pith. sign in

arxiv: 2302.14234 · v5 · pith:6SFQW5BDnew · submitted 2023-02-28 · 💻 cs.GT · econ.TH

Bicriteria Multidimensional Mechanism Design with Side Information

Maria-Florina Balcan , Siddharth Prasad , Tuomas Sandholm This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 09:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.GT econ.TH
keywords mechanism designside informationVCG mechanismwelfarerevenuemultidimensional typesweakest typesbicriteria
0
0 comments X

The pith

A tunable mechanism integrates side information with a weakest-types VCG construction to achieve both high welfare and high revenue in multidimensional settings.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a methodology for multidimensional mechanism design that incorporates side information about agents to generate high welfare and high revenue simultaneously. It constructs a tunable mechanism that combines this information with an improved VCG-like approach based on weakest types, which are the agent types generating the least welfare. When side information quality is high, the mechanism produces welfare and revenue competitive with the prior-free total social surplus. Performance holds across multiple side information formats and decays gracefully as quality decreases.

Core claim

The central claim is that a versatile mechanism integrating side information with a weakest-types VCG-like construction generates welfare and revenue competitive with the prior-free total social surplus when the side information is of high quality, with performance decaying gracefully as side information quality decreases, and that this holds for side information formats including distribution-free predictions, predictions expressing uncertainty, agent types in low-dimensional subspaces, and known priors.

What carries the argument

The tunable mechanism that integrates side information with an improved VCG-like mechanism based on weakest types.

If this is right

  • High-quality side information allows welfare and revenue to become competitive with the prior-free total social surplus.
  • Performance decays gracefully rather than collapsing when side information quality is lower.
  • Specific mechanisms exist for distribution-free predictions, uncertainty predictions, low-dimensional subspaces, and known priors, each with proven guarantees based on weakest types.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Machine learning predictions can serve directly as side information to improve auction outcomes without requiring full prior distributions.
  • The graceful decay property suggests the mechanism remains useful even when side information comes from noisy or partial sources such as expert advice.
  • The approach may extend to settings where side information quality varies across agents or changes over time.

Load-bearing premise

Side information can be expressed in formats that integrate directly with the weakest-types VCG-like construction without introducing inconsistencies in the type space.

What would settle it

A counterexample in a multidimensional setting where high-quality side information is supplied but the resulting welfare and revenue fall short of being competitive with the prior-free total social surplus would falsify the performance guarantee.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2302.14234 by Maria-Florina Balcan, Siddharth Prasad, Tuomas Sandholm.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two different predictions (the ellipse and polygon displayed with dashed boundaries) that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An agent’s expected value (as a fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Payment as a function of ζi for problem parameters θi [α ∗ ] = 15, ∆VCG i = 10, ∆err i = 2 (conservative prediction), varying λi ∈ {2 −100 , 2 −10 , 2 −1}. Right: Payment as a function of ∆err i for problem parameters θi [α ∗ ] = 15, ∆VCG i = 10 and mechanism parameter ζi = 2, varying λi ∈ {2 −100 , 2 −10 , 2 −1}. is, its welfare ζi + minθei∈Ti(θ−i) w(θei , θ−i) ≤ w(θi , θ−i). In this case, agent val… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a versatile methodology for multidimensional mechanism design that incorporates side information about agents to generate high welfare and high revenue simultaneously. Side information sources include advice from domain experts, predictions from machine learning models, and even the mechanism designer's gut instinct. We design a tunable mechanism that integrates side information with an improved VCG-like mechanism based on weakest types, which are agent types that generate the least welfare. We show that our mechanism, when its side information is of high quality, generates welfare and revenue competitive with the prior-free total social surplus, and its performance decays gracefully as the side information quality decreases. We consider a number of side information formats including distribution-free predictions, predictions that express uncertainty, agent types constrained to low-dimensional subspaces of the ambient type space, and the traditional setting with known priors over agent types. In each setting we design mechanisms based on weakest types and prove performance guarantees.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a methodology for multidimensional mechanism design that incorporates side information (from experts, ML predictions, or intuition) to simultaneously achieve high welfare and revenue. It builds an improved VCG-like mechanism around weakest types (agent types generating least welfare) and provides tailored constructions for four side-information formats—distribution-free predictions, uncertainty sets, low-dimensional subspace constraints, and known priors—each with explicit performance guarantees that are competitive with the prior-free total social surplus when side information is high quality and degrade gracefully as quality decreases, while preserving DSIC.

