Designing a Strategic Bipartite Matching Market
|
|
- Victor Gilbert Rogers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Designing a Strategic Bipartite Matching Market Rahul Jain IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Hawthorne, NY rahul.jain@watson.ibm.com Abstract We consider a version of the Gale-Shapley matching problem and the Shapley-Shubik assignment game. It involves matching n buyers with m sellers. Each seller offers a distinct good and a buyer has a different valuation for various goods, and it only wants one. The matching may also involve an exchange of numeraire to be paid by the buyers, and to the sellers. The players are strategic. The key requirements are ex ante individual rationality, strong budget-balance and efficiency at equilibrium. The motivation is a advertiser-host matching system. We propose an auction-based matching mechanism. The mechanism is non-vcg (Vickrey-Clarke-Groves) type, ex ante individual rational and is able to achieve strong budget-balance. Further, we show that there exists a Nash equilibrium that is efficient. I. INTRODUCTION This paper is partly inspired by the seminal paper College admissions and the stability of marriage of Gale and Shapley [12], and partly motivated by the advertisement placement problem of the Google AdSense program. The formulation is as follows: Suppose there is a set B of m men to be matched with a set S of n women. Each man has a strict preference over each of the women. Similarly, each woman also has a strict preference over each of the men. Moreover, if a man and a woman are matched, the man pays a dowry in money to the woman (or her family), and no other side-payments are allowed. (This might be incompatible with cultural mores in some societies and compatible with others but men and women do have exchangeable roles in our formulation). The key question is whether a stable matching of men and women exists such that no man or woman has an incentive to break an engagement for another partner. If it does, then what kind of mechanisms can be used for matching and dowry determination that result in stable and, in a certain sense, optimal matchings. In [12], the formulation did not involve any dowry payments (or any other side-payments) and moreover, the players were regarded as straightforward or non-strategic. It was shown that a stable matching does indeed exist and moreover it is not unique. Furthermore, an iterative algorithm was proposed that achieved a stable matching. Moreover, it is known that while a stable matching exists for the marriage (without payments) problem, no stable matching exists for tripartite (man-woman-child) matching, nor for the many-toone matching problem [19]. A generalized model where money is also a continuous variable was considered in the (cooperative) assignment game of Shapley and Shubik [20]. Each B-agent i had a valuation v ij for an S-agent j, and each S-agent j had a reserve price c j, with σ ij = max{0, v ij c j } being the potential matching gain. The value of a coalition B S with B B and S S was considered to be the maximum matching gain within the coalition. It was established that the core of this cooperative game and the set of stable (in the sense of Gale-Shapley [12]) outcomes are the same. However, no explicit mechanism was given to achieve an outcome in the core. The Gale-Shapley marriage problem when the players are strategic and can misrepresent their true preferences was considered by Dubins and Freedman [8] and Roth [17]. In this non-cooperative game setting, it was established that no stable matching mechanism exists for which stating true preferences is a dominant strategy for every agent [17]. Further, it was established [8] that no coalition of agents may, by misrepresenting their true preferences arrange so that they all do better under a stable mechanism than when they all state their true preferences, unless they are able to make side-payments within the coalition. However, neither of these papers considered monetary payments as a possibility. But a realistic model for the problem at hand must consider agents to be strategic and must allow for monetary payments. Moreover, the mechanism solution must have the properties that it is ex post individual rational (i.e., it is rational for each player to participate in any such mechanism), it is strongly budget-balanced (i.e., the sum of payments made to all players is zero), and that it is efficient (i.e., the resulting matching maximizes the sum total of the matching gains over all feasible matchings). It would be desirable to have players reveal their true preferences but we already know from Roth s impossibility theorem that no such stable matching mechanism exists. The Shapley-Shubik assignment game was considered by Demange and Leonard independently [5], [16]. A pricing scheme motivated by VCG mechanisms was proposed for matching buyers to objects. It was proved that with such a pricing scheme, it is a dominant strategy for every buyer to be truthful. Further, in [7], Demange, Gale and Sotomayor proposed an iterative mechanism based on Hall s theorem [14] that finds transaction prices that are minimum quasicompetitive (see [7]). The resulting outcome turns out to be a competitive equilibrium. Thus, the mechanism is ex ante individual rational, efficient and strongly budget-balanced. However, the settings in all of the above mechanisms was matching of buyers to objects, and hence was a one-sided
2 market. The setting we consider in this paper involves both agents B (buyers) and agents S (sellers), and thus a two-sided market. It is well-known that a VCG-type mechanism will not achieve budget-balance, a key requirement in many such markets. We consider all players to be strategic, and moreover every transaction between a matching pair involves monetary payments. Moreover, we desire a mechanism that is ex ante individual rational, strongly budget-balanced and efficient. The mechanism that we propose and analyze is a one-shot mechanism with strategic players and has these properties. Specifically, we prove that there exists a Nash equilibrium at which the players are not necessarily truthful but the resulting assignment/matching is the efficient one. The Advertisement Placement Problem As mentioned at the very beginning, this problem is intimately related to a more contemporary problem, namely the Google AdSense problem (We call it a Google problem because of its lead in initiating such a program over other providers such as Yahoo and Quigo). Let us begin with a description of the Google Adwords program. Google, Yahoo, and many other search providers hold keyword auctions. Advertisers bid b i on keywords, and text ads of winners are placed in slots alongside search for specific keywords. For each slot and advertisement, a click through rate (CTR) is maintained which is the fraction of times an ad was clicked out of total number of times an ad was placed. Google maintains an aggregate (over all slots) CTR α i for each advertiser i while Yahoo maintains aggregate (over all advertisers) CTR γ k for each slot k. For each keyword, a