Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Posted Pricing and Competition in Large Markets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that in a large market with a fixed valuation distribution, a single posted price attains at least 71.2% of the optimal mechanism's welfare, and that the competition complexity of dynamic pricing is a universal constant.

desk verdict Genuine large-market results in the Fréchet case; the reversed-Weibull branch of the competition complexity theorem rests on an invalid inference and needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18061 v1 pith:U2BIRBGM submitted 2025-05-23 cs.GT

José Correa , Vasilis Livanos , Dana Pizarro , Victor Verdugo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 60G7060G4091B26
keywords postedpricingfixedpricepolicieslargemarketscompetitioncomplexityextremevaluetheoryprophetinequalitieswelfareguaranteesmulti-unitauctions
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 proves that when the market is large—the buyer distribution stays fixed while the number of buyers grows—simple posted prices perform far better than classic worst-case guarantees. For a single item, the guaranteed fraction of the optimal mechanism's welfare rises from the universal $1-1/e\approx 0.632$ to a tight $0.712$ for distributions in the Fr\'echet family, and to $1$ for Gumbel and reversed-Weibull types. For $k$ identical units the guarantee is at least $1-1/\sqrt{2\pi k}$, so the large-market advantage shrinks as $k$ grows. The paper also proves that the competition complexity—the multiplicative extra bidders a posted-price policy needs to match the optimal mechanism—is a universal constant, at most $e\approx 2.718$, overturning worst-case unboundedness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the extreme value condition, the analogue of the central limit theorem for the maximum of an i.i.d. sample: it says that $(M_n-b_n)/a_n$ converges to one of three named limit laws. The proofs rescale the price threshold by the quantile $a_n=F^{-1}(1-1/n)$ and pass to the limit; normalized order statistics converge to Poisson-type expressions, and regular-variation asymptotics give the tail integrals. This reduces the fixed-price approximation factor to the explicit optimization $\varphi_k(\alpha)$ and reduces the dynamic policy sequence $G_n(F)$ to the quantile approximation $G_n(F)\approx F^{-1}(1-(1-\gamma)/(n+1))$, from which the exact competition-complexity constant follows.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation: for the Pareto distribution with shape $\alpha\approx 1.656$, the fixed-price welfare ratio for a single item should approach about $0.712$ as $n\to\infty$; a limit below $0.71$ would refute the main guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the extreme value type of the valuation distribution completely governs both problems in the large-market limit. If $F$ has Fr\'echet type with shape $\alpha>1$, then for one item the fixed-price welfare guarantee is $\varphi_1(\alpha)\ge 0.712$, with the bound approached by a Pareto distribution of shape $\alpha^*\approx 1.656$; for $k$ items, the guarantee is $\varphi_k(\alpha)\ge 1-1/\sqrt{2\pi k}$, and this is asymptotically tight as $k\to\infty$. If $F$ has Gumbel or reversed-Weibull type, a fixed price asymptotically attains the full welfare of the optimal mechanism. For the optimal dynamic policy, the large-market competition complexity is $C(F)=(1-\gamma)(\Gamma(1-\gamma))^{1/\gamma}$ with $\gamma=1/\alpha,0,-1/\alpha$ respectively, which lies between $1$ and $e$; this breaks the previously established worst-case impossibility of unbounded competition complexity.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on a cited theorem that the optimal dynamic policy keeps a strictly positive fraction of the maximum valuation in every distribution with an extreme value limit; if that fraction were zero or failed to converge, the constant competition-complexity factors would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed Fr\'echet-type distribution, a single anonymous price recovers at least 71.2% of optimal welfare in a large market, beating the 63.2% guarantee that is tight when the distribution may vary with the market size.
  • In Gumbel and reversed-Weibull markets, fixed prices asymptotically achieve 100% of optimal welfare (and, under tail-regularity conditions, 100% of optimal revenue), so price discrimination buys nothing in the limit.
  • For $k$ identical units, the large-market fixed-price guarantee is at least $1-1/\sqrt{2\pi k}$ and is asymptotically tight, so the advantage of a large market disappears as the number of units grows.
  • The large-market competition complexity is a constant between 1 and $e$; in particular, multiplying the number of bidders by $e^{\gamma_\star}\approx 1.781$ suffices for Gumbel distributions, in sharp contrast to the unbounded worst case.
  • The adaptivity gap—the loss from using fixed prices instead of the optimal dynamic policy—is at most about 1.105 in large markets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same extreme-value analysis applies when the market size is random rather than fixed, the constant bidder-inflation factor would give a practical rule: attract a fixed multiplicative extra number of bidders instead of designing item-specific prices.
  • The asymptotic tightness for $k$ units suggests that large-market gains are concentrated in thin markets with small $k$; platforms selling many units per listing should not expect the same benefit from sheer scale.
  • A natural testable extension is whether the 0.712 threshold also holds for correlated valuations or for markets where the number of buyers depends on realized prices.
  • The contrast between welfare results (best for Gumbel) and competition-complexity results (best for Fr\'echet) hints that the distributions for which simple pricing is easiest are the ones for which matching the optimum by dynamic pricing is hardest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies fixed-price posted-price mechanisms for i.i.d. valuations under a large-market assumption, meaning the distribution is fixed and the number of bidders n tends to infinity. The authors prove that for distributions in the Fréchet domain of attraction the fixed-price welfare guarantee is at least φ_k(α), which for k=1 is claimed to be at least 0.712, improving the classical 1-1/e bound; for Gumbel and reversed-Weibull domains they prove the guarantee is exactly 1. For the k-unit case they prove a lower bound of 1-1/sqrt(2πk) and an asymptotic tightness result for Pareto(2). They also prove revenue analogues and compute the large-market competition complexity of the optimal dynamic policy as C(F)=(1-γ)(Γ(1-γ))^{1/γ}, yielding constant factors for the three extreme-value families. A case study on eBay Cartier-watch bidding data illustrates the computation of the threshold and the resulting guarantee.