Significance. If the claimed derivations and guarantees hold, the work is significant for offering a versatile, tunable framework that bridges prior-free and Bayesian mechanism design via side information. The weakest-types base construction, the explicit handling of multiple formats, and the graceful degradation property are strengths; the paper supplies concrete performance bounds rather than asymptotic or existential results.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'performance guarantees' and 'graceful degradation' is stated without even a one-sentence indication of the proof technique or the functional dependence on side-information quality; while the full text supplies the details, a minimal pointer would improve the abstract.
  2. The integration of side information into the weakest-types construction is described at a high level; an early, self-contained example (e.g., a two-agent, two-item instance) illustrating how a prediction or subspace constraint modifies the payment rule would clarify the central technical step.
  3. Notation for the 'weakest type' and the quality metric of side information is introduced piecemeal; a consolidated table or definition block early in the paper would reduce cross-referencing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our paper, the recognition of its significance in bridging prior-free and Bayesian mechanism design through side information, and the recommendation for minor revision. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the weakest-types base construction, the explicit performance bounds across multiple side-information formats, and the graceful degradation property.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs mechanisms by extending a weakest-types VCG-like base to multiple side-information formats (distribution-free predictions, uncertainty sets, subspaces, known priors), with explicit bicriteria guarantees that degrade with side-information quality. No step reduces a claimed prediction or guarantee to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rely on a self-citation chain whose validity is internal to the paper. The type-space handling and performance bounds are derived directly from the weakest-types construction and the stated side-information model without self-referential definitions or renaming of known results as novel derivations. This is the normal case of an independent technical contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the weakest-types concept is invoked as a domain primitive but not formalized here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5681 in / 999 out tokens · 27198 ms · 2026-05-24T09:25:38.507116+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Efficiency loss in revenue optimal auctions

    Vineet Abhishek and Bruce Hajek. Efficiency loss in revenue optimal auctions. In 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 1082–1087. IEEE, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Efficiency of (revenue-) optimal mecha- 27 nisms

    Gagan Aggarwal, Gagan Goel, and Aranyak Mehta. Efficiency of (revenue-) optimal mecha- 27 nisms. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce , pages 235–242, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Learning- augmented mechanism design: Leveraging predictions for facility location

    Priyank Agrawal, Eric Balkanski, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Tingting Ou, and Xizhi Tan. Learning- augmented mechanism design: Leveraging predictions for facility location. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) , pages 497–528, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Invest- ment incentives in near-optimal mechanisms

    Mohammad Akbarpour, Scott Duke Kominers, Shengwu Li, and Paul R Milgrom. Invest- ment incentives in near-optimal mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) , pages 26–26, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Pricing to maximize revenue and welfare simultaneously in large markets

    Elliot Anshelevich, Koushik Kar, and Shreyas Sekar. Pricing to maximize revenue and welfare simultaneously in large markets. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), pages 145–159. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A practical guide to the combinatorial clock auction

    Lawrence Ausubel and Oleg Baranov. A practical guide to the combinatorial clock auction. Economic Journal, 127(605), 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Ausubel and Paul Milgrom

    Lawrence M. Ausubel and Paul Milgrom. The lovely but lonely Vickrey auction. In Peter Cramton, Yoav Shoham, and Richard Steinberg, editors, Combinatorial Auctions, chapter 1. MIT Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    A simple and approximately optimal mechanism for an additive buyer

    Moshe Babaioff, Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier, and S Matthew Weinberg. A simple and approximately optimal mechanism for an additive buyer. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , 67(4): 1–40, 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Data-driven algorithm design

    Maria-Florina Balcan. Data-driven algorithm design. In Tim Roughgarden, editor, Beyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms . Cambridge University Press, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Mechanism design via machine learning

    Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, Jason D Hartline, and Yishay Mansour. Mechanism design via machine learning. In 46th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 605–614. IEEE, 2005

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Item pricing for revenue maxi- mization

    Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, and Yishay Mansour. Item pricing for revenue maxi- mization. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (ACM-EC) , pages 50–59, Chicago, IL, 2008

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    A general theory of sample complexity for multi-item profit maximization

    Maria-Florina Balcan, Tuomas Sandholm, and Ellen Vitercik. A general theory of sample complexity for multi-item profit maximization. In ACM Conference on Economics and Com- putation (EC), pages 173–174, 2018

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Efficient algorithms for learning revenue-maximizing two-part tariffs