next-price auction is held: In the Yahoo auction, bids are ranked in decreasing order and the ith highest bidder pays the (i+1)st highest bid per click on its ad (without loss of generality, relabel buyers in the decreasing order of their bids). In the Google auction, bids are ranked by α i b i (without loss of generality, relabel buyers in the decreasing order of α i b i ), and the ith highest ranked bidder pays α i+1 b i+1 /α i per click. The Google auction was analyzed in [11] where it was proved that certain symmetric Nash equilibria of the auction game are competitive equilibria of the Shapley-Shubik assignment game with a special utility structure. Further, it was shown that there is a symmetric Nash equilibria which achieves the maximum revenue at any Nash equilibrium. The Yahoo auction was analyzed in [9] where it was shown that truth-telling is not a dominant strategy in either the Yahoo or the Google auction. Further, they characterized the minimum revenue locally envy-free Nash equilibrium (see [9] for definition) in which the bidder assignments and payments are the same as in the dominant-strategy equilibrium of the VCG mechanism. In [15] and [13], [2], a more comprehensive equilibrium and revenue analysis of the two auction mechanisms was provided both in the complete and incomplete information setting. Similar results from analysis and simulations have also been obtained in [10]. In [1], a different mechanism, the laddered auction mechanism is proposed which is shown to be truthful. While [4] takes a different approach: Instead of choosing with payments to align incentives as in all the other proposals, it chooses the probability of an advertisers ad being placed. The payment equals the bid if the placed ad is clicked. Thus, the one-sided slot/position auctions as described above have been extensively analyzed. But Google, Yahoo and another company Quigo do run another program where the ads are placed not on their own websites but on third party websites. This pioneering program of Google is known as AdSense in which Google matches advertisers with websites. The mechanics are similar on one-side of this market: advertisers make bids on keywords. Based on relevance and the bids, Google places these ads on the websites of participating hosts. The advertisers pay every time their ad is clicked according to the Google payment rule, while the hosts get a share of the payment received from the advertiser. It is well-known that this mechanism is sub-optimal both from an assignment perspective as well as revenue. What is required is a double-sided market mechanism where both advertisers bid on keywords as well as the hosts. To the best of this author s knowledge, no efficient, individual rational, budget-balanced mechanism for this problem has been proposed. The strategic matching market mechanism that we propose in this paper solves this problem. II. BACKGROUND AND MODEL We will first state the formulation for the double-sided keyword slot auction. We will then reduce it to an assignment game formulation. Suppose there are n buyers (or advertisers) B, and m sellers (or ad-hosts) S and each seller has K slots to offer with q = min(n, m). If a buyer i s ad placed on slot k of host j is clicked he derives a value ṽ ijk. This could also be interpreted as buyer i s outside option for a similar slot on a similar host. Similarly, a seller j has a cost c ijk if an ad of buyer i is placed at the slot k. Again, this can be interpreted as seller j s outside option, i.e., what it can achieve outside the ad-exchange system. From the history of ad placements and clicks, a clickthrough-rate (CTR) is denoted by θ ijk. It is the empirical probability of a buyer i s ad being clicked by a random user if it is placed on host j s slot k. We will say it is completely separable if it is equal to some α i β j γ k, where α i is the empirical probability of buyer i s ad being clicked, β j is the empirical probability of an ad on seller j s site being clicked and γ k is the empirical probability of an ad at slot k on any host s site being clicked. In the model, we can also postulate certain weights w ijk that depend on more subjective criterion such as relevance and effectiveness of the ads at a particular host and a particular slot. We will assume that all this information about true valuations, costs and CTRs is common knowledge. This is the model in full generality.
3 In subsequent discussion in this paper, we will consider a simplified model though the analysis should extend to the above general model with some difficulty. We will assume that each seller offers only one slot, and moreover a seller s cost is independent of the buyer whose ad it hosts, i.e., c ijk = c j, ṽ ijk = ṽ ij and θ ijk = θ ij. We will assume that each player has a quasi-linear payoff function. Thus, a seller j s expected payoff is u s j = p c j (with c j = c j ) if he is paid p each time he hosts an ad. Similarly, a buyer i s expected payoff u b i = θ ij ṽ ij p = v ij p if his ad is placed at host j, where v ij = θ ij ṽ ij. Thus, we can simplify our model and just work with expected value per ad placement derived by the buyers. Those buyers whose ad is not placed anywhere and those sellers who do not host any ad will have payoff zero. Denote the set of feasible assignments by X := { x ij 1 i, x ij 1, j, x ij 0, i, j}, j i i.e., the sum probability of assignment of a buyer i to any seller j is at most 1, and the sum probability of assignment of a seller j to any buyer is at most 1. Thus, x ij = 1 will mean that i and j are matched. We define a social welfare function as S(x) = (v ij c j )x ij. ij Our objective is an assignment x arg max S(x) s.t. x X. (1) We will call such an assignment efficient. The players are strategic and act to maximize their own payoff. Thus, we would like to design a mechanism consisting of an assignment rule that matches buyers B with sellers S and a payment rule that specifies payments to be made by or to, matched players. We will say that the mechanism is stable if u b i 0 and u s j 0, and ub i + us j (v ij c j ) +, where (z) + denotes max(0, z). This notion was introduced by Shapley-Shubik [20]. We will see that this is closely related to our objective of efficient, i.e., a matching that maximizes the social welfare function. We define a Pareto-optimal assignment to be one such that no agent is better off (in terms of his payoff) at another assignment without any other agent being worse off (in terms of his payoff), i.e., an assignment that cannot be changed to improve at least one agent s payoff without decreasing any other agent s payoff. If the payment rule of the assignment mechanism is such that it is strongly budget-balanced (formally defined in the next section), then i ub i + j us j = ij (v ij c j )x ij with x X. Thus, with budget-balance, an assignment that is efficient is also Pareto-optimal. Moreover, the set of Paretooptimal outcomes is in the core [20] (see [3] for a definition). Thus, we have argued that Theorem 1: An efficient assignment x for the assignment game above is compatible with a stable payoff. Thus, we can