Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Equilibrium Computation in First-Price Auctions with Correlated Priors

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves deciding whether an approximate pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium exists in a discrete first-price auction is strongly NP-hard when bidders' values come from a general correlated distribution, and that this is the first such…

desk verdict A genuinely new hardness result and a sound sparsification lemma; the paper deserves refereeing, with only minor exposition to clean up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05322 v1 pith:2TXMKKMO submitted 2025-06-05 cs.GT cs.CC

Aris Filos-Ratsikas , Yiannis Giannakopoulos , Alexandros Hollender , Charalampos Kokkalis This is my paper
classification cs.GTcs.CC MSC 91B2668Q1791A68
keywords first-priceauctionBayes-NashequilibriumcorrelatedpriorsaffiliatedprivatevaluesNP-hardnessapproximationalgorithmsbidsparsificationdensification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper pins down how hard it is to predict bidding in first-price auctions once bidders' values are allowed to be correlated rather than independent. Its central result: given a discrete first-price auction whose joint value distribution is arbitrary, deciding whether any pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium exists is strongly NP-hard, and the hardness persists for approximate equilibria with error inverse-polynomial in the input. This closes a gap in the literature by removing two standard assumptions—subjective beliefs and special tie-breaking rules—that earlier hardness proofs needed. The paper also supplies two polynomial-time approximation frameworks for tractable corners of the problem: bid sparsification, which shrinks the bid set and then searches via polynomial inequalities, and bid densification, which pulls the closed-form symmetric equilibrium of the continuous auction back down to a discrete bid grid. If these results stand, equilibrium existence in correlated first-price auctions is computationally intractable in general but approachable in affiliated or symmetric settings.

What carries the argument

The hardness proof runs on layered discount factors: each layer of the formula-evaluation network (input bidders, NOT, projection, OR1, OR2, output) is scaled by a factor $\delta$ much smaller than the layer below, so the conditional distribution determining a bidder's best response is dominated by the single gate the bidder is an output of; the constants are chosen so every gate's best-response table has a unique winner with a margin bigger than the accumulated cross-talk. For the algorithms, the load-bearing object is the Bidding Space Shrinkage Lemma, which replaces the bid set with one of size $M$ while degrading equilibrium quality by only $1/M$, and for bid densification the Milgrom-Weber formula $\beta(v)=v-\int_{\underline{v}}^{v} \frac{G(y)}{G(v)}\,dy$ gives the canonical symmetric equilibrium that is then inverted approximately to jump points on the discrete grid.