Significance. If the results hold as stated, this is a substantial contribution: it replaces the worst-case fixed-price guarantee 1-1/e with a large-market guarantee of about 0.712, gives a clean asymptotic formula for the k-unit problem, and shows that the competition complexity of optimal dynamic pricing is constant under the extreme-value condition, breaking the previously known unbounded worst-case impossibility when the distribution may depend on n. The main proofs are mostly self-contained and use standard extreme-value and regular-variation tools; the lower bound 1-1/sqrt(2πk) is proved rigorously, and the empirical case study is a useful sanity check. However, several load-bearing claims need additional justification: the reversed-Weibull branch of Lemma 17 relies on an invalid implication, the printed reversed-Weibull formula in Theorem 4(c) has a sign error, and the claimed tightness of the 0.712 constant is asserted without a rigorous proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, proof of Lemma 17, γ<0 branch] The step where the product [(ω1-G_{n+1})/(ω1-E_{n+1})]·[(ω1-E_n)/(ω1-G_n)] is replaced by 1 is not justified by the cited statement that the prophet-inequality competitive ratio converges to a non-zero constant. For bounded-support distributions, convergence of G_n/E_n to 1 gives only first-order closeness; the ratio (ω1-G_n)/(ω1-E_n) can be asymptotically non-constant while G_n/E_n tends to 1. Since Lemma 17 is used to prove Theorem 4(c), this is load-bearing. Please either provide a direct proof that (ω1-G_n)/(ω1-E_n) is asymptotically constant (for example via Karamata-type arguments as in the surrounding lemmas) or cite a precise result from [45] that establishes the needed deficit-ratio convergence.
  2. [Theorem 4(c)] The displayed formula for the reversed-Weibull family has the wrong exponent. Substituting γ=-1/α into the general formula C(F)=(1-γ)(Γ(1-γ))^{1/γ} gives C(F)=(1+1/α)(Γ(1+1/α))^{-α}, not (1+1/α)(Γ(1+1/α))^α. The printed version contradicts Corollary 2(c): for α=2 it gives about 1.18, which is below the lower bound e^{γ*}≈1.781. This must be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.1, after Eq. (4)] The claim that the minimum of φ_1(α) is at least 0.712 and is attained at α*≈1.656 is asserted without proof. Since the statement 'apx_1(F)≥0.712' in Theorem 1(a) depends on this numerical minimization, a rigorous lower bound for the minimum (or a certified interval computation) is needed. In addition, the subsequent claim that this bound is tight and is reached by the Pareto distribution with parameter α* requires proving apx_1(Pareto(α*))=φ_1(α*); the paper proves such an equality only for α=2 in Lemma 8. Either provide the missing proof for general α or state the tightness as a numerical observation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 1 proof] There are recurrent typographical issues with parentheses, e.g. 'E(min{k,B n T ))' should be 'E(min{k,B_n^T})'; these make the displayed derivation harder to read.
  2. [Section 5, Welfare and Revenue Guarantees] In the eBay case study, the computation 'competitive ratio at least 3962.5/5400 ≈ 73.3%' needs a definition of the denominator 5400; presumably it is the sample maximum, but this should be stated explicitly so the reader can verify the ratio.
  3. [Eq. (4) and definition of U*(α)] The derivation of φ_1(α) states that the optimum is attained at the smallest non-negative solution of the first-order condition, but the global-maximization argument is not given. This is not a problem for the lower-bound direction if any feasible U is used, but the formula for φ_1 as a maximum needs a short justification or a reference.
  4. [Table 1] The table reports approximate values without indicating which entries are rigorous bounds and which are numerical computations; a footnote distinguishing proved bounds from numerically evaluated constants would improve precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the welfare and competition-complexity constants are derived from extreme value theory and the external Kennedy--Kertz result, not from fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The central results are not circular. Theorem 1's 0.712 constant and 1-1/sqrt(2pi k) bounds are obtained by taking T_n = a_n U in Proposition 1 and applying Lemma 4, whose proof uses only Karamata/regular-variation asymptotics and the Frechet domain-of-attraction characterization; no fitted parameter or self-citation enters. Theorem 4's competition complexity C(F) = (1-gamma)(Gamma(1-gamma))^{1/gamma} is derived by combining Lemma 13 (moments of maxima from EVT), Lemma 17 (asymptotics of the dynamic-policy sequence), and Lemma 14 (quantile scaling); the only external input is Kennedy--Kertz [45], whose asymptotic competitive-ratio result is independent of this paper's target quantities. Self-citations ([18], [19], [20], [9], [10]) are contextual or bridge known prophet/pricing equivalences; none supplies the numerical constants. We therefore find no step where a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. Two non-circular caveats are noted for completeness: (i) in Lemma 17's gamma<0 branch (Appendix D), the sentence 'where the last asymptotic equality follows from the fact that the competitive ratio of the prophet inequality converges asymptotically to a non-zero constant [45]' is a correctness gap, because G_n/E_n -> 1 does not imply (omega_1-G_n)/(omega_1-E_n) -> 1; so Theorem 4(c) rests on an unproven deficit-ratio assertion. This is a missing-support issue, not circularity, since [45] is external and does not define C(F). (ii) The eBay section fits the Frechet parameters to the same bids later used to report a 73.3% ratio; that is an in-sample illustration rather than an out-of-sample prediction and is not part of the theorem chain. Because self-citations appear but are not load-bearing, the score is 1 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main theorems introduce no new entities and fit no free parameters; all dependence on the distribution is through its extreme value parameter α (or γ). The only fitted quantities appear in the eBay case study and do not support the central claims.