focus on designing an assignment mechanism that yields an efficient assignment at equilibrium since stability is then guaranteed in a budget-balanced mechanism. III. A BUDGET-BALANCED EFFICIENT ASSIGNMENT MECHANISM We now propose an assignment mechanism for strategic players. First, bids are elicited from both the buyers and sellers indicative of their true valuations and costs. Thus, a buyer i bids b ij for seller j s slot and seller j places a minimum reservation price bid a j. Let ij (b ij a j )x ij denote the total matching surplus. ASSIGNMENT RULE. We determine an assignment that maximizes the total matching-surplus x arg max{ ij (b ij a j )x ij : x X }. (2) Payment by buyer i will be denoted µ i and payment to seller j will be denoted λ j. We will call a payment function pairwise strongly budgetbalanced if µ i = λ j if x ij = 1, i.e, if buyer i is matched with seller j, and their absolute payments are equal. We will say that the mechanism is ex ante individual rational if for any outcome assignment x ij, u b i(b i, b (i ) ; a) = j v ij x ij (b, a) µ i (b, a) 0, where b i := (b i1,, b in ) and b (i ) denotes the bids of all the other buyers, and u s j(a j, a j ; b) = i c j x ij (b, a) λ j (b, a) 0, where a j denotes the bids of all the other sellers, i.e, every buyer and seller has a non-negative payoff at every feasible outcome. Thus, the strategy space of buyer i is Γ i = j [0, v ij ] and of seller is Ξ j = [0, c j ]. We will define a Nash equilibrium to be the bid profile (b, a ) such that i j, b i arg max u b i(b i, b (i ) ; a ) i, (3) a j arg max u s j(a j, a j; b ) j. (4) We shall say that a Nash equilibrium (b, a ) is efficient if the corresponding allocation x is efficient. We will define an ε-nash equilibrium to be a bid profile (b, a ) such that each player is satisfied in picking a bid that yields a payoff within ε of the optimal in (3) and (4) above. We now specify the payment rule for the assignment mechanism but first, some notation to ease readability: Denote the true matching surplus for a buyer i and seller j as σ ij = (v ij c j ), and without loss of generality, we can relabel buyers and sellers, and assume that σ 11 σ 22 σ qq. Given the bids b ij and a j, we shall denote the revealed matching surplus between buyer i and seller j as: ρ ij = (b ij a j ). We shall also denote η ij = (v ij a j ) and ζ ij = (b ij c j ). We shall denote ˆ1 to be the buyer with the highest
4 matching surplus ρ ij, and ˇ1 to be the corresponding matched seller. Thus, ρˆ1ˇ1 ρˆ2ˇ2 ρˆqˇq. (5) Suppose there are k matches in x. Then Lemma 1: Given the bids of all the other players, for i k, the buyer î must bid above bîǐ = aǐ + (max j>i ρ ĵ,ǐ max j>i ρ î,ǰ )+, (6) to match with seller ǐ. Similarly, given the bids of all the other players, the seller ǐ for i k, can bid up to āǐ = bîǐ (max j>i ρ î,ǰ )+. (7) and still match with buyer î. (Here, denotes a max of joined quantities). Proof: Let us first consider buyer ˆ1. We know from equation (5) above that his matching with the seller ˇ1 generates the largest revealed matching surplus. Thus, given the bids of all the other players, if buyer ˆ1 wants to be matched with seller ˇ1, he must bid high enough to beat any competing bids from other buyers. Further, his bids for any other sellers must also have a lower revealed matching surplus. Thus, the requirement on buyer ˆ1 s bid is that the revealed surplus ρˆ1,ˇ1 := (bˆ1ˇ1 aˇ1) max j>1 ρ+, and max ĵ,ˇ1 j>1 ρ+ˆ1,ǰ where the term in the first inequality corresponds to the revealed matching surplus of competing bids from other buyers for seller ˇ1 and the term in the second inequality corresponds to buyer ˆ1 s own competing bids for other sellers. The first inequality above follows because buyer ˆ1 has higher matching surplus with seller ˇ1 than any other buyer. For subsequent buyers î, i > 1, since here we are primarily concerned with the question of the minimum bid for a buyer î to match with seller ǐ, it need not worry about beating the bids of buyers ĵ, j < i nor worry about choosing competitive bids for sellers ǰ, j < i. From this, we easily get equation (6) by using forward induction. The argument to derive equation (7) is similar. Consider seller ˇ1 first. Again, we know from equation (5) that his matching with buyer ˆ1 generates the largest matching surplus. Thus, given the bids of all the other players, to match with buyer ˆ1, it must bid to beat any competing bids from other sellers for buyer ˆ1. Thus, the requirement on seller ˇ1 s bid is that ρˆ1,ˇ1 := (bˆ1ˇ1 aˇ1) max j>1 ρ+ˆ1,ǰ. For subsequent sellers ǐ, i > 1, we note that since they want to match with buyer î, i > 1 they need not bid to beat the bids of sellers ǰ, j < i. From this, we easily get equation (7) by using forward induction. Thus, given the bids of all the other players, seller i can at most bid ā i to match with buyer i. Similarly, given bids of all the other players, a buyer i must bid at least b ii to match with seller i. PAYMENT RULE. In general, we can take the transaction price between buyer î and seller ǐ to be p i = γāǐ + (1 γ)bîǐ, i.e., if x = 1, then µ îǐ î = λǐ = p i. For the remainder of this paper though we will take γ = 0 so that the prices only depend on the buyers lower bounds. We will make the following assumptions. (A1) For i k: v ii max k v li v ij max k l>j v lj, j i (A2) For i k: v ii max v li v ij c j, j > k (A3) For i > k: v il max j>l v jl, l k (A4) For i > k: v il c l, l > k Theorem 2: If the buyer valuations and seller costs satisfy the above assumptions (A1)-(A4), then an efficient Nash equilibrium exists. Further, the mechanism is ex ante individual rational and pairwise strongly budget-balanced. Proof: We will formulate the problem of existence of an efficient Nash equilibrium as a fixed point problem. We will show that it has a solution under the assumptions made. Let k denote the number of matches in the efficient assignment x from the optimization (1), with players truthful bids. We consider buyers and sellers relabeled so that σ 11 σ 22 σ kk 0 σ k+1,k+1 σ qq. Note that from the efficient matching conditions, we have i k : b ii a i max (b li a i ) + max (b il a l ) +, i, j > k : b ij a j 0. (8) Since, the payments are determined by lower bounds on buy-bids for matching, buyer i would like to match with seller i only if i k : v ii b ii v il b ll, l k, l i (9) v ij a j, j > k, i > k : v il b ll, l k (10) a l, l > k. These are the Buyer Incentive Constraints (BIC). The first set of inequalities states that the matched buyer i obtains maximum payoff if it matches with seller i. The second set of inequalities states that an unmatched buyer i will obtain a negative payoff if tries to match with any seller given the current bids. The Seller Incentive Constraints (SIC) are i k : b ii c i a i + max j k,j i (b ji a i ) + c i (11) b ji c i, j > k, i > k : 0 b ji c i, j. (12) The first set of inequalities states that the matched seller i obtains maximum payoff if it is matches with buyer i. The second set of inequalities states that an unmatched seller i will obtain a negative payoff if it tries to match with any buyer given the current bids.
