1 / 29

Position Auctions with Budgets: Existence and Uniqueness

Position Auctions with Budgets: Existence and Uniqueness. Ron Lavi Industrial Engineering and Management Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. Joint work with Itai Ashlagi, Mark Braverman, Avinatan Hassidim, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Overview.

kobe
Télécharger la présentation

Position Auctions with Budgets: Existence and Uniqueness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Position Auctions with Budgets: Existence and Uniqueness Ron Lavi Industrial Engineering and Management Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Joint work with Itai Ashlagi, Mark Braverman, Avinatan Hassidim, and Moshe Tennenholtz

  2. Overview • Starting point: The elegant “generalized English auction”, of Edelman, Ostrovsky, and Schwarz, for position auctions • Private values, incomplete information • Truthful, envy-free, Pareto-efficient • Drawback: Not suitable for players with budget constraints • Realistic assumption • Our work: • “Extend” the auction to support budgets • New format exhibits all above desired properties • Outcome is equivalent to another “extension”, of the DGS auction (by Aggarwal, Muthukrishnan, Pal and Pal) • Turns out: This is the unique possible outcome satisfying above properties

  3. The Model • Player i has: private value vi ; private budget bi • Seller has K “positions” ; worth of position j to player i is j  vi • 1> 2> …. > K • Same model of EOS (2007), Varian (2007) • A player has quasi-linear utility if pays less than budget cap; negative utility otherwise: • Goal: auction that satisfies • Ex-post equilibrium: regardless of values, if others follow strategy, so do player i (has “no-regret”) [call this “truthful”] • Pareto-efficiency: cannot weakly improve all utilities • Envy-free: players do not want to switch positions+payments j  vi - p if p < bi negative O/W ui(slot j, payment p) =

  4. The Model • Player i has: private value vi ; private budget bi • Seller has K “positions” ; worth of position j to player i is j  vi • 1> 2> …. > K • Same model of EOS (2007), Varian (2007) • A player has quasi-linear utility if pays less than budget cap; negative utility otherwise: • Goal: auction that satisfies • Ex-post equilibrium: regardless of values, if others follow strategy, so do player i (has “no-regret”) [call this “truthful”] Proposition: envy-free  Pareto-efficient j  vi - p if p < bi negative O/W ui(slot j, payment p) =

  5. Related Work show envy-freeness • Extensions of DGS: • Van der Laan and Yang (2008) • Kempe, Mu’alem and Salek (2009) • Aggarwal, Muthukrishnan, Pal, and Pal (2009) • Hatfield and Milgrom (2005) – a more general setting for non-quasi-linearity, seems to subsume the above. Also viewed as an extension of DGS (as the authors note). • add • truthfulness on top

  6. Related Work show envy-freeness • Extensions of DGS: • Van der Laan and Yang (2008) • Kempe, Mu’alem and Salek (2009) • Aggarwal, Muthukrishnan, Pal, and Pal (2009) • Hatfield and Milgrom (2005) – a more general setting for non-quasi-linearity, seems to subsume the above. Also viewed as an extension of DGS (as the authors note). • Q: what if we try to extend the generalized English auction? • add • truthfulness on top

  7. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (no budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 p = 7 player 3 drops all players compete p = 0

  8. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (no budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 p solves:1  v2 - p = 2  v2 – 7  p = (1 - 2) v2 + 7 p = 8 player 2 drops p = 7 player 3 drops all players compete p = 0

  9. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (no budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 Result:player 1 wins slot 1 and pays 8player 2 wins slot 2 and pays 7 p = 8 player 2 drops p = 7 player 3 drops all players compete p = 0

  10. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 p = 7 player 3 drops ?? all players compete p = 0

  11. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (withbudget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 Possible alternative:player 3 wins slot 1 and pays 7.6player 2 wins slot 2 and pays 7.5 p = 7.6 player 2 drops p = 7.5 player 1 drops all players compete p = 0

  12. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 p = 7 player 3 drops ?? all players compete p = 0

  13. Budgets and the Generalized English Auction • The generalized English auction: • Price ascends; players drop (rename players in reverse drop order) • The i’th dropper wins slot i, pays price point of i+1 drop • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 However if p. 3 does not drop she can also end up with negative utility. Conclusion: no ex-post equilibrium p = 7 player 3 drops ?? all players compete p = 0

  14. Solution: The Generalized Position Auction • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 p = 7 all players compete p = 0 SLOT 1 SLOT 2

  15. Solution: The Generalized Position Auction • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 Player 3 no longer wants slot 2 Number of players interested in slot 2 is equal to slot number p = 7 p = 7 all players compete p = 0 SLOT 1 SLOT 2

  16. Solution: The Generalized Position Auction • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 player 3 wins slot 1, pays 7.6 p = 7.6 player 2 drops p = 7.5 player 1 drops p = 7 p = 7 p = 0 SLOT 1 SLOT 2

  17. Solution: The Generalized Position Auction Auction for slot 2 resumes; players 1 & 2 participate • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 player 3 wins slot 1, pays 7.6 p = 7.6 player 2 drops p = 7.5 player 1 drops p = 7 p = 7 p = 0 SLOT 1 SLOT 2