What would settle it

Take a small unsatisfiable 2/3,3-SAT formula, run the paper's reduction to get a concrete DFPA with rational probabilities, and exhaustively enumerate all pure strategy profiles (the bid sets are $\{0,1/7,2/7,3/7\}$ and the value sets are $\{0,23/64,1\}$); the existence of any $\varepsilon'$-approximate pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium would refute Theorem 4.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that for discrete first-price auctions with correlated priors, deciding whether an approximate pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium exists is strongly NP-hard. The reduction from 2/3,3-SAT encodes variables, negations, projections, and OR gates as bidders, with a joint distribution supported only on tuples that link a gate to its inputs, and uses exponentially smaller discount factors at each layer so that a bidder serving as both output of one gate and input of another is affected primarily by the former. An embedded two-bidder gadget with no pure equilibrium is then used as a sink: an equilibrium exists exactly when the formula is satisfiable. Because all probabilities are rational with polynomially bounded denominators, the hardness is strong and survives for $\varepsilon$-approximate pure Bayes-Nash equilibria with $\varepsilon$ inverse-polynomial in the input. On the algorithmic side, the paper proves a PTAS for monotone pure (CFPA) and mixed (DFPA) equilibria under affiliated values when the number of bidders is fixed or the values are symmetric, and gives a bid-densification algorithm that starts from the Milgrom-Weber continuous equilibrium and rounds it down to the discrete bid grid, with error depending on bid granularity and density bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The approximation algorithms rest on the Bidding Space Shrinkage Lemma, which asserts that any finite bid set can be replaced by a subset of size $M$ while losing only $1/M$ in equilibrium quality; the proof is a sketch citing earlier work, and the PTAS collapses if sparse bid regimes force a larger covering error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For general correlated priors, deciding whether an $\varepsilon$-approximate pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium exists remains NP-hard even for $\varepsilon$ inverse-polynomial in the input, so no polynomial-time existence test is possible unless P=NP.
  • The reduction's strong NP-hardness also rules out pseudopolynomial algorithms for exact equilibrium existence when values and bids are given in binary.
  • For affiliated private values, monotone mixed Bayes-Nash equilibria of the discrete auction always exist, including in symmetric cases, and a PTAS can compute them when the number of bidders is fixed or the values are symmetric.
  • In symmetric settings with bounded densities, the bid-densification theorem turns the classic Milgrom-Weber continuous equilibrium into a polynomial-time computable approximate equilibrium of the discrete-bid auction, with error $2\gamma(\delta+2\varepsilon)$; when $\delta<1/n^2$, the error is $1/\mathrm{poly}(n)$.
  • The DFPA-to-CFPA reduction means that a future hardness result for mixed equilibria in the discrete auction would automatically give hardness for pure equilibria in the continuous auction under standard tie-breaking.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The layered-discount construction is not obviously limited to pure strategies; a natural extension is to port it to mixed Bayes-Nash equilibria or to continuous-value auctions, which the paper leaves open.
  • The density-ratio bound in the bid-densification theorem gives platforms a quantitative discretization rule: choose bid granularity $\delta$ small relative to $n$ and the ratio of density bounds to guarantee a target equilibrium approximation; testing this rule on real ad-auction bid grids would be a direct empirical check.
  • The counterexample for monotone equilibria under anti-correlated values suggests that monotonicity is only a safe algorithmic constraint under affiliation; any heuristic for general correlated priors should either drop monotonicity or be scoped to positively correlated distributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the computational complexity of Bayes-Nash equilibria in first-price auctions when bidder values are drawn from a correlated joint distribution. For discrete first-price auctions (DFPA) with discrete values and bids, it proves that deciding the existence of an epsilon-approximate pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium is strongly NP-hard, for an epsilon that is inverse-polynomial in the input size. The hardness reduction is from 2/3,3-SAT and uses layered gadgets with discount factors to simulate Boolean operators without subjective priors or nonstandard tie-breaking. The paper also proves existence of monotone mixed Bayes-Nash equilibria in DFPA with affiliated private values, via a new existence theorem for continuous auctions with piecewise-constant densities. On the algorithmic side, it presents two approaches: bid sparsification, yielding PTAS-type results for fixed numbers of bidders and for symmetric affiliated values, and bid densification, which uses the Milgrom-Weber canonical equilibrium to compute approximate equilibria in continuous first-price auctions when the bidding space is sufficiently dense.