free parameters (4)
  • Fréchet shape α (case study) = 2.24
    Estimated via Hill's estimator on 509 highest bids from eBay Cartier watch auctions; affects only the case study.
  • Fréchet scale s (case study) = 289
    Estimated by minimizing a method-of-moments loss; affects only the case study.
  • Fréchet location m (case study) = 0
    Assumed zero because bids are non-negative; affects only the case study.
  • Hill estimator threshold k (case study) = 97
    Chosen as the point where Hill's estimator 'stabilizes'; affects the fitted α.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption F satisfies the extreme value condition (domain of attraction of Gumbel, Fréchet, or reversed Weibull)
    Central to all theorems; invoked in Section 3, Theorem 1; excludes distributions such as F(x)=exp(-x-sin(x)).
  • domain assumption Valuations are i.i.d., absolutely continuous, non-negative, and have finite mean (α>1 for Fréchet)
    Modeling assumption stated in Section 2.
  • standard math Convergence in expectation of normalized order statistics [53, Prop. 2.1]
    Used in Lemma 4 and Lemma 6 to replace E(M_j^n/a_n) by its limit.
  • standard math Karamata's theorem and Potter bounds for regularly varying functions
    Used throughout Section D to approximate integrals of quantile functions.
  • standard math Kennedy-Kertz [45]: the optimal DP policy's competitive ratio tends to a non-zero constant
    Used in Lemma 17 to derive the asymptotic form of G_n(F).
  • standard math Gautschi's and Stirling's inequalities
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1(a) to bound φ_k(α) from below.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Posted Pricing and Competition in Large Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2BIRBGM

