Problem 1: Random variables, common distributions and the monopoly price

Similar documents
Problem 1: Random variables, common distributions and the monopoly price

Practice Problems 1: Moral Hazard

Microeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems

Answers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 24, In practice, firms often price their products by marking up a fixed percentage over (average)

A simulation study of two combinatorial auctions

Problem Set 3: Suggested Solutions

1 Shapley-Shubik Model

Problem Set 3: Suggested Solutions

Lecture 3: Information in Sequential Screening

Lecture 5: Iterative Combinatorial Auctions

ECON 6022B Problem Set 2 Suggested Solutions Fall 2011

From the Assignment Model to Combinatorial Auctions

Practice Problems. U(w, e) = p w e 2,

1 Consumption and saving under uncertainty

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions

CS364B: Frontiers in Mechanism Design Lecture #18: Multi-Parameter Revenue-Maximization

Econ 101A Final Exam We May 9, 2012.

HW Consider the following game:

UCLA Department of Economics Ph.D. Preliminary Exam Industrial Organization Field Exam (Spring 2010) Use SEPARATE booklets to answer each question

Martingale Pricing Theory in Discrete-Time and Discrete-Space Models

EE/AA 578 Univ. of Washington, Fall Homework 8

Microeconomic Theory August 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program

COS 445 Final. Due online Monday, May 21st at 11:59 pm. Please upload each problem as a separate file via MTA.

Section 2 Solutions. Econ 50 - Stanford University - Winter Quarter 2015/16. January 22, Solve the following utility maximization problem:

Practice Problems. w U(w, e) = p w e 2,

Final exam solutions

Uncertainty in Equilibrium

Answer Key: Problem Set 4

Approximate Revenue Maximization with Multiple Items

Comprehensive Exam. August 19, 2013

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT. BF360 Operations Research

March 30, Why do economists (and increasingly, engineers and computer scientists) study auctions?

The Complexity of Simple and Optimal Deterministic Mechanisms for an Additive Buyer. Xi Chen, George Matikas, Dimitris Paparas, Mihalis Yannakakis

Self-organized criticality on the stock market

Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics

Price Discrimination As Portfolio Diversification. Abstract

Introduction to Political Economy Problem Set 3

Professor Scholz Posted March 1, 2006 Brief Answers for Economics 441, Problem Set #2 Due in class, March 8, 2006

Yao s Minimax Principle

Homework 3: Asset Pricing

Optimization Models in Financial Mathematics

Practice Problems 2: Asymmetric Information

LI Reunión Anual. Noviembre de Managing Strategic Buyers: Should a Seller Ban Resale? Beccuti, Juan Coleff, Joaquin

Problem Set: Contract Theory

Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.

PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV

Econ205 Intermediate Microeconomics with Calculus Chapter 1

MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE

Microeconomics II. CIDE, Spring 2011 List of Problems

Mechanism Design and Auctions

Name: Midterm #1 EconS 425 (February 20 th, 2015)

Microeconomics Comprehensive Exam

Problem Set: Contract Theory

Tutorial 4 - Pigouvian Taxes and Pollution Permits II. Corrections

Econ 8602, Fall 2017 Homework 2

Multi-armed bandit problems

Game Theory Tutorial 3 Answers

Optimal Auctions. Game Theory Course: Jackson, Leyton-Brown & Shoham

ECON106P: Pricing and Strategy

EE266 Homework 5 Solutions

Game Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I

Lecture 5. Varian, Ch. 8; MWG, Chs. 3.E, 3.G, and 3.H. 1 Summary of Lectures 1, 2, and 3: Production theory and duality

Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.