    Maria-Florina Balcan, Siddharth Prasad, and Tuomas Sandholm. Efficient algorithms for learning revenue-maximizing two-part tariffs. InProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pages 332–338, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Learning within an instance for designing high-revenue combinatorial auctions

    Maria-Florina Balcan, Siddharth Prasad, and Tuomas Sandholm. Learning within an instance for designing high-revenue combinatorial auctions. InProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pages 31–37, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Bicriteria multidimensional mechanism design with side information

    Maria Florina Balcan, Siddharth Prasad, and Tuomas Sandholm. Bicriteria multidimensional mechanism design with side information. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 36, pages 40832–40852, 2023. 28

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Market research and market design

    Sandeep Baliga and Rakesh Vohra. Market research and market design. Advances in theoretical Economics, 3(1), 2003

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Strategyproof scheduling with predictions

    Eric Balkanski, Vasilis Gkatzelis, and Xizhi Tan. Strategyproof scheduling with predictions. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS) , volume 251, page 11, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Online mechanism design with predictions

    Eric Balkanski, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Xizhi Tan, and Cherlin Zhu. Online mechanism design with predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02879 , 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions

    Siddhartha Banerjee, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Artur Gorokh, and Billy Jin. Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions. In Proceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1–19. SIAM, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Robust mechanism design

    Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Robust mechanism design. Econometrica, pages 1771– 1813, 2005

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Handbook of spectrum auction design

    Martin Bichler and Jacob K Goeree. Handbook of spectrum auction design . Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Designing combinatorial exchanges for the reallocation of resource rights

    Martin Bichler, Vladimir Fux, and Jacob K Goeree. Designing combinatorial exchanges for the reallocation of resource rights. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116(3): 786–791, 2019

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Oxford University Press, USA, 2015

    Tilman B¨ orgers.An introduction to the theory of mechanism design . Oxford University Press, USA, 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Auctions versus negotiations

    Jeremy Bulow and Paul Klemperer. Auctions versus negotiations. American Economic Review, 86(1), 1996

    work page 1996

  25. [25]

    Randomized learning-augmented auctions with revenue guarantees

    Ioannis Caragiannis and Georgios Kalantzis. Randomized learning-augmented auctions with revenue guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13384 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Dynamic and nonuniform pricing strategies for revenue maximization

    Tanmoy Chakraborty, Zhiyi Huang, and Sanjeev Khanna. Dynamic and nonuniform pricing strategies for revenue maximization. SIAM Journal on Computing , 42(6):2424–2451, 2013

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Knightian analysis of the Vickrey mechanism

    Alessandro Chiesa, Silvio Micali, and Zeyuan Allen Zhu. Knightian analysis of the Vickrey mechanism. Econometrica, 83(5):1727–1754, 2015

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Ed H. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 1971

    work page 1971

  29. [29]

    The sample complexity of revenue maximization

    Richard Cole and Tim Roughgarden. The sample complexity of revenue maximization. In Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 243–252, 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Complexity of mechanism design

    Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm. Complexity of mechanism design. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) , pages 103–110, Edmonton, Canada, 2002

    work page 2002

  31. [31]

    Spectrum auction design

    Peter Cramton. Spectrum auction design. Review of industrial organization, 42:161–190, 2013

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Dissolving a partnership efficiently

    Peter Cramton, Robert Gibbons, and Paul Klemperer. Dissolving a partnership efficiently. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages 615–632, 1987. 29

    work page 1987

  33. [33]

    Combinatorial Auctions

    Peter Cramton, Yoav Shoham, and Richard Steinberg. Combinatorial Auctions. MIT Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

    Full extraction of the surplus in bayesian and domi- nant strategy auctions

    Jacques Cr´ emer and Richard P McLean. Full extraction of the surplus in bayesian and domi- nant strategy auctions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages 1247–1257, 1988

    work page 1988

  35. [35]

    Differentiable economics for ran- domized affine maximizer auctions

    Michael Curry, Tuomas Sandholm, and John Dickerson. Differentiable economics for ran- domized affine maximizer auctions. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pages 2633–2641, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Simple, optimal and efficient auctions

    Constantinos Daskalakis and George Pierrakos. Simple, optimal and efficient auctions. In In- ternational Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE) , pages 109–121. Springer, 2011

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    The sample complexity of auctions with side information

    Nikhil R Devanur, Zhiyi Huang, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. The sample complexity of auctions with side information. In Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 426–439, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Efficiency- revenue trade-offs in auctions