@misc{pith2026250518061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Posted Pricing and Competition in Large Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2BIRBGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18061}
}
abstract

Posted price mechanisms are prevalent in allocating goods within online marketplaces due to their simplicity and practical efficiency. We explore a fundamental scenario where buyers' valuations are independent and identically distributed, focusing specifically on the allocation of a single unit. Inspired by the rapid growth and scalability of modern online marketplaces, we investigate optimal performance guarantees under the assumption of a significantly large market. We show a large market benefit when using fixed prices, improving the known guarantee of $1-1/e\approx 0.632$ to $0.712$. We then study the case of selling $k$ identical units, and we prove that the optimal fixed price guarantee approaches $1-1/\sqrt{2k \pi}$, which implies that the large market advantage vanishes as $k$ grows. We use real-world auction data to test our fixed price policies in the large market regime. Next, under the large market assumption, we show that the competition complexity for the optimal posted price mechanism is constant, and we identify precise scaling factors for the number of bidders that enable it to match benchmark performance. Remarkably, our findings break previously established worst-case impossibility results, underscoring the practical robustness and efficiency of posted pricing in large-scale marketplaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our optimal welfare guarantee over k (continuous line) vs. 1 − 1/ √ 2kπ (dashed line). A natural and practically relevant extension of the problem of selling a single item is to consider the setting in which we can sell up to k items. We call this problem k-unit problem and we study whether the large market advantage continues to be significant beyond the single item case. To this end, we provide a lower bound for t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency histograms of real (2a) and simulated data (2b) representing the valuations of 509 bidders for 7-day auctions of Cartier watches on eBay, organized into bins of width 200. The density of the Frechet distribution F r(m = 0, s = 289, α = 2.24), the best fit for the real data, is overlaid on top of both. The simulated data is drawn randomly from the same distribution. achieve this, we will examine two key var… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    P., and Kertz, R

    Kennedy, D. P., and Kertz, R. P.The asymptotic behavior of the reward sequence in the optimal stopping of iid random variables.The Annals of Probability(1991), 329–341

    work page 1991

  2. [1]

    Abdallah, T., and Reed, J.Regime dependent approximations for the single-item dynamic pricing problem.Submitted for publication(2025). 12

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    InFOCS(2013), pp

    Alaei, S., Fu, H., Haghpanah, N., and Hartline, J.The simple economics of approximately optimal auctions. InFOCS(2013), pp. 628–637