TOBB-ETU, Economics Department Macroeconomics II (ECON 532) Practice Problems III

6. Martingales. = Zn. Think of Z n+1 as being a gambler s earnings after n+1 games. If the game if fair, then E [ Z n+1 Z n

An Approximation Algorithm for Capacity Allocation over a Single Flight Leg with Fare-Locking

Networks: Fall 2010 Homework 3 David Easley and Jon Kleinberg Due in Class September 29, 2010

1 Dynamic programming

Random Variables and Applications OPRE 6301

Game Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India August 2012

Lecture Notes 1

Budget Management In GSP (2018)

A lower bound on seller revenue in single buyer monopoly auctions

DM559/DM545 Linear and integer programming

University of Toronto Department of Economics ECO 204 Summer 2013 Ajaz Hussain TEST 2 SOLUTIONS GOOD LUCK!

Roy Model of Self-Selection: General Case

Lecture 5 January 30

Financial Fragility A Global-Games Approach Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Lecture Notes on Anticommons T. Bergstrom, April 2010 These notes illustrate the problem of the anticommons for one particular example.

arxiv: v4 [cs.gt] 1 Oct 2018

1 A tax on capital income in a neoclassical growth model

MS&E HW #1 Solutions

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY Department of Economics. Ph. D. Preliminary Examination: Macroeconomics Fall, 2009

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Product Di erentiation: Exercises Part 1

Revenue Management Under the Markov Chain Choice Model

Exercises. (b) Show that x* is increasing in D and decreasing in c. (c) Calculate x* for D=500 and c=10.

PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION AND EXPECTED SHORTFALL MINIMIZATION FROM HISTORICAL DATA

Liquidity and Risk Management

Incentive Compatibility: Everywhere vs. Almost Everywhere

FDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.

Homework 3: Asymmetric Information

Game theory for. Leonardo Badia.

16 MAKING SIMPLE DECISIONS

16 MAKING SIMPLE DECISIONS

6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts

Economics Honors Exam Review (Micro) Mar Based on Zhaoning Wang s final review packet for Ec 1010a, Fall 2013

Econ 101A Final exam Mo 18 May, 2009.

I. More Fundamental Concepts and Definitions from Mathematics

General Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014

Transcription:

Problem 1: Random variables, common distributions and the monopoly price In this problem, we will revise some basic concepts in probability, and use these to better understand the monopoly price (alternatively referred to as the optimal posted price or Myerson price). Recall from class that we want to study a setting where we want to sell a single item to a single buyer. The buyer has a random reservation value V 0 for the item, drawn from a distribution with CDF F ( ) (we denote this as V F ). If we charge a price p, then the buyer gets a utility U = V p from buying the item. We assume that the buyer purchases the item if and only if U 0. Fix the price of the item to be p, and let X be an indicator random variable for the sale (i.e., X = 1 if the buyer purchases the item, else 0); what is the probability distribution of X? Also, let R(p) be the revenue we obtain from the sale; what is the expected value and variance of R(p)? Suppose we have n items and n buyers, and offer the first item to the first buyer at price p, the second to the second buyer at price 2p, and in general, offer the k th item to the k th buyer at price k p. Let R k be the revenue obtained from the k th item, and R = n k=1 R k be the net revenue. Assuming each buyer i has an i.i.d reservation value V i F ( ); what is E[R] and Var(R)? Next, assume all buyers have the same reservation value V drawn from a UNIFORM[0, (n + 1)p] distribution. Now what is the expected value and variance of R? Returning to the one item/one buyer setting, let R(p) be the revenue we obtain if the posted price is p. Find the optimal price p = arg max p 0 R(p), and check if the function R(p) concave, when: 1. V is uniformly distributed in [0, m]. 2. V is distributed as EXPONENTIAL(λ). Part (e) Let q denote the probability that we make a sale; we define the inverse demand function p(q) to be the maximum price p at which the sale probability is q 1. For a general (continuous) CDF F ( ), write an expression for the inverse demand function in terms of F and q. 1 We should be careful here, as such a p may not exist, for example, if the distribution is discrete; more generally, we can define p(q) to be the maximum price such that the sale probability is at least q, i.e., p(q) = max p 0 {(1 F (p)) q}. For continuous distributions, however, the above definition is fine. 1

