competitive auctions
DESCRIPTION
Competitive Auctions. What will we see today?. Were the Auctioneer! Random algorithms Worst case analysis Competitiveness. Our playground. Unlimited number of indivisible goods No value for the auctioneer Truthful auctions Digital goods. Before we begin. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2
WHAT WILL WE SEE TODAY? Were the Auctioneer! Random algorithms
Worst case analysis Competitiveness
3
OUR PLAYGROUND Unlimited number of indivisible goods No value for the auctioneer Truthful auctions
Digital goods
4
BEFORE WE BEGIN Normal Auctions (single round sealed bid)
utility vector u bid vector b payment vector p Auction A
Profit is sum of payments
5
RANDOM TRUTHFULNESS Reminder: Truthful auctions are auctions
where each bidder maximizes his profit when bids his utility
Random is probability distribution over deterministic auctions
Random Strong Truthfulness One natural approach Our chosen approach A randomized auction is truthful if it can be
described as a probability distribution over deterministic truthful auctions
7
BID-INDEPENDENT AUCTIONS Intuition Masked vector
f a function from masked vectors to prices Every buyer is offered to pay
8
AUCTION Auction 1: Bid-independent Auction: Af(b)
1. ( )2.if then 2.1. 1 and p 2.1 else x 0 and 0
i i
i i
i i i
i i
t f bt bx t
p
9
EXAMPLES Bid vector for buying Lonely-Island new song 4 bets
What have we got? 1-item vickery
For k’th largest bid we get K- item vickery
( ) max( )i if b b
10
BID INDEPENDENT -> TRUTHFUL
We are offered T(=20) what should we bid? If U(=15) < T we cant win If U(=30) >= T any bid >= T will win Either way U maximizes bidder’s profit
T U
max profit
11
TRUTHFUL -> BID-INDEPENDENT Theorem : A deterministic auction is truthful
if and only if it is equivalent to a deterministic bid-independent auction.
12
TRUTHFUL->BID-INDEPENDENT For bid vector b and bidder i we fix all bids
except bi
Lemma1 For each x where i wins he pays same p
Lemma2i wins for x>p (possibly for p)
1 1 1( ,..., , , ,..., )xi i i nb b b x b b
13
LEMMA 1 PROOF Lemma1: i pays p Assume to the contrary
x1,x2 where i pays p1>p2 Than if Ui = x1 i should lie and tell x2
=>In contrast to A’s truthfulnessp2
u2
u1
p1
14
LEMMA2:PROOF Lemma2: for each x>p (and possibly p) x
wins Assume to the contrary w exists
w>p w wins
x exists such that x>p x doesn’t win
if U=x i should lie and say w => In contrast to A’s truthfulness
P wx
15
TRUTHFUL->BID-INDEPENDENT Define
Than for any bid b
For bid b if i in A wins and pays p than also in Af If loses than
p doesn’t exist or bi < p
;if i can win for any x( ) {
;elsei
pf b
fA A
Bid Indepndent is truthful!
16
LETS SHAKE THINGS UP Reminder:
Random Auctions Random Truthful Auctions
A randomized bid-independent auction is a probability distribution over bid-independent auctions
=> A randomized auction is truthful iff it is equivalent to a randomized bid-independent auction
19
DOT Deterministic Optimal Threshold single-priced Define opt(b) as the optimum single price
DOT:
Calculates maximum for rest of the group
20
WHERE DOT IS OPTIMAL
Bids range from [0$,50$] Bids are i.i.d
DOT optimal for a wide range of problems! For any bounded support i.i.d(without proof)
22
WHERE DOT FAILS For each a bidder :
(n/a-1) a-bidders profit for p=a is n-a but for p=1 is n-1 p = 1
For each 1 bidder n/a a-bidders profit for p=1 is n-1 but for p=a is n p = a
Profit is n/a (number of a bidders)
100
23
DOT CONCLUSION Why are we talking worst case? DOT prevails in Bayesian model Loses in worst case When not safe to assume true random source
Competitive outlook is logical
25
F-COMPETITIVE FAILURE Lemma: For any truthful auction Af and any
β≥1, there is a bid vector b such that the expected profit of Af on b is less than F(b)/β
26
PROOF 2 bidders Define h the smallest value such that
Lets consider the bid {1,H} where H=4βh>1 Profit is at most
For H bidder : For 1 bidder : 1
( ,1); 1b x x
11;Pr[ (1) ]2
h f h
(1 2 )2H h
27
Set our eyes lower 2-optimal single price bid The optimal bids that sells at least 2 items
Same as f(b) unless there is one bidder with Hugh utility