Significance. If the main claims hold, this is the first hardness result for equilibrium computation in first-price auctions with correlated priors that avoids both subjective priors and contrived tie-breaking rules, directly addressing an open direction from Filos-Ratsikas et al. The positive results extend the known algorithmic toolkit from independent values to affiliated private values, and the bid-densification technique is a genuinely new way to leverage classical closed-form equilibrium formulas. The paper is transparent about its assumptions, including the no-overbidding convention and the restrictions needed for the densification results. It does not provide machine-checked proofs or code, but the NP-hardness reduction is written with unusual care and the parameter choices are explicitly tracked.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4.6] The statement of Lemma 4.6 is false as written. For a negated literal with input bidder i, NOT bidder j, and projection bidder k, Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5 imply chi(beta_k) = 1 - chi(beta_i), i.e., the projection bidder encodes the negated literal, not the input variable. The displayed equality chi(beta_i)=chi(beta_k) contradicts those two lemmas. Because the final paragraph of the proof of Theorem 4.1 invokes Theorem 4.6 to propagate values through the clause gadgets, this statement must be corrected.
  2. [Section 5, Lemma 5.1] Lemma 5.1 is load-bearing for Theorem 5.2, but its proof is only a sketch that refers to the prior lemma without showing how the 1/M error is obtained for an arbitrary finite bidding space B. The claim is in fact correct: greedily select the largest remaining bid in B and delete all bids within distance 1/M below it; the selected bids cover disjoint intervals of length 1/M, so |B'| <= M, and for every b in B there is b' in B' with b <= b' <= b + 1/M. Monotonicity of the winning probability then gives the (epsilon + 1/M) transfer. Please include this argument explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sections 2.2.1 and 4, Theorem 4.1] The no-overbidding convention is stated informally in Section 2.2.1 but is not part of Definitions 1 and 2, and Theorem 4.1 is stated without it. Since the reduction in Section 4 analyzes only no-overbidding equilibria, please state explicitly in the theorem that the hardness result concerns no-overbidding epsilon'-PBNE, or incorporate the no-overbidding condition into the equilibrium definitions.
  2. [Section 6.4, Lemma 6.7] In the construction of the approximate inverter, the approximate preimages s(b_j) should be computed so that they are nondecreasing in b_j; otherwise the step function in (38) need not be monotone. This monotonicity guarantee is not stated and should be added.
  3. [Appendix B.1, SAPV recursion] The displayed recursion for L_v(y) in the SAPV part of the proof of Theorem 6.5 appears to have reversed integration limits on the first integral: it should be an integral from y to a_kappa, not from a_kappa to y. Please correct the formula and the surrounding explanation.
  4. [Section 6.4, Lemma 6.6] In inequality (35), the case b > v is not covered by the displayed calculation because v-b is negative. Overbidding deviations should be handled separately, e.g., by noting that they cannot improve on the nonnegative utility of beta~(v).
  5. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4.3] The sentence in the proof of Lemma 4.3 that 'the construction has no points in the support where v_i=1' is not true for the full auction, since NOT and OR gadgets add mass at v_i=1. Please rephrase it to refer to the input-bidder sub-construction, with the external points then handled by the discounting and margin argument.
  6. [Throughout] There are several minor typos, including 'bull-bidding-space' instead of 'full-bidding-space' in Section 6.4, an incomplete 'B subseteq' in the proof of Theorem 6.1, and inconsistent references to 'Theorem 5.1' versus 'Lemma 5.1' in Section 5. These should be fixed in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hardness reduction and positive algorithms are self-contained in their logical chains and rely on external published results as components, not as conclusions.