5 Consider a matched seller i k. Then, given the bids of all the other players, if seller i matches with buyer i, his payoff is maximized if a i = b ii max (b il a l ) +. This is because the payment to seller i depends on a i, so it bids the maximum it can while still remaining matched with buyer i. If a matched buyer i( k) matches with seller i, then his payoff is maximized if and b il, for l > i such that b il = v il, l < i, b ii a i + max (v li a i ) +, max (b il a l ) + max (v li a i ) +. The above is true because b il, l > i affects the payment to be made only if we have the reverse inequality above. We can now obtain the fixed point equations (along with the incentive constraints) that an efficient Nash equilibrium should satisfy. Consider the following: i > k : b il = v il, l, (13) i > k : a j = c j, j > k, (14) i k : a i = b ii max il a i ) + (15) i k : b ii a i + max li a i ) + (16) max il a l ) + max li a i ) +. Together, they imply b ii a i = max (b il a l ) + = max (v li a i ) +, which yields the following as a solution: v ij j < i i k : b ij = max v li c i, j = i 0 j > i (17) i k : a i = b ii, (18) i > k : b il = v il, l (19) i > k : a i = c i. (20) We claim that buyer i is matched with seller i before the pair j, for j > i, and the pair k are the last ones matched. To see this note that from the matching conditions (8), ρ ii ρ ij, j > i. Thus, buyer 1 matched with seller 1, buyer 2 matches with seller 2, and so on until k since ρ ij = σ ij 0 for i, j > k. Thus, î = i and ǰ = j, and buyers i > k and sellers j > k do not match. Thus, the constructed bids yield an efficient allocation that satisfies (1). Further, we claim that the payment between matched buyer i and seller i is p i = b ii = b ii. Note that buyer i s bid on seller i, b ii is the minimum it needs to bid to match with seller i. Thus, p i as defined above is the transaction payment. We will now argue that solution (17)-(20) is a best response of each player. First consider any matched buyer i( k). Note that by assumptions (A1) and (A2), (17) satisfies buyer incentive constraints (9), and it maximizes buyer i s payoff if it matches with seller i. Thus, it is a best response of buyer i. Now, consider any unmatched buyer i(> k). By (17) and matching condition (8), buyer incentive constraints (10) are satisfied. Thus, (19) is a best response of unmatched buyer i. Consider a matched seller i( k). By (17), seller incentive constraints (11) are clearly satisfied. Further, (18) maximizes seller i s payoff if it matches with buyer (i). Thus, it is a best response of matched seller i. Now, consider an unmatched seller i(> k). From (19), (20) and (8), seller incentive constraint (12) is satisfied for unmatched buyers. From the efficient matching condition (8) for matched buyers, the seller incentive constraint (12) is also satisfied for matched buyers. Thus, (20) is a best response of unmatched sellers. This proves that (17)-(20) is a Nash equilibrium. Since it satisfies (8), it is efficient. Note that the mechanism is strongly budget-balanced by design µ i = λ j if x ij = 1. Further, it is ex ante individual rational since for a matched buyer i, v ij µ i b ij b ii 0, and for a matched seller j, λ j c j ā j c j 0. Above, we designed an assignment mechanism that employed two-parameter bids for buyers. An interesting question is whether it is possible to design an assignment mechanism with same or similar properties if buyers only make one-parameter bids. Our conjecture is that it is impossible. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER WORK We posed the problem of bipartite matching with strategic players. Motivated by the Google AdSense advertisement problem, strong budget-balance was a key requirement, and stability and efficiency of the assignment was our objective. We then proposed a mechanism that can used to solve such a problem. Determining the matching is easy, as it can be posed as a linear program. However, this doesn t guarantee that the incentives of the players will be aligned by any payment rule that will result in the efficient assignment as an equilibrium outcome. Thus, we designed a payment rule that despite strategic behavior is able to achieve the efficient assignment. Moreover, we are able to achieve strong budget-balance. Specifically, we showed that the designed assignment mechanism is ex ante individual rational, strongly budget-balanced and has an efficient Nash equilibrium. We considered a simplified version of the general problem posed. As part of further work, we would like to extend this to each seller offering multiple slots. Moreover, we only showed that an efficient Nash equilibrium exists. We would like to investigate whether there are other Nash equilibria and if those are efficient. Further, we assume the complete information model, but in a real setting, players might only
6 have incomplete information. It would also be of interest to investigate if the mechanism is robust to collusion. While the problem was motivated primarily by the advertisement placement problem, it has implications (after further extensions) for another related problem from networks: QoS assignment problem. Suppose there are multiple network service providers each offering a different quality of service (QoS), and there are buyers who would like to buy network services, each of whom may have different utility for service at a particular QoS, how do we design an assignment mechanism that is efficient in some sense. A problem along these lines was posed in [21] but the VCG mechanism used was one-sided only. REFERENCES [1] G. Agarwal, A. Goel and R. Motwani, Truthful auctions for pricing search keywords, ACM Electronic Commerce Conference, [2] G. Agarwal, J. Feldman and S. Muthukrishnan, Bidding to the top: VCG and Equilibria of Position-based Auctions, unpublished, [3] K. Arrow and F. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis, North-Holland, [4] J. Chen, D. Liu and A. Whinston, Designing share structure in auctions of divisible goods, ACM Electronic Commerce, [5] G. Demange, Strategyproofness in the assignment market game, Laboratoire d Econometrie de l Ecole Polytechnique Paris, Mimeo, [6] G. Demange and D. Gale, The strategy structure of two-sided matching markets, Econometrica, 53:873-78, 1985 [7] G. Demange, D. Gale and M. Sotomayor, Multi-item auctions, J. of Political Economy, 94: , [8] L. Dubins and D. Freedman, Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley algorithm, American Mathematical Monthly, 88: , [9] B. Edelman, M. Ostrovsky and M. Schwarz, Internet advertising and the generalized second price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords, Mimeo, Fall [10] J. Feng, H. Bhargava and D. Pennock, Implementing sponsored search in web search engines: Computation evaluation of alternative mechanisms, INFORMS J. of Computing, 19(1), [11] H. Varian, Position Auctions, Mimeo, December [12] D. Gale and L. Shapley, College admissions and the stability of marriage, American Mathematical Monthly, 69:9-15, [13] D. Garg, Y. Narahari and S.S. Reddy, An optimal mechanism for sponsored search auction, unpublished, [14] P. Hall, On representatives of subsets, J. of the London Mathematical Society, 44:26-30, [15] S. Lahaie, An analysis of alternative slot auction designs for sponsored search, ACM Elecronic Commerce Conference, [16] H. Leonard, Elicitation of honest preferences for the assignment of individuals to positions, J. of Political Economy, 44: , [17] A. Roth, The economics of matching: stability and incentives, Math. of Operation Research, 7: , [18] A. Roth, Misrepresentation and stability in the marriage problem, J. of Econ. Theory, 34: , [19] A. Roth and M. Sotomayer, Two-sided matching, Cambridge University Press, [20] L. Shapley and and M. Shubik, The assignment game I: the core, International J. of Game Theory, 1: , [21] J. Shu and P. Varaiya, Pricing Network Services, Proc. INFOCOM, 2002.