22( ) max k n kF b kv
2F
29
Β-COMPETITIVE Definition: We say that auction A is β-
competitive against F-m if for all bid vectors b, the expected profit of A on b satisfies
( )[ ( )]mF bE A b
30
DETERMINISM SUCKS Were going to show that no deterministic auction
is β competitive Theorem: Let Af be any symmetric deterministic
auction defined by bin-independent function f. Then Af is not competitive. For any m,n there exists a bid vector b of length n such the Af’s profit is at most
Symmetric auction: order of bids doesn’t matter For example, consider F(2). We can find a bid
vector at length 8 such that Af’s profit is at most F(2)/4
( ) ( )m mF bn
31
DETERMINISM SUCKS: PROOF Lets look at specific m,n at a specific auction
Af Consider bid b where all bids are n or 1
Let f(j) be the price where j bids are n n – 1 – j bid 1
for f(0) > 1 Consider the bids where all bids are 1
32
DETERMINISM SUCKS: PROOF k in 0..n-1 the largest integer where f(k) <= 1 We build a bid with
(k+1) n-bids (n – k – 1) 1-bids
1-bidders lose ( f(k+1) > 1) n-bidders win Profit : (k+1)f(k) < k + 1
33
DETERMINISM SUCKS: PROOFFor ( )
if k m-1 ( ) and condition holds
A (b) <k+1 m=F *
if k m then ( ) n*(k+1)
A (b) <k+1 *( 1) ( )*
m
m
mf
m
mf
F b
F b nmn
F bmm k F bn
34
CONCLUSION Why worst case?
Not truly random source How competitive?
F is too good Why random?
Because determinism is not good enough
36
RANDOM AUCTIONS Split the bid vector b in two: b’, b’’ Use each part to build auction for the other
39
ECCENTRIC MILLIONAIRES EXAMPLE Small-time bidders bid small (1) 2 Eccentric millionaires bid h,h+e
b’ b’’1M
1M+1
1M1
40
ECCENTRIC MILLIONAIRES EXAMPLE Small-time bidders bid small (1) 2 Eccentric millionaires bid h,h+e
b’ b’’1M
1M+1
1M1M+1
41
ECCENTRIC MILLIONAIRES EXAMPLE F(2) profit is 2h(= 2M) profit is h * Pr[2 high bids are split between
auctions] = h/2(=M/2)
Competitive Ratio of 4
45
So, in special cases it has a very good bound In worst case, it is C-competitive C is worse than 4
( )rDSOT
2
2
: there is an absolute constant C, such that for any 0
is (1+ ) competitive again F , with probability at least 1-em C mm m
Theorem
DSOT
46
SCS Sampling Cost-sharing CostShare-C: if you have k bidders (highest)
which are willing to pay C collectively (bid>C/k). Charge each for C/k
CostShare is truthful For profit is C, else 0 I know exactly how much
I want to make, regardless of bids
48
SCS COMPETITIVE if F’=F’’ profit is at least F’F Auction profit is R = min(F’,F’’) Suppose F’<F’’
b’ cannot achieve F’’ b’’ profit is F’
50
COMPETITIVE RATIO Begins as ¼ Approaches ½
Tight proof Consider 2 high bids h,h+e
But we always throw half Can we improve? Yes, Costshare(rF’) and Costshare(rF’’) Competitive ratio is 4/r
51
BOUNDED SUPPLY If we only have k goods
Than we use k best bidders and run unlimited supply case
Competitive vs
52
BOUNDED-SUPPLY TRUTHFULNESS none of the bidders win at a price lower than
the highest ignored bid.
Use k-vickery to get p-v use auction of unlimited supply on winners get auction price p-A
use price max(pv,pA)
53
UP TILL NOW Bid independent is truthful Worst case outlook Our benchmarks: F,T Deterministic is just now good enough competitiveness against F(2)
Examples of random algorithms DOST: C-competitive SCS : 4-competitive
55
MULTI-PRICE F is best single price F(2) comparable to F
What about using T? T is only O(log(n)) better
Mabye other multi-priced?
56
MONOTONE FUNCTIONS F is better than all monotone auctions
Non-monotone example: Hard-coded actions Lets take b* such that half bid 1 and half bid h Lets create function which maximizes profit
Acts as omniscient on b* Poorly on other results Lets generalize
57
HARD CODED AUCTIONS Let b* be out bid specific bid
will maximize profit on b* bad profit on bids that differ in 1
58
MONOTONE FUNCTIONS
Basically, if you bid more you will pay less makes sense, for is higher for the lower bidder DOT,DSOT,SCS,
Vickery are monotone
ib
59
SUMMARY Bid independent is truthful Worst case outlook
competitiveness against F(2) use of random auctions
Examples of random algorithms DOST: C-competitive SCS : 4-competitive
F is a good benchmark