full rationale

Theorem 4.1 reduces from 2/3,3-SAT to the existence of a PBNE; the construction fixes all probabilities via discount factors and normalizes at the end, and the correctness lemmas (4.3-4.9) are proven by direct utility tables. There is no fitted parameter later renamed a prediction and no definition of the target quantity in terms of the conclusion. The positive results invoke the Milgrom-Weber canonical equilibrium, Athey's existence theorem, and Grigor'ev-Vorobjov polynomial-inequality solver from outside the paper; the shrinkage lemma is cited from the authors' prior published work but is a general, parameter-free lemma used as a component (with a proof sketch and a standard covering argument), not an assertion of the paper's main claims. The DFPA-to-CFPA reduction (Lemma 3.10) is proved directly. The few self-citations (e.g., prior hardness reductions and the shrinkage lemma) are contextual and do not smuggle in the target theorems by definition. No circular step can be exhibited; the derivation chain is not equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reduction introduces hand-chosen constants (bids, values, discount factors) that the equilibrium analysis relies on. The positive results assume standard economic models (affiliated values, piecewise-constant densities, bounded densities) and invoke prior theorems (Athey, Milgrom-Weber, Grigor'ev-Vorobjov). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Discount factor δ_NOT = chosen constant < 33/1792
    Used in the hardness reduction to scale mass of NOT bidder points so that lower-layer bidders' influence is bounded by 2δ_NOT/Δ.
  • Discount factor δ_PROJ = chosen constant < (33/3584)δ_NOT
    Scales projection bidder points in the reduction.
  • Discount factor δ_OR1 = chosen constant < (33/3584)δ_PROJ
    Scales OR1 bidder points in the reduction.
  • Discount factor δ_OR2 = chosen constant < (1/1792)δ_OR1
    Scales OR2 bidder points in the reduction.
  • Discount factor δ_OUT = chosen constant < (1/672)δ_OR2
    Scales output bidder points in the reduction.
  • Bid levels b1=1/7, b2=2/7, b3=3/7 and value 23/64 = chosen constants
    Specific numerical values that make the utility tables in the hardness reduction yield the intended best responses.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Uniform tie-breaking rule: ties split the item with probability 1/|W|
    Standard in the literature; the reduction's output-bidder no-equilibrium cycle depends on this tie-breaking.
  • domain assumption No-overbidding assumption: bidders never bid above their value
    Assumed throughout, justified by weak dominance of non-overbidding strategies.
  • standard math Log-supermodularity is preserved by integration (Athey 2002)
    Used in Lemma 3.7 to establish log-supermodularity of winning probabilities under affiliation.
  • standard math Kakutani fixed-point theorem applies to the best-response correspondence
    Used in the existence proof for monotone equilibria; convexity of the correspondence is argued under piecewise-constant densities.
  • standard math Grigor'ev-Vorobjov algorithm solves systems of polynomial inequalities in the stated time
    Used as a black box in the bid sparsification PTAS.
  • domain assumption Milgrom-Weber canonical equilibrium formula for symmetric affiliated values
    The bid densification approach relies on this closed form from the economics literature.
  • domain assumption Input distributions are piecewise-constant (CFPA) or rational mass points (DFPA)
    The representation of priors assumes this structure, which is needed for polynomial-time utility computation and for the fixed-point argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equilibrium Computation in First-Price Auctions with Correlated Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TXMKKMO

@misc{pith2026250605322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equilibrium Computation in First-Price Auctions with Correlated Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TXMKKMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05322}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the computational complexity of computing Bayes-Nash equilibria in first-price auctions, where the bidders' values for the item are drawn from a general (possibly correlated) joint distribution. We show that when the values and the bidding space are discrete, determining the existence of a pure Bayes-Nash equilibrium is NP-hard. This is the first hardness result in the literature of the problem that does not rely on assumptions of subjectivity of the priors, or convoluted tie-breaking rules. We then present two main approaches for achieving positive results, via bid sparsification and via bid densification. The former is more combinatorial and is based on enumeration techniques, whereas the latter makes use of the continuous theory of the problem developed in the economics literature. Using these approaches, we develop polynomial-time approximation algorithms for computing equilibria in symmetric settings or settings with a fixed number of bidders, for different (discrete or continuous) variants of the auction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The inclusion relation between the different classes of Bayesian priors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A monotone bidding strategy 𝛽𝑖(·), succinctly represented by its jump points, 𝑠𝑖(𝑏) for 𝑏 ∈ 𝐵. Given the above, we will concretely represent a monotone pure strategy of bidder𝑖 as a list of jump points {𝑠𝑖(𝑏)}𝑏∈𝐵, and a pure strategy profile (and hence, an equilibrium as well) as a vector of those lists, one for each bidder. 2.5 Expected Utility Computation Next, we discuss the efficient computation of the bidders’ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Outline of the construction of the DFPA from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Auto-bidding and auctions in online advertising: A survey