Ad Auctions October 8, Ad Auctions October 8, 2010
Ad Auctions October 8, 2010 1 Ad Auction Theory: Literature Old: Shapley-Shubik (1972) Leonard (1983) Demange-Gale (1985) Demange-Gale-Sotomayor (1986) New: Varian (2006) Edelman-Ostrovsky-Schwarz (2007)
More informationMatching Markets and Google s Sponsored Search
Matching Markets and Google s Sponsored Search Part III: Dynamics Episode 9 Baochun Li Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto Matching Markets (Required reading: Chapter
More informationPosition Auctions. Hal R. Varian. December 2005 Revised: March 29, 2006
Position Auctions Hal R. Varian. December 2005 Revised: March 29, 2006 Abstract I analyze the equilibria of a game based on the ad auction used by Google and Yahoo. This auction is closely related to the
More information1 Shapley-Shubik Model
1 Shapley-Shubik Model There is a set of buyers B and a set of sellers S each selling one unit of a good (could be divisible or not). Let v ij 0 be the monetary value that buyer j B assigns to seller i
More informationPosition Auctions. Hal R. Varian. December 2005 Revised: November 1, 2006
Position Auctions Hal R. Varian. December 2005 Revised: November 1, 2006 Abstract I analyze the equilibria of a game based on the ad auction used by Google and Yahoo. This auction is closely related to
More informationOn Existence of Equilibria. Bayesian Allocation-Mechanisms
On Existence of Equilibria in Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms Northwestern University April 23, 2014 Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms In allocation mechanisms, agents choose messages. The messages determine
More informationMechanism Design and Auctions
Mechanism Design and Auctions Game Theory Algorithmic Game Theory 1 TOC Mechanism Design Basics Myerson s Lemma Revenue-Maximizing Auctions Near-Optimal Auctions Multi-Parameter Mechanism Design and the
More informationDecentralized supply chain formation using an incentive compatible mechanism
formation using an incentive compatible mechanism N. Hemachandra IE&OR, IIT Bombay Joint work with Prof Y Narahari and Nikesh Srivastava Symposium on Optimization in Supply Chains IIT Bombay, Oct 27, 2007
More informationApril 29, X ( ) for all. Using to denote a true type and areport,let
April 29, 2015 "A Characterization of Efficient, Bayesian Incentive Compatible Mechanisms," by S. R. Williams. Economic Theory 14, 155-180 (1999). AcommonresultinBayesianmechanismdesignshowsthatexpostefficiency
More informationCS364A: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture #3: Myerson s Lemma
CS364A: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture #3: Myerson s Lemma Tim Roughgarden September 3, 23 The Story So Far Last time, we introduced the Vickrey auction and proved that it enjoys three desirable and different
More informationTruthful Auctions for Pricing Search Keywords
Truthful Auctions for Pricing Search Keywords Gagan Aggarwal Ashish Goel Rajeev Motwani Abstract We present a truthful auction for pricing advertising slots on a web-page assuming that advertisements for
More informationPOSITION AUCTIONS: DESIGN, INCENTIVES AND STRATEGIES. Matr ANNO ACCADEMICO. Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza
Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza Cattedra di Games and Strategies POSITION AUCTIONS: DESIGN, INCENTIVES AND STRATEGIES Relatore Prof. Marco Dall Aglio Candidato Karin Guetta Matr. 165721 ANNO ACCADEMICO
More informationKIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
KIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES KYOTO INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/index.html Discussion Paper No. 657 The Buy Price in Auctions with Discrete Type Distributions Yusuke Inami
More informationLecture 5: Iterative Combinatorial Auctions
COMS 6998-3: Algorithmic Game Theory October 6, 2008 Lecture 5: Iterative Combinatorial Auctions Lecturer: Sébastien Lahaie Scribe: Sébastien Lahaie In this lecture we examine a procedure that generalizes
More informationCompetition for goods in buyer-seller networks
Rev. Econ. Design 5, 301 331 (2000) c Springer-Verlag 2000 Competition for goods in buyer-seller networks Rachel E. Kranton 1, Deborah F. Minehart 2 1 Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 3 Sep 2007
Capacity constraints and the inevitability of mediators in adword auctions Sudhir Kumar Singh 1,, Vwani P. Roychowdhury 1,2, Himawan Gunadhi 2, and Behnam A. Rezaei 2 1 Department of Electrical Engineering,
More informationUniversity of Michigan. July 1994
Preliminary Draft Generalized Vickrey Auctions by Jerey K. MacKie-Mason Hal R. Varian University of Michigan July 1994 Abstract. We describe a generalization of the Vickrey auction. Our mechanism extends
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES INTERNET ADVERTISING AND THE GENERALIZED SECOND PRICE AUCTION: SELLING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF KEYWORDS
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES INTERNET ADVERTISING AND THE GENERALIZED SECOND PRICE AUCTION: SELLING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF KEYWORDS Benjamin Edelman Michael Ostrovsky Michael Schwarz Working Paper 11765
More informationAll Equilibrium Revenues in Buy Price Auctions
All Equilibrium Revenues in Buy Price Auctions Yusuke Inami Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University This version: January 009 Abstract This note considers second-price, sealed-bid auctions with
More informationTopics in Contract Theory Lecture 5. Property Rights Theory. The key question we are staring from is: What are ownership/property rights?
