Simultaneous 2nd Price Item Auctions with No-Underbidding
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Price of Anarchy (PoA) measures inefficiency in auctions with self-interested agents
- No-underbidding is a phenomenon where bidders refrain from bidding their true valuations for fear of overpaying
- Authors Michal Feldman and Galia Shabtai provide a theoretical foundation for the no-underbidding phenomenon and study its impact on simultaneous 2nd price auctions (S2PA)
- They introduce a new natural condition called "no underbidding," which assumes that bidders never bid less than their marginal values
- Improved bounds on the PoA of S2PA are established for various valuation classes, including unit-demand, submodular, XOS, subadditive, and general monotone valuations in both full-information and incomplete information settings
- A new parameterized property of auctions called $(\gamma,\delta)$-revenue guaranteed is introduced to derive results, guaranteeing a PoA of at least $\gamma/(1+\delta)$
- S2PA are shown to be $(1,1)$-revenue guaranteed with respect to bids satisfying no underbidding. This implies a PoA of at least $1/2$ for general monotone valuation which extends to BPOA with arbitrary correlated distributions.
- Findings have significant implications for the performance of S2PA relative to simultaneous 1st price auctions
- The no underbidding assumption sheds new light on the inefficiencies that arise in auctions and provides a more accurate model for real-world scenarios.
Authors: Michal Feldman, Galia Shabtai
Abstract: The literature on the Price of Anarchy (PoA) of simple auctions employs a no-overbidding assumption but has completely overlooked the no-underbidding phenomenon, which is evident in empirical studies on variants of the second price auction. In this work, we provide a theoretical foundation for the no-underbidding phenomenon. We study the PoA of simultaneous 2nd price auctions (S2PA) under a new natural condition of {\em no underbidding}, meaning that agents never bid on items less than their marginal values. We establish improved (mostly tight) bounds on the PoA of S2PA under no underbidding for different valuation classes (including unit-demand, submodular, XOS, subadditive, and general monotone valuations), in both full-information and incomplete information settings. To derive our results, we introduce a new parameterized property of auctions, termed $(\gamma,\delta)$-revenue guaranteed, which implies a PoA of at least $\gamma/(1+\delta)$. Via extension theorems, this guarantee extends to coarse correlated equilibria (CCE) in full information settings, and to Bayesian PoA (BPoA) in settings with incomplete information and arbitrary (correlated) distributions. We then show that S2PA are $(1,1)$-revenue guaranteed with respect to bids satisfying no underbidding. This implies a PoA of at least $1/2$ for general monotone valuation, which extends to BPOA with arbitrary correlated distributions. Moreover, we show that $(\lambda,\mu)$-smoothness combined with $(\gamma,\delta)$-revenue guaranteed guarantees a PoA of at least $(\gamma+\lambda)/(1+\delta+\mu)$. This implies a host of results, such as a tight PoA of $2/3$ for S2PA with submodular (or XOS) valuations, under no overbidding and no underbidding. Beyond establishing improved bounds for S2PA, the no underbidding assumption sheds new light on the performance of S2PA relative to simultaneous 1st price auctions.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.