    Gagan Aggarwal, Ashwinkumar Badanidiyuru, Santiago R Balseiro, Kshipra Bhawalkar, Yuan Deng, Zhe Feng, Gagan Goel, Christopher Liaw, Haihao Lu, Mohammad Mahdian, et al. Auto-bidding and auctions in online advertising: A survey. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 22 0 (1): 0 159--183, 2024. doi:10.1145/3699824.3699838

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Single crossing properties and the existence of pure strategy equilibria in games of incomplete information

    Susan Athey. Single crossing properties and the existence of pure strategy equilibria in games of incomplete information. Econometrica, 69 0 (4): 0 861--889, July 2001. doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00223

    work page arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    Monotone comparative statics under uncertainty

    Susan Athey. Monotone comparative statics under uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 0 (1): 0 187--223, 2002. doi:10.1162/003355302753399481

    work page doi:10.1162/003355302753399481 2002

  4. [4]

    Nonparametric approaches to auctions

    Susan Athey and Philip A Haile. Nonparametric approaches to auctions. Handbook of econometrics, 6: 0 3847--3965, 2007. doi:10.1016/S1573-4412(07)06060-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s1573-4412(07)06060-6 2007

  5. [5]

    Agreeing to disagree

    Robert J Aumann. Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics, 4 0 (6): 0 1236--1239, 1976. doi:10.1214/aos/1176343654

    arXiv 1976

  6. [6]

    First-price auctions with general information structures: Implications for bidding and revenue

    Dirk Bergemann, Benjamin Brooks, and Stephen Morris. First-price auctions with general information structures: Implications for bidding and revenue. Econometrica, 85 0 (1): 0 107--143, 2017. doi:10.3982/ecta13958

    work page doi:10.3982/ecta13958 2017

  7. [7]

    Optimal multi-dimensional mechanism design: Reducing revenue to welfare maximization

    Yang Cai, Constantinos Daskalakis, and S Matthew Weinberg. Optimal multi-dimensional mechanism design: Reducing revenue to welfare maximization. In 2012 IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 130--139. IEEE, 2012. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2012.88

    doi:10.1109/focs.2012.88 2012

  8. [8]

    Asymmetry in first-price auctions with affiliated private values

    Sandra Campo, Isabelle Perrigne, and Quang Vuong. Asymmetry in first-price auctions with affiliated private values. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18 0 (2): 0 179--207, 2003. doi:10.1002/jae.697

    work page doi:10.1002/jae.697 2003

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Hartline

    Shuchi Chawla and Jason D. Hartline. Auctions with unique equilibria. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) , pages 181--196, 2013. doi:10.1145/2492002.2483188

    2013

  2. [10]

    Complexity of equilibria in first-price auctions under general tie-breaking rules

    Xi Chen and Binghui Peng. Complexity of equilibria in first-price auctions under general tie-breaking rules. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 698--709, 2023. doi:10.1145/3564246.3585195

    2023

  3. [11]

    The discrete bid first auction

    Michael Suk-Young Chwe. The discrete bid first auction. Economics Letters, 31 0 (4): 0 303--306, December 1989. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(89)90019-0

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    Multiplicative pacing equilibria in auction markets

    Vincent Conitzer, Christian Kroer, Eric Sodomka, and Nicolas E Stier-Moses. Multiplicative pacing equilibria in auction markets. Operations Research, 70 0 (2): 0 963--989, 2022. doi:10.1287/opre.2021.2167

    2022

  5. [13]

    de Castro

    Luciano I. de Castro. Affiliation, equilibrium existence and the revenue ranking of auctions. 2007. URL https://hdl.handle.net/10419/59657

    2007

  6. [14]

    de Castro and Harry J

    Luciano I. de Castro and Harry J. Paarsch. Testing affiliation in private-values models of first-price auctions using grid distributions. The Annals of Applied Statistics, pages 2073--2098, 2010. doi:10.1214/10-AOAS344