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    anonymous pricing.Games and Economic Behavior 118(2019), 494–510

    Alaei, S., Hartline, J., Niazadeh, R., Pountourakis, E., and Yuan, Y.Optimal auctions vs. anonymous pricing.Games and Economic Behavior 118(2019), 494–510

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Arnosti, N., and Ma, W.Tight guarantees for static threshold policies in the prophet secretary problem.Operations Research 71, 5 (2023), 1777–1788

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    InProceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)(2021), SIAM, pp

    Arsenis, M., Drosis, O., and Kleinberg, R.Constrained-order prophet inequalities. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)(2021), SIAM, pp. 2034–2046

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    P., P ´al, M., and Sivan, B.Improved revenue bounds for posted-price and second-price mechanisms.Operations Research 69, 6 (2021), 1805–1822

    Beyhaghi, H., Golrezaei, N., Leme, R. P., P ´al, M., and Sivan, B.Improved revenue bounds for posted-price and second-price mechanisms.Operations Research 69, 6 (2021), 1805–1822

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    M.Optimal (and benchmark-optimal) competition complexity for additive buyers over independent items

    Beyhaghi, H., and Weinberg, S. M.Optimal (and benchmark-optimal) competition complexity for additive buyers over independent items. InSTOC(2019), pp. 686–696

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    H., Goldie, C

    Bingham, N. H., Goldie, C. M., and Teugels, J. L.Regular Variation. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1987

  2. [9]

    Brustle, J., Correa, J., Duetting, P., and Verdugo, V.The competition complexity of dynamic pricing.Mathematics of Operations Research 49, 3 (2024), 1986–2008

    2024

  3. [10]

    Brustle, J., Correa, J., D ¨utting, P., Ezra, T., Feldman, M., and Verdugo, V.The competition complexity of prophet inequalities.Mathematics of Operations Research(2025), forthcoming

    2025

  4. [11]

    Brustle, J., Perez-Salazar, S., and Verdugo, V.Splitting guarantees for prophet inequalities via nonlinear systems.Mathematics of Operations Research(2025), forthcoming

    2025

  5. [12]

    Bulow, J., and Klemperer, P.Auctions versus negotiations.American Economic Review 86, 1 (1996), 180–94

    1996

  6. [13]

    Cai, Y., and Daskalakis, C.Extreme value theorems for optimal multidimensional pricing.Games and Economic Behavior 92(2015), 266–305

    2015

  7. [14]

    InWINE(2010), pp

    Chakraborty, T., Even-Dar, E., Guha, S., Mansour, Y., and Muthukrishnan, S.Approxi- mation schemes for sequential posted pricing in multi-unit auctions. InWINE(2010), pp. 158–169

    2010

  8. [15]

    D., Malec, D

    Chawla, S., Hartline, J. D., Malec, D. L., and Sivan, B.Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing. InSTOC(2010), pp. 311–320

    2010

  9. [16]

    P.On the medians of gamma distributions and an equation of ramanujan.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 121, 1 (1994), 245–251

    Choi, K. P.On the medians of gamma distributions and an equation of ramanujan.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 121, 1 (1994), 245–251

    1994

  10. [17]

    InEC(2016), pp

    Cohen-Addad, V., Eden, A., Feldman, M., and Fiat, A.The invisible hand of dynamic market pricing. InEC(2016), pp. 383–400

    2016

  11. [18]

    Correa, J., Foncea, P., Hoeksma, R., Oosterwijk, T., and Vredeveld, T.Posted price mechanisms and optimal threshold strategies for random arrivals.Mathematics of Operations Research 46, 4 (2021), 1452–1478

    2021

  12. [19]

    Correa, J., Foncea, P., Pizarro, D., and Verdugo, V.From pricing to prophets, and back! Operations Research Letters 47, 1 (2019), 25–29

    2019

  13. [20]

