Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

On Random Sampling Auctions for Digital Goods

Published: 01 July 2014 Publication History

Abstract

In the context of auctions for digital goods, an interesting random sampling auction has been proposed by Goldberg et al. [2001]. This auction has been analyzed by Feige et al. [2005], who have shown that it obtains in expectation at least 1/15 fraction of the optimal revenue, which is substantially better than the previously proven constant bounds but still far from the conjectured lower bound of 1/4. In this article, we prove that the aforementioned random sampling auction obtains at least 1/4 fraction of the optimal revenue for a large class of instances where the number of bids above (or equal to) the optimal sale price is at least 6. We also show that this auction obtains at least 1/4.68 fraction of the optimal revenue for the small class of remaining instances, thus leaving a negligible gap between the lower and upper bound. We employ a mix of probabilistic techniques and dynamic programming to compute these bounds.

References

[1]
Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, Jason D. Hartline, and Yishay Mansour. 2005. Mechanism design via machine learning. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 605--614.
[2]
Sandeep Baliga and Rakesh Vohra. 2003. Market research and market design. Adv. Theoretical Econ. 3, 1, 1059--1059.
[3]
Nikhil R. Devanur and Jason D. Hartline. 2009. Limited and online supply and the Bayesian foundations of prior-free mechanism design. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 41--50.
[4]
Uriel Feige, Abraham Flaxman, Jason D. Hartline, and Robert D. Kleinberg. 2005. On the competitive ratio of the random sampling auction. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics. 878--886.
[5]
C. M. Fortuin, P. W. Kasteleyn, and J. Ginibre. 1971. Correlation inequalities on some partially ordered sets. Commun. Math. Phys. 22, 2, 89--103.
[6]
Andrew V. Goldberg and Jason D. Hartline. 2001. Competitive auctions for multiple digital goods. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA’01). Springer, 416--427.
[7]
Andrew V. Goldberg, Jason D. Hartline, Anna R. Karlin, Michael Saks, and Andrew Wright. 2006. Competitive auctions. Games Econ. Behavior 55, 2, 242--269.
[8]
Andrew V. Goldberg, Jason D. Hartline, and Andrew Wright. 2001. Competitive auctions and digital goods. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’01). SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 735--744.
[9]
Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, Robert D. Kleinberg, and David C. Parkes. 2004. Adaptive limited-supply online auctions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 71--80.
[10]
Jason D. Hartline and Tim Roughgarden. 2008. Optimal mechansim design and money burning. CoRR abs/0804.2097.
[11]
W. Hoeffding. 1963. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Amer. Statistical Assoc. J. 58, 13--30.
[12]
Ilya Segal. 2003. Optimal pricing mechanisms with unknown demand. Am. Econ. Rev. 93, 3, 509--529.

Cited By

View all
  • (2017)Provision-After-Wait with Common PreferencesACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/30389105:2(1-36)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2017
  • (2016)Provision-After-Wait with Common PreferencesProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems10.5555/2936924.2936967(278-286)Online publication date: 9-May-2016

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation  Volume 2, Issue 3
July 2014
71 pages
ISSN:2167-8375
EISSN:2167-8383
DOI:10.1145/2656863
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2014
Accepted: 01 July 2013
Revised: 01 July 2013
Received: 01 September 2012
Published in TEAC Volume 2, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Random sampling
  2. auction
  3. mechanism design

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2017)Provision-After-Wait with Common PreferencesACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/30389105:2(1-36)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2017
  • (2016)Provision-After-Wait with Common PreferencesProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems10.5555/2936924.2936967(278-286)Online publication date: 9-May-2016

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media