "item bidding" mechanism = parallel second-price auctions [Bhawalkar/Roughgarden SODA 11]

6
Simple versus Optimal Auctions (Hartline/Roughgarden EC 2009)

7
7 Single-Parameter Problems Example: single-minded combinatorial auctions set of m different goods each bidder i wants a known bundle S i of goods feasible subsets = bidders with disjoint bundles Downward-closed environment: n bidders, independent valuations from F 1,...,F n public collection of feasible sets of bidders subsets of feasible sets must be again feasible

8
8 Simple vs. Optimal Auctions Question: is there a simple auction that's almost as good as Myerson's optimal auction?

9
9 Simple vs. Optimal Auctions Question: is there a simple auction that's almost as good as Myerson's optimal auction? Theorem: [Hartline/Roughgarden EC 09] Yes! Expected revenue of VCG + "monopoly reserve prices" is at least 50% of OPT. assumes F i 's have "monotone hazard rates" better bounds hold under stronger assumptions single-item auction, anonymous reserve: can get between 25-50% (open: determine tight bound)

10
10 VCG + Monopoly Reserves Input: general downward-closed environment, unknown v i 's drawn from known MHR F i 's set reserve r i = argmax p p(1 - F i (p)) [each i] delete all bidders with v i < r i run VCG: maximize sum of v i 's (i.e., welfare) of remaining bidders, subject to feasibility price of winner i =max{VCG price, r i }

11
11 A Simple Lemma Lemma: Let F be an MHR distribution with monopoly price r (so ϕ(r) = 0). For every v ≥ r: r + ϕ(v) ≥ v. Proof: We have r + ϕ(v) = r + v - 1/h(v)[defn of ϕ] ≥ r + v - 1/h(r)[MHR, v ≥ r] = v.[ϕ(r) = 0]

12
Welfare Guarantees in Combinatorial Auctions with Item Bidding (Bhawalkar/Roughgarden SODA 2011)

13
13 Combinatorial Auctions n bidders, m heterogeneous goods bidder i has private valuation v i (S) for each subset S of goods [≈ 2 m parameters] assume nondecreasing with v i (φ) = 0 quasi-linear utility: player i wants to maximize v i (S i ) - payment allocation = partition of goods amongst bidders welfare of allocation S 1,S 2,...,S n : ∑ i v i (S i ) goal is to allocate goods to maximize this quantity

14
14 Item Bidding Note: if m (i.e., # of goods) is not tiny, then direct revelation is absurd. Goal: good welfare with much smaller bid space. "truthfulness" now obviously impossible Item Bidding: each bidder submits one bid per good. Each good sold via an independent second-price auction. only solicit m parameters per bidder this auction is already being used! (via eBay)

15
15 Item-Bidding Example Example: two players (1 & 2), two goods (A & B). Player #1: v 1 (A) = 1, v 1 (B) = 2, v 1 (AB) = 2. Player #2: v 2 (A) = 2, v 2 (B) = 1, v 2 (AB) = 2. OPT welfare = 4. A full-information Nash equilibrium: #1 bids 1 on A, 0 on B #2 bids 0 on A, 1 on B which has welfare only 2.

16
16 The Price of Anarchy Definition: price of anarchy (POA) of a game (w.r.t. some objective function): Well-studied goal: when is the POA small? benefit of centralized control --- or, a hypothetical perfect (VCG) implementation --- is small note POA depends on choice of equilibrium concept only recently studied much in auctions/mechanisms optimal obj fn value equilibrium objective fn value the closer to 1 the better

17
17 Complement-Free Bidders Fact: need to restrict valuations to get interesting worst-case guarantees. Complement-Free Bidder: v i (S ∪ T) ≤ v i (S) + v i (T) for all subsets S,T of goods.

18
18 Complement-Free Bidders Fact: need to restrict valuations to get interesting worst-case guarantees. Complement-Free Bidder: v i (S ∪ T) ≤ v i (S) + v i (T) for all subsets S,T of goods. Fact : "bluffing" can yield zero-welfare equilibria. consider valuations = 1 and 0, bids = 0 and 1 No Overbidding: for all i and S, ∑ jєS b ij ≤ v i (S). our bounds degrade gracefully as this is relaxed

19
19 Summary of Results Theorems [Bhawalkar/Roughgarden SODA 11]: worst-case POA of pure Nash equilibria = 2 when such equilibria exist extends [Christodoulou/Kovacs/Shapira ICALP 08] worse-case POA of Bayes-Nash eq ≤ 2 ln m also, strictly bigger than 2 also hold for mixed, (coarse) correlated Nash eq assumes independent private valuations with correlated valuations, worst-case POA is polynomial in m.