    InSAGT(2021), Springer, pp

    Correa, J., Pizarro, D., and Verdugo, V.Optimal revenue guarantees for pricing in large markets. InSAGT(2021), Springer, pp. 221–235

    2021

  14. [21]

    D¨utting, P., Fischer, F., and Klimm, M.Revenue gaps for static and dynamic posted pricing of homogeneous goods.arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07105(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M.The competition complexity of auctions: A bulow-klemperer result for multi-dimensional bidders

    Eden, A., Feldman, M., Friedler, O., Talgam-Cohen, I., and Weinberg, S. M.The competition complexity of auctions: A bulow-klemperer result for multi-dimensional bidders. InEC(2017), p. 343. 13

    2017

  16. [23]

    Ehsani, S., Hajiaghayi, M., Kesselheim, T., and Singla, S.Prophet secretary for combinatorial auctions and matroids.SIAM Journal on Computing 53, 6 (2024), 1641–1662

    2024

  17. [24]

    Ezra, T., and Garbuz, T.The competition complexity of prophet inequalities with correlations.To appear in EC(2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Ezra, T., and Garbuz, T.The competition complexity of prophet secretary.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10892(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    InEC (2018), pp

    Feldman, M., Friedler, O., and Rubinstein, A.99% revenue via enhanced competition. InEC (2018), pp. 443–460

    2018

  20. [27]

    D., and Li, Y.Optimal auctions vs

    Feng, Y., Hartline, J. D., and Li, Y.Optimal auctions vs. anonymous pricing: Beyond linear utility. InEC(2019), pp. 885–886

    2019

  21. [28]

    Feng, Y., and Jin, Y.Beyond regularity: Simple versus optimal mechanisms, revisited.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03583(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A., and Tippett, L

    Fisher, R. A., and Tippett, L. H. C.Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample. InMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (1928), vol. 24, Cambridge University Press, pp. 180–190

    1928

  23. [30]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics 38, 1 (1959), 77–81

    Gautschi, W.Some elementary inequalities relating to the gamma and incomplete gamma function. Journal of Mathematical Physics 38, 1 (1959), 77–81

    1959

  24. [31]

    ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 9, 1 (2021), 1–28

    Giannakopoulos, Y., Po c ¸as, D., and Zhu, K.Optimal pricing for mhr and λ-regular distributions. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 9, 1 (2021), 1–28

    2021

  25. [32]

    P., and Mosteller, F.Recognizing the maximum of a sequence.Journal of the American Statistical Association 61(1966), 35–76

    Gilbert, J. P., and Mosteller, F.Recognizing the maximum of a sequence.Journal of the American Statistical Association 61(1966), 35–76

    1966

  26. [33]

    Gnedenko, B.Sur la distribution limite du terme maximum d’une serie aleatoire.Annals of Mathematics (1943), 423–453

    1943

  27. [34]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 47, 1 (2022), 29–49

    Goldenshluger, A., and Zeevi, A.Optimal stopping of a random sequence with unknown distribution. Mathematics of Operations Research 47, 1 (2022), 29–49. [35]Haan, L., and Ferreira, A.Extreme Value Theory: An Introduction. Springer, 2006

    2022

  28. [36]

    T., Kleinberg, R., and Sandholm, T.Automated online mechanism design and prophet inequalities

    Hajiaghayi, M. T., Kleinberg, R., and Sandholm, T.Automated online mechanism design and prophet inequalities. InAAAI(2007), vol. 7, pp. 58–65

    2007

  29. [37]

    D., and Lucier, B.Non-optimal mechanism design.American Economic Review 105, 10 (2015), 3102–24

    Hartline, J. D., and Lucier, B.Non-optimal mechanism design.American Economic Review 105, 10 (2015), 3102–24

    2015

  30. [38]

    D., and Roughgarden, T.Simple versus optimal mechanisms

    Hartline, J. D., and Roughgarden, T.Simple versus optimal mechanisms. InEC(2009), pp. 225–234

    2009

  31. [39]