Next, note that we can write the revenue as a function of the sale probability q as R(q) = q p(q). Write down R(q) for the two distributions in part (d), and show that the function is concave in both cases. Part (g) For a general CDF F, show that dr(q)/dq = p(q) 1 F (p) Thus, conclude that the revenue curve R(q) is concave if and only if p Such a distribution is said to be regular. 1 F (p) is non-decreasing. Part (h) For a distribution with CDF F, the hazard-rate ρ(p) is defined as ρ(p) = 1 F (p) Argue that if a distribution has non-decreasing hazard rate, then its revenue curve R(q) is concave. Such a distribution is said to be a monotone hazard-rate (or MHR) distribution. Note: To see why ρ( ) is called the hazard-rate (and also, to remember the definition), consider F to be the CDF corresponding to the lifetime of a lightbulb before it fuses then ρ(t)dt is then the probability it will fuse in time [t, t + dt] given that it has survived till time t. Part (i) (OPTIONAL) Give an example of a regular distribution that is not MHR. Hint: Do not think of well-known distributions (these are usually MHR). Instead, recall F can be any non-decreasing bounded continuous function, scaled to lie in [0, 1]. 2

Problem 2: Linear Programming, duality, and the invisible hand of the market In this problem, we will revise some basic concepts in linear programming, and show how these can be used to demonstrate the power of markets in solving resource allocation problems. The basic problem we want to consider is that of allocating m items (denoted I = {1, 2,..., m}) among n buyers (denoted as B = {1, 2,..., n}). One desirable way of doing so is to allocate items to buyers who value them the most. We now show how this notion can be formalized, and how this optimization can be achieved via simple pricing policies. Throughout this problem, we assume that each buyer i has value v ij 0 for each item j: let V = {v ij } denote the n m matrix of buyer values, and assume that all entries of V are distinct. We also assume that each item j has a price p j, which a buyer must pay to purchase the item. Each item has only one copy, and hence can be sold to either a single buyer, or not sold at all; each buyer can buy as many items as possible. First, we consider the case of additive buyers. We assume that a buyer i B will only buy an item j I if its resulting utility v ij p j 0; moreover, if buyer i purchases a subset of items I i I, then her net utility is U i = j I i (v ij p j ) 2. If no item is allocated to buyer i, then I i = and U i = 0. We define the utility U s of the seller to be the total amount of money she earns from item sales, and define the social welfare W = U s + i B U i to be the sum of everyone s utilities. Let x ij be an indicator that buyer i purchases item j, i.e., x ij = 1 if i purchases j, else it is 0. Given buyer valuations V, prices {p j } and indicators {x ij }, write down the expression for the social welfare. Using this, characterize the allocation of items that maximizes the social welfare. Now suppose we relax the indicator variables x ij to take values in [0, 1] (in other words, we assume that each item j can be fractionally allocated to a buyer i). Write down a linear program that finds an allocation to maximize the social welfare. Moreover, characterize all the extreme points of the above LP. Your above LP should have m constraints, one for each item; let π m be a dual variable associated with each of these constraints. Write down the dual linear program. Moreover, suppose {x ij } and {πj } are optimal solutions to the primal and dual programs write down the complementary slackness conditions. Given any optimal dual solution π, suppose we set the price for each item j as p j = π j. Argue that under these prices, there is an allocation of items to agents that obeys the following: (1) if 2 For example, you visit NYC, and buy entry tickets for multiple museums; (assuming you have enough time) you can now visit them all! 3