20
20 XOS Valuations To illustrate ideas: prove POA of pure Nash eq is ≤ 2 for subclass of complement-free valuations. XOS valuation: there exist vectors a 1,a 2,...,a k, indexed by goods, such that for all S: v(S) = max l { ∑ jєS a lj } every XOS valuation is complement-free every submodular valuation is XOS

21
21 Pure POA = 2 for XOS Fix XOS valuations v 1,v 2,...,v n. Let O 1,O 2,...,O n be an optimal allocation. Let b 1,b 2,...,b n be a pure Nash equilibrium with no overbidding.

22
22 Pure POA = 2 for XOS Fix XOS valuations v 1,v 2,...,v n. Let O 1,O 2,...,O n be an optimal allocation. Let b 1,b 2,...,b n be a pure Nash equilibrium with no overbidding. Fix player i. Let a i satisfy v i (O i ) = ∑ jєS a ij. By the Nash equilibrium condition [u i denotes payoff]: u i (b) ≥ u i (a i ;b- i ) ≥ ∑ jєOi [a ij - max l≠i b lj ] ≥ v i (O i ) - ∑ jєOi max l b lj

23
23 Pure POA = 2 for XOS (cont'd) So far: u i (b) ≥ v i (O i ) - ∑ jєOi max l b lj Summing over i: Nash eq welfare ≥ ∑ i v i (O i ) - ∑ i ∑ jєOi max l b lj

24
24 Pure POA = 2 for XOS (cont'd) So far: u i (b) ≥ v i (O i ) - ∑ jєOi max l b lj Summing over i: Nash eq welfare ≥ ∑ i v i (O i ) - ∑ i ∑ jєOi max l b lj = OPT welfare - ∑ i ∑ jєSi max l b lj = OPT welfare - ∑ i ∑ jєSi b ij

25
25 Pure POA = 2 for XOS (cont'd) So far: u i (b) ≥ v i (O i ) - ∑ jєOi max l b lj Summing over i: Nash eq welfare ≥ ∑ i v i (O i ) - ∑ i ∑ jєOi max l b lj = OPT welfare - ∑ i ∑ jєSi max l b lj = OPT welfare - ∑ i ∑ jєSi b ij ≥ OPT welfare - ∑ i v i (S i ) no over- bidding

26
26 Pure POA = 2 for XOS (cont'd) So far: u i (b) ≥ v i (O i ) - ∑ jєOi max l b lj Summing over i: Nash eq welfare ≥ ∑ i v i (O i ) - ∑ i ∑ jєOi max l b lj = OPT welfare - ∑ i ∑ jєSi max l b lj = OPT welfare - ∑ i ∑ jєSi b ij ≥ OPT welfare - ∑ i v i (S i ) So: Nash eq welfare ≥ (OPT welfare)/2. no over- bidding

27
27 The Complement-Free Case Lemma 1: for every complement-free valuation v and subset S, there is a bid vector a i such that: ∑ jєS a ij ≥ v i (S)/(ln m) ∑ jєT a ij ≤ v i (T) for every subset T of goods Proof idea: modify primal-dual set cover algorithm and analysis. Lemma 2: implies POA bound of 2 ln m.

28
28 Relation to Smoothness Key Proof Step: invoke Nash equilibrium condition once per player, with "canonical deviation". deviation is independent of b- i Fact: this conforms to the "smoothness paradigm" of [Roughgarden STOC 09] Corollary: POA bound of 2 (ln m) extends automatically to mixed Nash + correlated equilibria, no-regret learners, and Bayes-Nash equilibria with independent private valuations.

29
29 Correlated Valuations Lower Bound: for Bayes-Nash equilibria with correlated valuations, POA can be m ¼. even for submodular valuations approach #1: direct construction based on random planted matchings approach #2: [ongoing with Noam Nisan] communication complexity good POA bounds imply good poly-size "sketches" for the valuations [Balcan/Harvey STOC 11] such sketches do not exist

30
30 Open Problems is independent Bayes-Nash POA = O(1)? what about for independent 1st-price auctions? [Hassidim/Kaplan/Mansour/Nisan EC 11] when do smoothness bounds extend to POA of Bayes-Nash equilibria with correlated types? optimal trade-offs between auction performance and "auction simplicity" e.g., in terms of size of bid space, number of "tunable parameters", etc.

Similar presentations

OK

The Weighted Proportional Resource Allocation Milan Vojnović Microsoft Research Joint work with Thành Nguyen Microsoft Research Asia, Beijing, April, 2011.

The Weighted Proportional Resource Allocation Milan Vojnović Microsoft Research Joint work with Thành Nguyen Microsoft Research Asia, Beijing, April, 2011.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google