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    First-price auctions in online display advertising

    Stylianos Despotakis, Ramamoorthi Ravi, and Amin Sayedi. First-price auctions in online display advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 58 0 (5): 0 888--907, 2021. doi:10.1177/00222437211030201

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    Interdependent values without single-crossing

    Alon Eden, Michal Feldman, Amos Fiat, and Kira Goldner. Interdependent values without single-crossing. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 369--369, 2018. doi:10.1145/3219166.3219173

    2018

  9. [18]

    Poa of simple auctions with interdependent values

    Alon Eden, Michal Feldman, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and Ori Zviran. Poa of simple auctions with interdependent values. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 5321--5329, 2021. doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i6.16671

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    Combinatorial Auctions with Interdependent Valuations: SOS to the Rescue

    Alon Eden, Michal Feldman, Amos Fiat, Kira Goldner, and Anna R Karlin. Combinatorial Auctions with Interdependent Valuations: SOS to the Rescue . Mathematics of Operations Research, 49 0 (2): 0 653--674, 2024. doi:10.1287/moor.2023.1371

    2024

  11. [20]

    On the complexity of equilibrium computation in first-price auctions

    Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Yiannis Giannakopoulos, Alexandros Hollender, Philip Lazos, and Diogo Poças. On the complexity of equilibrium computation in first-price auctions. SIAM Journal on Computing, 52 0 (1): 0 80--131, 2023. doi:10.1137/21M1435823

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    On the computation of equilibria in discrete first-price auctions

    Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Yiannis Giannakopoulos, Alexandros Hollender, and Charalampos Kokkalis. On the computation of equilibria in discrete first-price auctions. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 379--399, 2024. doi:10.1145/367086...

    2024

  13. [22]

    Optimal auctions for correlated buyers with sampling

    Hu Fu, Nima Haghpanah, Jason Hartline, and Robert Kleinberg. Optimal auctions for correlated buyers with sampling. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, pages 23--36, 2014. doi:10.1145/2600057.2602895

    2014

  14. [23]

    Garey and David S

    Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP -Completeness . Freeman, 1979

    1979

  15. [24]

    Griesmer, Richard E

    James H. Griesmer, Richard E. Levitan, and Martin Shubik. Toward a study of bidding processes part IV -- games with unknown costs. Naval Research Logistics, 14 0 (4): 0 415--433, 1967. doi:10.1002/nav.3800140402

    1967 doi

  16. [25]

    D. Yu. Grigor'ev and N.N. Vorobjov. Solving systems of polynomial inequalities in subexponential time. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 5 0 (1-2): 0 37--64, 1988. doi:10.1016/s0747-7171(88)80005-1

    1988 doi

  17. [26]

    Harsanyi

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by `` Bayesian '' players, I--III : Part I. T he basic model. Management Science, 14 0 (3): 0 159--182, 1967. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0270

    1967

  18. [27]

    Games with incomplete information played by ``Bayesian'' players part II

    John C Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by ``Bayesian'' players part II. Bayesian equilibrium points . Management science, 14 0 (5): 0 320--334, 1968 a . doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.5.320

    1968 doi

  19. [28]

    Harsanyi

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with Incomplete Information Played by ``Bayesian'' Players, I-III. Part III. The Basic Probability Distribution of the Game . Management Science, 14 0 (7): 0 486--502, 1968 b . ISSN 00251909, 15265501. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2628894

    1968

  20. [30]

    Jehle and Philip J

    Geoffrey A. Jehle and Philip J. Reny. Advanced Microeconomic Theory. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2001

    2001

  21. [31]

    Information impact and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: A laboratory study

    John H Kagel, Ronald M Harstad, and Dan Levin. Information impact and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: A laboratory study. Econometrica, 55 0 (6): 0 1275--1304, 1987. doi:10.2307/1913557

    1987 doi

  22. [32]