Leonardo Felli 15 January, 2002 Topics in Contract Theory Lecture 5 Property Rights Theory The key question we are staring from is: What are ownership/property rights? For an answer we need to distinguish
More informationMechanism Design and Auctions
Multiagent Systems (BE4M36MAS) Mechanism Design and Auctions Branislav Bošanský and Michal Pěchouček Artificial Intelligence Center, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech
More informationFrom the Assignment Model to Combinatorial Auctions
From the Assignment Model to Combinatorial Auctions IPAM Workshop, UCLA May 7, 2008 Sushil Bikhchandani & Joseph Ostroy Overview LP formulations of the (package) assignment model Sealed-bid and ascending-price
More informationCS269I: Incentives in Computer Science Lecture #14: More on Auctions
CS69I: Incentives in Computer Science Lecture #14: More on Auctions Tim Roughgarden November 9, 016 1 First-Price Auction Last lecture we ran an experiment demonstrating that first-price auctions are not
More informationSolutions of Bimatrix Coalitional Games
Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 8, 2014, no. 169, 8435-8441 HIKARI Ltd, www.m-hikari.com http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ams.2014.410880 Solutions of Bimatrix Coalitional Games Xeniya Grigorieva St.Petersburg
More information6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts
6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts Asu Ozdaglar MIT February 9, 2010 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria
More informationBest-Reply Sets. Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis. This version: May 2015
Best-Reply Sets Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis This version: May 2015 Introduction The best-reply correspondence of a game the mapping from beliefs over one s opponents actions to
More informationAuction Theory: Some Basics
Auction Theory: Some Basics Arunava Sen Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi ICRIER Conference on Telecom, March 7, 2014 Outline Outline Single Good Problem Outline Single Good Problem First Price Auction
More informationEfficiency in Decentralized Markets with Aggregate Uncertainty
Efficiency in Decentralized Markets with Aggregate Uncertainty Braz Camargo Dino Gerardi Lucas Maestri December 2015 Abstract We study efficiency in decentralized markets with aggregate uncertainty and
More informationGeneral Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014
HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS General Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014 You have FOUR hours. Answer all questions Those taking the FINAL have THREE hours Part A (Glaeser): 55
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: June 5, 2017
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: June 5, 07. (40 points) Consider a Cournot duopoly. The market price is given by q q, where q and q are the quantities of output produced
More informationISSN BWPEF Uninformative Equilibrium in Uniform Price Auctions. Arup Daripa Birkbeck, University of London.
ISSN 1745-8587 Birkbeck Working Papers in Economics & Finance School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics BWPEF 0701 Uninformative Equilibrium in Uniform Price Auctions Arup Daripa Birkbeck, University
More informationUnraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets
Unraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets Nathaniel Hendren October, 2013 Abstract Both Akerlof (1970) and Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976) show that
More informationDynamics of the Second Price
Dynamics of the Second Price Julian Romero and Eric Bax October 17, 2008 Abstract Many auctions for online ad space use estimated offer values and charge the winner based on an estimate of the runner-up
More informationAuctions That Implement Efficient Investments
Auctions That Implement Efficient Investments Kentaro Tomoeda October 31, 215 Abstract This article analyzes the implementability of efficient investments for two commonly used mechanisms in single-item
More informationConsider the following (true) preference orderings of 4 agents on 4 candidates.
Part 1: Voting Systems Consider the following (true) preference orderings of 4 agents on 4 candidates. Agent #1: A > B > C > D Agent #2: B > C > D > A Agent #3: C > B > D > A Agent #4: D > C > A > B Assume
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions 1. (45 points) Consider the following normal form game played by Bruce and Sheila: L Sheila R T 1, 0 3, 3 Bruce M 1, x 0, 0 B 0, 0 4, 1 (a) Suppose
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 22 COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY Correlated Strategies and Correlated
More informationThe Cascade Auction A Mechanism For Deterring Collusion In Auctions
The Cascade Auction A Mechanism For Deterring Collusion In Auctions Uriel Feige Weizmann Institute Gil Kalai Hebrew University and Microsoft Research Moshe Tennenholtz Technion and Microsoft Research Abstract
More informationAUCTIONEER ESTIMATES AND CREDULOUS BUYERS REVISITED. November Preliminary, comments welcome.
AUCTIONEER ESTIMATES AND CREDULOUS BUYERS REVISITED Alex Gershkov and Flavio Toxvaerd November 2004. Preliminary, comments welcome. Abstract. This paper revisits recent empirical research on buyer credulity
More informationECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 11
ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 11 Ettore Damiano December 7, 2015 Sponsored search auctions Google, Yahoo etc.. sell ad spaces linked to keyword searches Google advertising revenue: USD 42.5bn in 2012
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2 Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT October 14, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria Mixed Strategies
More informationRevenue Equivalence and Income Taxation
Journal of Economics and Finance Volume 24 Number 1 Spring 2000 Pages 56-63 Revenue Equivalence and Income Taxation Veronika Grimm and Ulrich Schmidt* Abstract This paper considers the classical independent
More informationECON 459 Game Theory. Lecture Notes Auctions. Luca Anderlini Spring 2017
ECON 459 Game Theory Lecture Notes Auctions Luca Anderlini Spring 2017 These notes have been used and commented on before. If you can still spot any errors or have any suggestions for improvement, please
More informationAuctions. Episode 8. Baochun Li Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto
Auctions Episode 8 Baochun Li Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto Paying Per Click 3 Paying Per Click Ads in Google s sponsored links are based on a cost-per-click
More informationRobust Trading Mechanisms with Budget Surplus and Partial Trade
Robust Trading Mechanisms with Budget Surplus and Partial Trade Jesse A. Schwartz Kennesaw State University Quan Wen Vanderbilt University May 2012 Abstract In a bilateral bargaining problem with private
More informationCS 573: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture date: 22 February Combinatorial Auctions 1. 2 The Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) Mechanism 3
CS 573: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture date: 22 February 2008 Instructor: Chandra Chekuri Scribe: Daniel Rebolledo Contents 1 Combinatorial Auctions 1 2 The Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) Mechanism 3 3 Examples
More informationCS364A: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture #14: Robust Price-of-Anarchy Bounds in Smooth Games
CS364A: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture #14: Robust Price-of-Anarchy Bounds in Smooth Games Tim Roughgarden November 6, 013 1 Canonical POA Proofs In Lecture 1 we proved that the price of anarchy (POA)
More informationEC476 Contracts and Organizations, Part III: Lecture 3
EC476 Contracts and Organizations, Part III: Lecture 3 Leonardo Felli 32L.G.06 26 January 2015 Failure of the Coase Theorem Recall that the Coase Theorem implies that two parties, when faced with a potential
More informationGame Theory Lecture #16
Game Theory Lecture #16 Outline: Auctions Mechanism Design Vickrey-Clarke-Groves Mechanism Optimizing Social Welfare Goal: Entice players to select outcome which optimizes social welfare Examples: Traffic
More informationCS364A: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture #9: Beyond Quasi-Linearity
CS364A: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture #9: Beyond Quasi-Linearity Tim Roughgarden October 21, 2013 1 Budget Constraints Our discussion so far has assumed that each agent has quasi-linear utility, meaning
More informationRepeated Budgeted Second Price Ad Auction
Tel Aviv University Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences The Blavatnik School of Computer Science Repeated Budgeted Second Price Ad Auction Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
More informationPreference Networks in Matching Markets
Preference Networks in Matching Markets CSE 5339: Topics in Network Data Analysis Samir Chowdhury April 5, 2016 Market interactions between buyers and sellers form an interesting class of problems in network
More informationII-5. Intermediaries. Outline. Introduction. SponSearch. Introduction. II-5. Intermediaries. Introduction. SponSearch. II-5.