    Ilias Diakonikolas, Christos Papadimitriou, George Pierrakos, and Yaron Singer. Efficiency- revenue trade-offs in auctions. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), 2012

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    A scalable neural network for dsic affine maximizer auction design

    Zhijian Duan, Haoran Sun, Yurong Chen, and Xiaotie Deng. A scalable neural network for dsic affine maximizer auction design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Optimal auctions through deep learning

    Paul D¨ utting, Zhe Feng, Harikrishna Narasimhan, David Parkes, and Sai Srivatsa Ravin- dranath. Optimal auctions through deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1706–1715. PMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords

    Benjamin Edelman, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz. Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. The American Economic Review, 97(1):242–259, March 2007. ISSN 0002-8282

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Improved price of anarchy via predictions

    Vasilis Gkatzelis, Kostas Kollias, Alkmini Sgouritsa, and Xizhi Tan. Improved price of anarchy via predictions. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 529–557, 2022

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Clock auctions augmented with unreliable advice

    Vasilis Gkatzelis, Daniel Schoepflin, and Xizhi Tan. Clock auctions augmented with unreliable advice. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06483 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Compact bid lan- guages and core pricing in large multi-item auctions

    Andor Goetzendorff, Martin Bichler, Pasha Shabalin, and Robert W Day. Compact bid lan- guages and core pricing in large multi-item auctions. Management Science, 61(7):1684–1703, 2015

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    Competitive auctions and digital goods

    Andrew Goldberg, Jason Hartline, and Andrew Wright. Competitive auctions and digital goods. In Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , Washington, DC, 2001

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    Grotschel, L

    M. Grotschel, L. Lov´ asz, and A. Schrijver. Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Opti- mizations. Springer-Verlag, 1993. 30

    work page 1993

  47. [47]

    Incentives in teams

    Theodore Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 1973

    work page 1973

  48. [48]

    Hartline, Anna R

    Venkatesan Guruswami, Jason D. Hartline, Anna R. Karlin, David Kempe, Claire Kenyon, and Frank McSherry. On profit-maximizing envy-free pricing. In Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 1164–1173, 2005

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    The menu-size complexity of auctions

    Sergiu Hart and Noam Nisan. The menu-size complexity of auctions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) , pages 565–566, 2013

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Maximal revenue with multiple goods: Nonmonotonicity and other observations

    Sergiu Hart and Philip J Reny. Maximal revenue with multiple goods: Nonmonotonicity and other observations. Theoretical Economics, 10(3):893–922, 2015

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Simple versus optimal mechanisms

    Jason D Hartline and Tim Roughgarden. Simple versus optimal mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce , pages 225–234, 2009

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Davenport, Jayant R

    Gail Hohner, John Rich, Ed Ng, Grant Reid, Andrew J. Davenport, Jayant R. Kalagnanam, Ho Soo Lee, and Chae An. Combinatorial and quantity-discount procurement auctions benefit Mars, Incorporated and its suppliers. Interfaces, 33(1):23–35, 2003

    work page 2003

  53. [53]

    Groves’ scheme on restricted domains

    Bengt Holmstr¨ om. Groves’ scheme on restricted domains. Econometrica, 47(5):1137–1144, 1979

    work page 1979

  54. [54]

    Bundling equilibrium in combinatorial auctions

    Ron Holzman, Noa Kfir-Dahav, Dov Monderer, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Bundling equilibrium in combinatorial auctions. Games and Economic Behavior , 47(1):104–123, April 2004

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    A Bayesian approach to tackling hard computational problems

    Eric Horvitz, Yongshao Ruan, Carla Gomez, Henry Kautz, Bart Selman, and Max Chicker- ing. A Bayesian approach to tackling hard computational problems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) , 2001

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    Regret minimizing equilibria and mechanisms for games with strict type uncertainty

    Nathanael Hyafil and Craig Boutilier. Regret minimizing equilibria and mechanisms for games with strict type uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 20th conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 268–277, 2004

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    Learn- ing predictions for algorithms with predictions

    Misha Khodak, Maria-Florina F Balcan, Ameet Talwalkar, and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Learn- ing predictions for algorithms with predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3542–3555, 2022

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    On the ratio of revenue to welfare in single-parameter mechanism design

    Robert Kleinberg and Yang Yuan. On the ratio of revenue to welfare in single-parameter mechanism design. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC), pages 589–602, 2013

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    Efficient mechanism design