  18. Solution: The Generalized Position Auction • Example (with budget): 1 = 1.1, 2 = 1 ; v1= 20, v2= 10, v3= 7 b1= 7.5, b2= 7.6, b3= 9 player 2 wins slot 2, pays 7.5 player 3 wins slot 1, pays 7.6 p = 7.6 player 2 drops p = 7.5 p = 7.5 player 1 drops player 1 drops p = 7 p = 7 p = 0 SLOT 1 SLOT 2

  19. The Generalized Position Auction • (The direct version: players report types, and outcome is computed by the following algorithm) (*) price ascent in auction ℓ stopswhen there are ℓ active players (*) player i remains in auction ℓ untilprice = min(bi, (ℓ - ℓ’) vi + pℓ’) [ℓ’> ℓ : last slot in which player i was active when price stopped] pℓ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLOTℓ SLOTK SLOT1

  20. The Generalized Position Auction • (the direct version: players report types, and outcome is computed by the following algorithm) (*) when slot 1 is sold, auction for slot K resumes, for K-1 slots, with one less player. THM: this is truthful and envy-free . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLOTℓ SLOTK SLOT1

  21. Uniqueness • Result turns out to be always identical to the extended DGS auction. (but different mechanism: ) • Different price path • Ours is slightly faster (nk2 messages instead of nk3) THM: Any mechanism that is truthful, envy-free, individually rational, and has no positive transfers, must yield the same outcome. • Holds even if values are public and only budgets are private.

  22. Proof Sketch • Use two properties of the generalized position auction: • If player i wins slot ℓ and declares smaller budget still > Pℓ then she still wins slot ℓ. • Slot prices are minimal among all mechanisms. • Let M denote our auction, and fix another mechanism M’ that satisfies all properties. Fix arbitrary tuple of types. Lemma: Let B={ s | Ps = P’s }. Then w(B) = w’(B). Proof: By contradiction i such that: (1) i = w(ℓ) = w’(ℓ’) (2) Pℓ = P’ℓ (3) Pℓ’ < P’ℓ’ ℓvi - P’ℓ = ℓvi - Pℓ >ℓ’vi - Pℓ’ > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’ contradicting envy-freeness of M’.

  23. Proof Sketch • Use two properties of the generalized position auction: • If player i wins slot ℓ and declares smaller budget still > Pℓ then she still wins slot ℓ. • Slot prices are minimal among all mechanisms. • Let M denote our auction, and fix another mechanism M’ that satisfies all properties. Fix arbitrary tuple of types. Inductive claim: for slot ℓ = K,…,1: • Set of winners of slots 1,.., ℓ is the same for M,M’ • For slot s > ℓ: (a) Ps = P’s (b) w(s) = w’(s) • We need only prove (a) + (b) for some slot ℓ given correctness of inductive claim for slot ℓ+1.

  24. Proof Sketch Proof for (a) Pℓ = P’ℓ Denote i = w(ℓ) = w’(ℓ’). We have ℓ > ℓ’ by inductive assumption. Claim: Pℓ’ = P’ℓ’ Note: This implies (a) since i in w’(B) implies i in w(B) implies Pℓ = P’ℓ

  25. Proof Sketch Proof for (a) Pℓ = P’ℓ Denote i = w(ℓ) = w’(ℓ’). We have ℓ > ℓ’ by inductive assumption. Claim: Pℓ’ = P’ℓ’ Proof: Otherwise Pℓ’ > P’ℓ’ ℓvi - Pℓ >ℓ’vi - Pℓ’ > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’

  26. Proof Sketch Proof for (a) Pℓ = P’ℓ Denote i = w(ℓ) = w’(ℓ’). We have ℓ > ℓ’ by inductive assumption. Claim: Pℓ’ = P’ℓ’ Proof: Otherwise Pℓ’ > P’ℓ’ ℓvi - Pℓ > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’  ℓvi – (Pℓ + ) > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’

  27. Proof Sketch Proof for (a) Pℓ = P’ℓ Denote i = w(ℓ) = w’(ℓ’). We have ℓ > ℓ’ by inductive assumption. Claim: Pℓ’ = P’ℓ’ Proof: Otherwise Pℓ’ > P’ℓ’ ℓvi - Pℓ > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’  ℓvi – (Pℓ + ) > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’ When player i declares budget = Pℓ +  she still wins slot ℓ in M, and thus wins some slot ℓ’’ < ℓ in M’. She pays P’’ < Pℓ + .

  28. Proof Sketch Proof for (a) Pℓ = P’ℓ Denote i = w(ℓ) = w’(ℓ’). We have ℓ > ℓ’ by inductive assumption. Claim: Pℓ’ = P’ℓ’ Proof: Otherwise Pℓ’ > P’ℓ’ ℓvi - Pℓ > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’  ℓvi – (Pℓ + ) > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’ When player i declares budget = Pℓ +  she still wins slot ℓ in M, and thus wins some slot ℓ’’ < ℓ in M’. She pays P’’ < Pℓ + .Her utility in this case increases: ℓ’’vi – P’’ > ℓvi – (Pℓ + ) > ℓ’vi – P’ℓ’ which contradicts truthfulness of M’.

  29. Summary • Study position auctions with private values and private budget constraints. • Extend the generalized English auction to handle budgets, maintaining all its desired properties. • Prove that the result is the unique possible truthful mechanism that satisfies: • Envy-freeness • Individual Rationality • No Positive Transfers

More Related