REVIEW 1 cited by
Auctions Between Regret-Minimizing Agents
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Auctions Between Regret-Minimizing Agents
read the original abstract
We analyze a scenario in which software agents implemented as regret-minimizing algorithms engage in a repeated auction on behalf of their users. We study first-price and second-price auctions, as well as their generalized versions (e.g., as those used for ad auctions). Using both theoretical analysis and simulations, we show that, surprisingly, in second-price auctions the players have incentives to misreport their true valuations to their own learning agents, while in the first-price auction it is a dominant strategy for all players to truthfully report their valuations to their agents.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
When Is Delegated Play Truthful? Within-Range Regret and the Trilemma of Aligned Delegation
The gain from misreporting to your own proxy equals the proxy's within-range regret, so honest reporting is optimal exactly when the proxy already plays the best reachable action; guardrails then face a binding–truthf...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.