    Vijay Krishna and Motty Perry. Efficient mechanism design. Available at SSRN 64934 , 1998

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    Economics and computer science of a radio spectrum reallocation

    Kevin Leyton-Brown, Paul Milgrom, and Ilya Segal. Economics and computer science of a radio spectrum reallocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114(28):7202–7209, 2017

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Obviously strategy-proof mechanisms

    Shengwu Li. Obviously strategy-proof mechanisms. American Economic Review , 107(11): 3257–3287, 2017

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    Methods for boosting revenue in combinatorial auctions

    Anton Likhodedov and Tuomas Sandholm. Methods for boosting revenue in combinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , pages 232–237, San Jose, CA, 2004. 31

    work page 2004

  63. [63]

    Approximating revenue-maximizing combinato- rial auctions

    Anton Likhodedov and Tuomas Sandholm. Approximating revenue-maximizing combinato- rial auctions. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , Pittsburgh, PA, 2005

    work page 2005

  64. [64]

    Competitive auctions with imperfect predictions

    Pinyan Lu, Zongqi Wan, and Jialin Zhang. Competitive auctions with imperfect predictions. arXiv:2309.15414, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    An optimal auction for capacity constrained bidders: a network perspective

    Alexey Malakhov and Rakesh V Vohra. An optimal auction for capacity constrained bidders: a network perspective. Economic Theory, 2009

    work page 2009

  66. [66]

    Correlated information and mechanism design

    R Preston McAfee and Philip J Reny. Correlated information and mechanism design. Econo- metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages 395–421, 1992

    work page 1992

  67. [67]

    Revenue optimization with approximate bid predic- tions

    Andres Medina and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Revenue optimization with approximate bid predic- tions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Facebook doesn’t make as much money as it could—on purpose

    Cade Metz. Facebook doesn’t make as much money as it could—on purpose. Wired, 2015

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    Algorithms with predictions

    Michael Mitzenmacher and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Algorithms with predictions. Communications of the ACM , 2022

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Learning simple auctions

    Jamie Morgenstern and Tim Roughgarden. Learning simple auctions. In Conference on Learn- ing Theory (COLT), pages 1298–1318. PMLR, 2016

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    Optimal auction design

    Roger Myerson. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operation Research, 6:58–73, 1981

    work page 1981

  72. [72]

    Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading

    Roger Myerson and Mark Satterthwaite. Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory, 28:265–281, 1983

    work page 1983

  73. [73]

    Optimal auctions with financially constrained buyers

    Mallesh M Pai and Rakesh Vohra. Optimal auctions with financially constrained buyers. Journal of Economic Theory , 150:383–425, 2014

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    The characterization of implementable social choice rules

    Kevin Roberts. The characterization of implementable social choice rules. In J-J Laffont, editor, Aggregation and Revelation of Preferences. 1979

    work page 1979

  75. [75]

    Marketplaces, markets, and market design

    Alvin E Roth. Marketplaces, markets, and market design. American Economic Review, 108 (7):1609–1658, 2018

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Computationally manageable combinatorial auctions

    Michael Rothkopf, Aleksandar Pekeˇ c, and Ronald Harstad. Computationally manageable combinatorial auctions. Management Science, 44(8):1131–1147, 1998

    work page 1998

  77. [77]

    Expressive commerce and its application to sourcing: How we conducted $35 billion of generalized combinatorial auctions

    Tuomas Sandholm. Expressive commerce and its application to sourcing: How we conducted $35 billion of generalized combinatorial auctions. AI Magazine, 28(3):45–58, 2007

    work page 2007

  78. [78]

    Very-large-scale generalized combinatorial multi-attribute auctions: Lessons from conducting $60 billion of sourcing

    Tuomas Sandholm. Very-large-scale generalized combinatorial multi-attribute auctions: Lessons from conducting $60 billion of sourcing. In Zvika Neeman, Alvin Roth, and Nir Vulkan, editors, Handbook of Market Design . Oxford University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Automated design of revenue-maximizing combi- natorial auctions

    Tuomas Sandholm and Anton Likhodedov. Automated design of revenue-maximizing combi- natorial auctions. Operations Research, 63(5):1000–1025, 2015

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    CABOB: A fast optimal algorithm for winner determination in combinatorial auctions

    Tuomas Sandholm, Subhash Suri, Andrew Gilpin, and David Levine. CABOB: A fast optimal algorithm for winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Management Science, 2005. 32

    work page 2005

Showing first 80 references.