buyer i is allocated item j, then v ij p j 0, (2) for any item j not allocated to buyer i, we have v ij p j 0, and (3) the social welfare is maximized. Part (e) Next, we consider the case of unit-demand buyers. We assume that if buyer i B purchases a subset of items I i I, then her net utility is U i = max j Ii (v ij ) j I i p j, i.e., she pays for all purchased items, but only gets utility from the highest valued item 3. As before, the seller s utility U s is still the total amount of money she earns, and the social welfare is W = U s + k B U i. Argue that in any welfare maximizing allocation policy in this setting, each buyer is allocated at most one item. The resulting optimization problem is known as the maximum-weighted matching problem (and is a maximization version of the assignment problem that you might have seen in some previous course). As in part (b), let x ij [0, 1] be a fractional allocation of item j to buyer i. Write an LP to choose a fractional allocation in order to maximize welfare. Note: Recall (or learn...) that the assignment problem LP also has integer corner points thus, the above relaxation actually gives a valid allocation. Write down the dual for the above LP, and also write the complementary slackness conditions. Part (g) (OPTIONAL) Suppose you are given an optimal primal solution x, and associated dual solution µ. As in part (d), show that there is a way to use these to set item prices p j, under which there is an allocation x ij that satisfies: (1) each buyer is allocated at most one item, and each item is allocated to at most one buyer, (2) if buyer i is allocated item j, then v ij p j 0, (3) for any item j not allocated to buyer i, we have v ij p j 0, and (4) the social welfare is maximized. Note: To see why the above result is remarkable, observe that the prices π (which are known as Walrasian or envy-free prices) magically coordinate the buyers, such that they each individually pick their favorite item, and by doing so, collectively solve a combinatorial optimization problem! 3 You are in NYC again, and buy tickets for multiple broadway shows with identical showtimes (because you were undecided...); you must pay for each ticket, but can only watch one (and are not allowed to sell the other tickets!). This problem should convince you that this is a harder setting, and so you should stick to the museums :) 4

Problem 3: You can t always charge what they want (to pay) In this question, we will see how the interaction between buyer behavior and seller constraints can sometimes lead to non-intuitive pricing policies, wherein you may not want to sell to everyone who is willing to. Suppose we own a cabin in the mountains, which we want to rent out on CleanAirBnB. Interested customers arrive sequentially looking to reserve the cabin; they arrive deterministically every 2 days, and each customer wants to rent it for a period of 3 nights. Formally, consider discrete time-slots (days) indexed as t = 0, 1, 2,.... A single customer arrives at the beginning of every even slot (i.e., at time-slots 0, 2, 4,...), and if a customer rents the cabin starting at time-slot t, then it becomes free at the beginning of time-slot t + 3. Each customer has value v = 5 for staying in the cabin; however, they also have a cost of c = 1 per day they need to wait before getting the cabin. For a customer arriving at time t, let d t denote the number of time slots after which the cabin becomes available, and suppose she is charged a fee of p t to reserve the cabin from time-slot t + d t to t + d t + 3: we assume she agrees to reserve the cabin if and only if her utility u t = v c d t p t = 5 d t p t 0, else she goes elsewhere looking for cabins to rent. Our aim is to design the pricing policy p t so as to maximize our revenue. First, suppose we do not charge customers for reserving the cabin. Assuming d 0 = 0 (i.e., the cabin starts as empty), plot how the sequence d t changes with t. Hint: You do not need to plot d t for an infinite number values of t! Observe that whenever d t becomes equal to some value you have already seen before (i.e., d s for some s < t), then the subsequent evolution is the same as before. Thus, the d t sequence is periodic in t. Next, for any customer facing a minimum delay of d days before getting to stay in the cabin, what is the maximum amount p(d) that we can charge her so as to ensure that she makes a reservation? Suppose we now use the pricing policy p(d) from part (b); what is the resulting sequence d t (assuming d 0 = 0)? Let R t denote the total earnings up to the start of time slot t (with R 0 = 0); compute the long-term average earning R = lim t R t t. Hint: For any bounded eventually-periodic sequence (i.e., one which is periodic after some initial transient behavior), the long-term average value is the same as the average over any period. Can you change the pricing policy to get a better long-term average earning? 5