    A generalization of brouwer's fixed point theorem

    Shizuo Kakutani. A generalization of brouwer's fixed point theorem. Duke Mathematical Journal, 8 0 (3), September 1941. doi:10.1215/s0012-7094-41-00838-4

    1941 doi

  23. [33]

    Classes of orderings of measures and related correlation inequalities

    Samuel Karlin and Yosef Rinott. Classes of orderings of measures and related correlation inequalities. I. Multivariate totally positive distributions . Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 10 0 (4): 0 467--498, 1980. doi:10.1016/0047-259X(80)90065-2

    1980 doi

  24. [34]

    Auction Theory

    Vijay Krishna. Auction Theory. Academic Press, 2nd edition, 2009

    2009

  25. [35]

    Existence of an equilibrium in first price auctions

    Bernard Lebrun. Existence of an equilibrium in first price auctions. Economic Theory, 7: 0 421--443, 1996. doi:10.1007/BF01213659

    1996 doi

  26. [36]

    First price auctions in the asymmetric N bidder case

    Bernard Lebrun. First price auctions in the asymmetric N bidder case. International Economic Review, 40 0 (1): 0 125--142, 1999. doi:10.1111/1468-2354.00008

    1999

  27. [37]

    Uniqueness of the equilibrium in first-price auctions

    Bernard Lebrun. Uniqueness of the equilibrium in first-price auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 55 0 (1): 0 131--151, April 2006. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2005.01.006

    2006 doi

  28. [38]

    Testing for affiliation in first-price auctions using entry behavior

    Tong Li and Bingyu Zhang. Testing for affiliation in first-price auctions using entry behavior. International Economic Review, 51 0 (3): 0 837--850, 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2354.2010.00603.x

    2010

  29. [39]

    Uniqueness and existence of equilibrium in auctions with a reserve price

    Alessandro Lizzeri and Nicola Persico. Uniqueness and existence of equilibrium in auctions with a reserve price. Games and Economic Behavior, 30 0 (1): 0 83--114, January 2000. doi:10.1006/game.1998.0704

  30. [40]

    Marshall, Michael J

    Robert C. Marshall, Michael J. Meurer, Jean-Francois Richard, and Walter Stromquist. Numerical analysis of asymmetric first price auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 7 0 (2): 0 193--220, 1994. doi:10.1006/game.1994.1045

    1994

  31. [41]

    Equilibrium in sealed high bid auctions

    Eric Maskin and John Riley. Equilibrium in sealed high bid auctions. The Review of Economic Studies, 67 0 (3): 0 439--454, 2000. doi:10.1111/1467-937X.00138

    doi

  32. [42]

    Uniqueness of equilibrium in sealed high-bid auctions

    Eric Maskin and John Riley. Uniqueness of equilibrium in sealed high-bid auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 45 0 (2): 0 395--409, 2003. doi:10.1016/S0899-8256(03)00150-7

    2003 doi

  33. [43]

    Maskin and John G

    Eric S. Maskin and John G. Riley. Auction theory with private values. The American Economic Review, 75 0 (2): 0 150--155, 1985. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/1805587

    1985

  34. [44]

    Monotonicity in asymmetric first-price auctions with affiliation

    David McAdams. Monotonicity in asymmetric first-price auctions with affiliation. International Journal of Game Theory, 35: 0 427--453, 2007. doi:10.1007/s00182-006-0038-1

    2007 doi

  35. [45]

    Menezes and Paulo K

    Flavio M. Menezes and Paulo K. Monteiro. An Introduction to Auction Theory. Oxford University Press, 2004. doi:10.1093/019927598X.001.0001

    2004 doi

  36. [46]

    Putting Auction Theory to Work

    Paul Milgrom. Putting Auction Theory to Work. Cambridge University Press, 2004. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813825

    2004 doi

  37. [47]

    Monotone comparative statics

    Paul Milgrom and Chris Shannon. Monotone comparative statics. Econometrica, 62 0 (1): 0 157--180, 1994. doi:10.2307/2951479