Outline (Part II: Security of Economics) Lecture 5: Market with intermediaries and advertising Sponsored search Market with intermediaries Spring 2013 Outline Market is a system of exchange protocols Sponsored
More informationHierarchical Exchange Rules and the Core in. Indivisible Objects Allocation
Hierarchical Exchange Rules and the Core in Indivisible Objects Allocation Qianfeng Tang and Yongchao Zhang January 8, 2016 Abstract We study the allocation of indivisible objects under the general endowment
More informationContract Auctions for Sponsored Search
Contract Auctions for Sponsored Search Sharad Goel, Sébastien Lahaie, and Sergei Vassilvitskii Yahoo! Research 111 West 40th Street, New York, New York, 10018 Abstract. In sponsored search auctions advertisers
More informationA simulation study of two combinatorial auctions
A simulation study of two combinatorial auctions David Nordström Department of Economics Lund University Supervisor: Tommy Andersson Co-supervisor: Albin Erlanson May 24, 2012 Abstract Combinatorial auctions
More informationCS364B: Frontiers in Mechanism Design Lecture #18: Multi-Parameter Revenue-Maximization
CS364B: Frontiers in Mechanism Design Lecture #18: Multi-Parameter Revenue-Maximization Tim Roughgarden March 5, 2014 1 Review of Single-Parameter Revenue Maximization With this lecture we commence the
More informationThe Duo-Item Bisection Auction
Comput Econ DOI 10.1007/s10614-013-9380-0 Albin Erlanson Accepted: 2 May 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 Abstract This paper proposes an iterative sealed-bid auction for selling multiple
More informationMechanism Design For Set Cover Games When Elements Are Agents
Mechanism Design For Set Cover Games When Elements Are Agents Zheng Sun, Xiang-Yang Li 2, WeiZhao Wang 2, and Xiaowen Chu Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China, {sunz,chxw}@comp.hkbu.edu.hk 2
More informationMultiunit Auctions: Package Bidding October 24, Multiunit Auctions: Package Bidding
Multiunit Auctions: Package Bidding 1 Examples of Multiunit Auctions Spectrum Licenses Bus Routes in London IBM procurements Treasury Bills Note: Heterogenous vs Homogenous Goods 2 Challenges in Multiunit
More informationDynamic Marginal Contribution Mechanism
Dynamic Marginal Contribution Mechanism Dirk Bergemann and Juuso Välimäki DIMACS: Economics and Computer Science October 2007 Intertemporal Efciency with Private Information random arrival of buyers, sellers
More informationThe assignment game: Decentralized dynamics, rate of convergence, and equitable core selection
1 / 29 The assignment game: Decentralized dynamics, rate of convergence, and equitable core selection Bary S. R. Pradelski (with Heinrich H. Nax) ETH Zurich October 19, 2015 2 / 29 3 / 29 Two-sided, one-to-one
More informationCSV 886 Social Economic and Information Networks. Lecture 5: Matching Markets, Sponsored Search. R Ravi
CSV 886 Social Economic and Information Networks Lecture 5: Matching Markets, Sponsored Search R Ravi ravi+iitd@andrew.cmu.edu Simple Models of Trade Decentralized Buyers and sellers have to find each
More informationMarch 30, Why do economists (and increasingly, engineers and computer scientists) study auctions?
March 3, 215 Steven A. Matthews, A Technical Primer on Auction Theory I: Independent Private Values, Northwestern University CMSEMS Discussion Paper No. 196, May, 1995. This paper is posted on the course
More informationA Theory of Value Distribution in Social Exchange Networks
A Theory of Value Distribution in Social Exchange Networks Kang Rong, Qianfeng Tang School of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 00433, China Key Laboratory of Mathematical
More informationMA300.2 Game Theory 2005, LSE
MA300.2 Game Theory 2005, LSE Answers to Problem Set 2 [1] (a) This is standard (we have even done it in class). The one-shot Cournot outputs can be computed to be A/3, while the payoff to each firm can
More informationA Theory of Value Distribution in Social Exchange Networks
A Theory of Value Distribution in Social Exchange Networks Kang Rong, Qianfeng Tang School of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 00433, China Key Laboratory of Mathematical
More informationSo we turn now to many-to-one matching with money, which is generally seen as a model of firms hiring workers
Econ 805 Advanced Micro Theory I Dan Quint Fall 2009 Lecture 20 November 13 2008 So far, we ve considered matching markets in settings where there is no money you can t necessarily pay someone to marry
More informationMarket Design. Econ University of Notre Dame
Market Design Econ 400.40 University of Notre Dame What is market design? Increasingly, economists are asked not just to study or explain or interpret markets, but to design them. This requires different
More informationJanuary 26,
January 26, 2015 Exercise 9 7.c.1, 7.d.1, 7.d.2, 8.b.1, 8.b.2, 8.b.3, 8.b.4,8.b.5, 8.d.1, 8.d.2 Example 10 There are two divisions of a firm (1 and 2) that would benefit from a research project conducted
More informationMechanisms for Matching Markets with Budgets
Mechanisms for Matching Markets with Budgets Paul Dütting Stanford LSE Joint work with Monika Henzinger and Ingmar Weber Seminar on Discrete Mathematics and Game Theory London School of Economics July
More informationNotes on Auctions. Theorem 1 In a second price sealed bid auction bidding your valuation is always a weakly dominant strategy.
