Exercise
Exercise 3.4
sponsored search auctions
\(n\) bidders, \(n\) slots. each bidder \(i\) has a value of \(v_i\).
the j-th slot has CTR \(a_j\), with \(a_1\ge a_2\ge\cdots\ge a_n\)
maximize social welfare
denoting by \(\delta(i)\) the slot bidder \(i\) occupies, this means that the quantity \(\sum_ia_{\delta(i)}v_i\) is as high as possible
Q: design a DSIC mechanism that maximizes social welfare
allocation rule should be monotone.
focus on bidder \(i\) and compute the amount of stuff bidder \(i\) gets for given bids by the remaining bidders.
assuming that bids \(b_1\ge b_2\ge\cdots\ge b_{i-1}\ge b_{i}\ge\cdots\ge b_n\).
可以画一个获得位次 - 出价函数(台阶形状的)
payment rule is generated by Myerson's lemma according allocation rule.
\(payment_i(z,b_{-i})=\sum_{j=1}^lb_{n-j+1}\times(a_{n-j}-a_{n-j+1})\)
\(l\) is number of jumps of the allocation rule \(x_i(z,b_{-i})\).
Exercise 4.2
\(X\): feasible solutions (set of agents). downward closures, if \(S\) is a feasible solution w.r.t. \(X\) then any subset of \(S\) is also feasible.
select set \(S\) of agents in \(X\) s.t. the social welfare \(\sum_{i\in S}v_i\) is maximized.
payment of an agent = externalities
Q: how much damage the existence of the agent causes to the remaining agents?
consider:
- maximum social welfare of the instance without agent \(i\). (\(n-1\) agents)
- social welfare of the remaining agents in the social welfare maximizing solution including agent \(i\). \(n\) agents)
for agent \(i\), its payment will be value of step 1 - value of step 2. (damage cause to the remaining agents)
Exercise 4.3
\(n+1\) execution of ALG are enough to compute both the allocation and the payments
0: solve the maximum \(SW\) problem to get the allocation
keep \(SW_{-i}\) for each agent \(i\).
for \(i=1,\cdots,n\): solve the maximum \(SW\) problem for the instance that doesn't include agent \(i\), keep \(\widetilde{SW_{-i}}\).
payment=\(\widetilde{SW_{-i}}-SW_{-i}\)
Exercise 6.1
\(n\) agents, agent \(i\) has random value \(v_i\) drawn independently from the p. d. \(F_i\).
(a) compute an allocation that maximize expected revenue.
\(F_i\): virtual valuation \(\varphi_i(v)=v-\frac{1-F_i(v)}{f_i(v)}\)
\(\mathbb E[revenue(x)]=\mathbb E[\sum_i\varphi(v)x_i(v)]\)
to maximize expected revenue, x should maximize \(\sum_i\varphi(v)^+x_i(v)\).
(b) \(F_i\) is uniform is \([a,b]\), \(F_i(v)=\frac{v-a}{b-a}\), \(f_i(v)=\frac{1}{b-a}\). \(\varphi(v)=2v-b\).
in some cases, the highest bidder not win, even if it has a positive virtual valuation.
\(F_1\) uniform in \([a_1,b_1]\), \(F_2\) uniform in \([a_2,b_2]\).
there exist cases s.t. \(2v_1-b_1\gt2v_2-b_2\) where \(v_1\lt v_2\).
Exercise 6.4
expected revenue of the second price auction with n bidder is at least \(1-\frac{1}{n}\) times the optimal expected revenue.
Denote:
- \(n\) bidders, p.d. F.
- \(REV1\): revenue of the revenue-maximizing auction with \(n\) bidders
- \(REV2\): revenue of the revenue-maximizing auction with \(n-1\) bidders.
- \(REV3\): revenue of the second-price auction with \(n\) bidders.
According to Bulow & Klemperer's theorem, we know that \(\mathbb E[REV3]\ge\mathbb E[REV2]\). Then we need to prove \(\mathbb E[REV2]\geq(1-\frac{1}{n})\mathbb E[REV1]\).
We have
\[ (n-1)\mathbb E[REV1]=(n-1)\mathbb E[\sum_{i=1}^n\varphi(v_i)^+x_i(v)]\\ \]\[ =\mathbb E[\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{i=1,i\neq j}^n\varphi(v_i)^+x_i(v)]\\ \]\[ =\sum_{j=1}^n\mathbb E[\sum_{i=1,i\neq j}^n\varphi(v_i)^+x_i(v)]\\ \]\[ \leq\sum_{j=1}^n\mathbb E[REV2]=n\mathbb E[REV2]\\ \]$$ \Rightarrow\mathbb E[REV2]\geq(1-\frac{1}{n})\mathbb E[REV1] $$ Q. E. D.
剩下时间的讲 Assignment 2 的题目。