    1994 doi

  38. [48]

    Milgrom and Robert J

    Paul R. Milgrom and Robert J. Weber. A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica, 50 0 (5): 0 1089--1122, 1982. ISSN 00129682, 14680262. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911865

    1982

  39. [49]

    Comments on ``Games with Incomplete Information Played by ``Bayesian'' Players, I--III Harsanyi's Games with Incoplete Information''

    Roger B Myerson. Comments on ``Games with Incomplete Information Played by ``Bayesian'' Players, I--III Harsanyi's Games with Incoplete Information'' . Management Science, 50 0 (12\_supplement): 0 1818--1824, 2004. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/30046152?seq=1

    2004

  40. [50]

    Why do competitive markets converge to first-price auctions? In Proceedings of The World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pages 596--605, 2020

    Renato Paes Leme, Balasubramanian Sivan, and Yifeng Teng. Why do competitive markets converge to first-price auctions? In Proceedings of The World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pages 596--605, 2020. doi:10.1145/3366423.3380142

    2020

  41. [51]

    On optimal single-item auctions

    Christos H Papadimitriou and George Pierrakos. On optimal single-item auctions. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 119--128, 2011. doi:10.1145/1993636.1993654

    2011

  42. [52]

    The affiliation effect in first-price auctions

    Joris Pinkse and Guofu Tan. The affiliation effect in first-price auctions. Econometrica, 73 0 (1): 0 263--277, 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00571.x

    2005

  43. [53]

    Characterization and computation of Nash -equilibria for auctions with incomplete information

    Michael Plum. Characterization and computation of Nash -equilibria for auctions with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory, 20 0 (4): 0 393--418, December 1992. doi:10.1007/bf01271133

    1992 doi

  44. [54]

    Reny and Shmuel Zamir

    Philip J. Reny and Shmuel Zamir. On the existence of pure strategy monotone equilibria in asymmetric first-price auctions. Econometrica, 72 0 (4): 0 1105--1125, July 2004. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00527.x

    2004

  45. [55]

    Riley and William F

    John G. Riley and William F. Samuelson. Optimal auctions. The American Economic Review, 71 0 (3): 0 381--392, 1981. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/1802786

    1981

  46. [56]

    Sheldon M. Ross. A First Course in Probability. Pearson Prentice Hall, 8th edition, 2010

    2010

  47. [57]

    Optimal and robust mechanism design with interdependent values

    Tim Roughgarden and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Optimal and robust mechanism design with interdependent values. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 4 0 (3): 0 1--34, 2016. doi:10.1145/2910577

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    H. L. Royden and P. M. Fitzpatrick. Real Analysis. Pearson, 4th edition, 2010

    2010

  49. [59]

    Craig A. Tovey. A simplified NP -complete satisfiability problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 8 0 (1): 0 85--89, 1984. doi:10.1016/0166-218x(84)90081-7

    1984 doi

  50. [60]

    Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders

    William Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16 0 (1): 0 8--37, March 1961. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.x

    1961

  51. [61]

    Auctions and bidding games

    William Vickrey. Auctions and bidding games. In Paul Klemperer, editor, The Economic Theory of Auctions, volume I of Princeton Conference Series, pages 95--107. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2000. Originally published in 1962 in: Recent Advances in Game Theory, no. 29 in Princeton ...

    2000

  52. [62]

    Bayesian Nash equilibrium in first-price auction with discrete value distributions

    Zihe Wang, Weiran Shen, and Song Zuo. Bayesian Nash equilibrium in first-price auction with discrete value distributions. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 1458--1466, 2020. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi...

    2020

  53. [63]

    Robert B. Wilson. Competitive bidding with disparate information. Management Science, 15 0 (7): 0 446--448, 1969. ISSN 00251909, 15265501. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2628640

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.