Notes on Auctions Second Price Sealed Bid Auctions These are the easiest auctions to analyze. Theorem In a second price sealed bid auction bidding your valuation is always a weakly dominant strategy. Proof
More informationRecap First-Price Revenue Equivalence Optimal Auctions. Auction Theory II. Lecture 19. Auction Theory II Lecture 19, Slide 1
Auction Theory II Lecture 19 Auction Theory II Lecture 19, Slide 1 Lecture Overview 1 Recap 2 First-Price Auctions 3 Revenue Equivalence 4 Optimal Auctions Auction Theory II Lecture 19, Slide 2 Motivation
More informationMicroeconomic Theory August 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2013 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012 COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY The Core Note: This is a only a
More informationCredibilistic Equilibria in Extensive Game with Fuzzy Payoffs
Credibilistic Equilibria in Extensive Game with Fuzzy Payoffs Yueshan Yu Department of Mathematical Sciences Tsinghua University Beijing 100084, China yuyueshan@tsinghua.org.cn Jinwu Gao School of Information
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 2 Nov 2007
Diversification in the Internet Economy:The Role of For-Profit Mediators arxiv:0711.0259v1 [cs.gt] 2 Nov 2007 Sudhir Kumar Singh UCLA suds@ee.ucla.edu Vwani P. Roychowdhury UCLA & NetSeer Inc. vwani@netseer.com
More informationCompetitive Equilibria in Two Sided Matching Markets with Non-transferable Utilities
Competitive Equilibria in Two Sided Matching Markets with Non-transferable Utilities Saeed Alaei, Kamal Jain, Azarakhsh Malekian Abstract We consider two sided matching markets consisting of agents with
More informationAuction Theory Lecture Note, David McAdams, Fall Bilateral Trade
Auction Theory Lecture Note, Daid McAdams, Fall 2008 1 Bilateral Trade ** Reised 10-17-08: An error in the discussion after Theorem 4 has been corrected. We shall use the example of bilateral trade to
More informationEquilibrium Selection in Multi-Player Games with Auction Applications
Equilibrium Selection in Multi-Player Games with Auction Applications Paul Milgrom Joshua Mollner May 23, 2014 Abstract We introduce two new equilibrium refinements for finite normal form games, both of
More informationAlgorithmic Game Theory
Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 10 06/15/10 1 A combinatorial auction is defined by a set of goods G, G = m, n bidders with valuation functions v i :2 G R + 0. $5 Got $6! More? Example: A single item for
More informationDirected Search and the Futility of Cheap Talk
Directed Search and the Futility of Cheap Talk Kenneth Mirkin and Marek Pycia June 2015. Preliminary Draft. Abstract We study directed search in a frictional two-sided matching market in which each seller
More informationOptimal Auctions. Game Theory Course: Jackson, Leyton-Brown & Shoham
Game Theory Course: Jackson, Leyton-Brown & Shoham So far we have considered efficient auctions What about maximizing the seller s revenue? she may be willing to risk failing to sell the good she may be
More informationBudget Management In GSP (2018)
Budget Management In GSP (2018) Yahoo! March 18, 2018 Miguel March 18, 2018 1 / 26 Today s Presentation: Budget Management Strategies in Repeated auctions, Balseiro, Kim, and Mahdian, WWW2017 Learning
More informationPricing Problems under the Markov Chain Choice Model
Pricing Problems under the Markov Chain Choice Model James Dong School of Operations Research and Information Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA jd748@cornell.edu A. Serdar Simsek
More informationAlgorithmic Game Theory (a primer) Depth Qualifying Exam for Ashish Rastogi (Ph.D. candidate)
Algorithmic Game Theory (a primer) Depth Qualifying Exam for Ashish Rastogi (Ph.D. candidate) 1 Game Theory Theory of strategic behavior among rational players. Typical game has several players. Each player
More informationEquilibrium selection and consistency Norde, Henk; Potters, J.A.M.; Reijnierse, Hans; Vermeulen, D.
Tilburg University Equilibrium selection and consistency Norde, Henk; Potters, J.A.M.; Reijnierse, Hans; Vermeulen, D. Published in: Games and Economic Behavior Publication date: 1996 Link to publication
More informationAuctions in the wild: Bidding with securities. Abhay Aneja & Laura Boudreau PHDBA 279B 1/30/14
Auctions in the wild: Bidding with securities Abhay Aneja & Laura Boudreau PHDBA 279B 1/30/14 Structure of presentation Brief introduction to auction theory First- and second-price auctions Revenue Equivalence
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 017 1. Sheila moves first and chooses either H or L. Bruce receives a signal, h or l, about Sheila s behavior. The distribution
More informationA Market Clearing Solution for Social Lending
A Market Clearing Solution for Social Lending Ning Chen Arpita Ghosh Division of Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. ningc@ntu.edu.sg Yahoo! Research, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India July 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India July 2012 The Revenue Equivalence Theorem Note: This is a only a draft
More informationPath Auction Games When an Agent Can Own Multiple Edges
Path Auction Games When an Agent Can Own Multiple Edges Ye Du Rahul Sami Yaoyun Shi Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan 2260 Hayward Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2121,
More informationGame Theory and Mechanism Design
Game Theory and Mechanism Design Y. Narahari and Siddharth Barman Problem Sets January - April 2018 Contents 1 Introduction to Game Theory 3 1.1 Warm-up............................................ 3 1.2
More informationSocial preferences I and II
Social preferences I and II Martin Kocher University of Munich Course in Behavioral and Experimental Economics Motivation - De gustibus non est disputandum. (Stigler and Becker, 1977) - De gustibus non
More informationYao s Minimax Principle
Complexity of algorithms The complexity of an algorithm is usually measured with respect to the size of the input, where size may for example refer to the length of a binary word describing the input,
More informationProblem Set 3: Suggested Solutions
Microeconomics: Pricing 3E00 Fall 06. True or false: Problem Set 3: Suggested Solutions (a) Since a durable goods monopolist prices at the monopoly price in her last period of operation, the prices must
More informationMulti-unit Auctions with Budget Constraints
Multi-unit Auctions with Budget Constraints Isa E. Hafalir y, R. Ravi z, and Amin Sayedi x February 25, 2011 Abstract Motivated by sponsored search auctions, we study multi-unit auctions with budget constraints.
More informationUp till now, we ve mostly been analyzing auctions under the following assumptions:
Econ 805 Advanced Micro Theory I Dan Quint Fall 2007 Lecture 7 Sept 27 2007 Tuesday: Amit Gandhi on empirical auction stuff p till now, we ve mostly been analyzing auctions under the following assumptions:
More informationGames of Incomplete Information
Games of Incomplete Information EC202 Lectures V & VI Francesco Nava London School of Economics January 2011 Nava (LSE) EC202 Lectures V & VI Jan 2011 1 / 22 Summary Games of Incomplete Information: Definitions:
More informationMarket Liquidity and Performance Monitoring The main idea The sequence of events: Technology and information
Market Liquidity and Performance Monitoring Holmstrom and Tirole (JPE, 1993) The main idea A firm would like to issue shares in the capital market because once these shares are publicly traded, speculators
More information