    M.A Simple General Approach to Inference About the Tail of a Distribution.The Annals of Statistics 3, 5 (1975), 1163 – 1174

    Hill, B. M.A Simple General Approach to Inference About the Tail of a Distribution.The Annals of Statistics 3, 5 (1975), 1163 – 1174

    1975

  32. [40]

    P., and Kertz, R

    Hill, T. P., and Kertz, R. P.Comparisons of stop rule and supremum expectations of i.i.d. random variables.The Annals of Probability 10, 2 (1982), 336–345

    1982

  33. [41]

    InEC 2023(2023), p

    Jiang, J., Ma, W., and Zhang, J.Tightness without counterexamples: A new approach and new results for prophet inequalities. InEC 2023(2023), p. 909

    2023

  34. [42]

    InEC (2021), pp

    Jin, Y., Jiang, S., Lu, P., and Zhang, H.Tight revenue gaps among multi-unit mechanisms. InEC (2021), pp. 654–673

    2021

  35. [43]

    G., and Xiao, T.Tight approximation ratio of anonymous pricing

    Jin, Y., Lu, P., Qi, Q., Tang, Z. G., and Xiao, T.Tight approximation ratio of anonymous pricing. InSTOC(2019), pp. 674–685

    2019

  36. [44]

    G., and Xiao, T.Tight revenue gaps among simple mechanisms.SIAM Journal on Computing 49, 5 (2020), 927–958

    Jin, Y., Lu, P., Tang, Z. G., and Xiao, T.Tight revenue gaps among simple mechanisms.SIAM Journal on Computing 49, 5 (2020), 927–958. 14

    2020

  37. [46]

    P.Stop rule and supremum expectations of i.i.d

    Kertz, R. P.Stop rule and supremum expectations of i.i.d. rando mvariables: A complete comparison by conjugate duality.Journal of Multivariate Analysis 19(1986), 88–112

    1986

  38. [47]

    M.Matroid prophet inequalities and applications to multi- dimensional mechanism design.Games and Economic Behavior 113(2019), 97–115

    Kleinberg, R., and Weinberg, S. M.Matroid prophet inequalities and applications to multi- dimensional mechanism design.Games and Economic Behavior 113(2019), 97–115

    2019

  39. [48]

    R., Lindgren, G., and Rootz ´en, H.Extremes and related properties of random sequences and processes

    Leadbetter, M. R., Lindgren, G., and Rootz ´en, H.Extremes and related properties of random sequences and processes. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  40. [49]

    InSODA (2018), pp

    Liu, S., and Psomas, C.-A.On the competition complexity of dynamic mechanism design. InSODA (2018), pp. 2008–2025

    2018

  41. [50]

    InSODA(2024), pp

    Livanos, V., and Mehta, R.Minimization is harder in the prophet world. InSODA(2024), pp. 424–461

    2024

  42. [51]

    Livanos, V., and Mehta, R.Minimization iid prophet inequality via extreme value theory: A unified approach.To appear in EC(2025)

    2025

  43. [52]

    InSODA(2025), pp

    Molina, M., Gast, N., Loiseau, P., and Perchet, V.Prophet inequalities: Competing with the topℓitems is easy. InSODA(2025), pp. 1270–1307. [53]Resnick, S. I.Extreme values, regular variation and point processes. Springer, 2013

    2025

  44. [54]

    Saint-Mont, U.A simple derivation of a complicated prophet region.Journal of Multivariate Analysis 80(2002), 67–72

    2002

  45. [55]

    [56]Yan, Q.Mechanism design via correlation gap

    Samuel-Cahn, E.Comparisons of threshold stop rule and maximum for independent nonnegative random variables.The Annals of Probability 12, 4 (1983), 1213–1216. [56]Yan, Q.Mechanism design via correlation gap. InSODA(2011), pp. 710–719. 15 A Welfare Guarantees: Proof of Theorem 1...

    1983

Pith tools

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