Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 51 references

Competition Complexity in Multi-Item Auctions: Beyond VCG and Regularity

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 For α-strongly regular items, adding Θ(n/α) bidders lets the simple VCG auction match the Bayesian optimal revenue, with the required number of extra bidders independent of how many items are sold.

desk verdict A strong, likely-correct advance on competition complexity for α-strongly regular distributions; the main new VCG bound is item-count-free, but the extremal reduction in Lemma 3.3 needs an honest repair before I'd call it settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09291 v1 pith:Z24CW52V submitted 2025-06-10 cs.GT econ.TH

Hedyeh Beyhaghi , Linda Cai , Yiding Feng , Yingkai Li , S. Matthew Weinberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTecon.TH MSC 91B2691B03
keywords competitioncomplexitymulti-itemauctionsVCGauctionα-strongregularitygeneralizedParetodistributiongrandbundlingsecond-priceBayesianoptimalmechanism
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 asks how many extra bidders a seller must attract before simple, prior-free auctions match the revenue of complicated Bayesian optimal mechanisms in multi-item markets, and shows the answer can be far smaller than previously known. For item values drawn from α-strongly regular distributions, the VCG auction needs only Θ(n/α) additional bidders to beat the welfare benchmark, a bound that does not grow with the number of items m, whereas under plain regularity the known bound is Θ(n log(m/n)). The paper also shows that selling all items as a grand bundle via a second-price auction has constant competition complexity in the single-bidder MHR case, and constant-factor approximation guarantees for regular items. The upshot is that, in these distributional families, the advantage of fine-tuning mechanisms based on distributional knowledge shrinks dramatically.

What carries the argument

The proof's load-bearing object is the generalized Pareto distribution, which the paper argues is the extremal α-strongly regular distribution for the gap between second-highest and highest order statistics: if the second-highest of N generalized Pareto draws exceeds the highest of n draws, then the same holds for any α-strongly regular distribution. The comparison runs through the density functions ξ2:N(q) and ξ1:n(q) of quantile order statistics, a three-interval crossing structure (Lemma 3.4), and a cited tail bound (Lemma 3.5) that controls how an α-strongly regular distribution can deviate from the Pareto shape. For the bundle results, a randomized m×(m+1) quantile matrix couples the duality benchmark to a two-player zero-sum game whose value equals BSPA revenue, allowing per-matrix comparisons.

What would settle it

Fix an α∈(0,1) and n, then numerically evaluate F2:N − F1:n for a non-Pareto α-strongly regular distribution with the same strong-regularity slope and compare it to the generalized Pareto value at the same N; if any such distribution yields a smaller gap while satisfying the quantile-crossing constraints of Lemma 3.3, the extremal reduction is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a tight characterization of VCG's competition complexity for α-strongly regular item distributions: with n original bidders and any number of items, VCG with n + Cn,α bidders achieves at least the first-best welfare of n bidders, where Cn,α is a constant depending only on n and α and lying between max{1/α−1,1}·n and 11n/α. This is tight both against the welfare benchmark and against Bayesian optimal revenue, so the Θ(n/α) growth is not an artifact of a weak benchmark. For the bundle-based second-price auction, the paper establishes that four bidders suffice against welfare in the single-bidder MHR case regardless of item count, that m+1 bidders beat the duality benchmark when m∈{2,3} regular items, and that two bidders always obtain a constant (48) approximation to optimal revenue for any number of regular items.

Load-bearing premise

The item-independent VCG bound rests on the cited extremal lemma that the generalized Pareto distribution minimizes the gap between the second-highest and highest order statistics among all α-strongly regular distributions; if that distributional reduction fails, the Θ(n/α) bound does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For α-strongly regular (and in particular MHR) items, the number of extra bidders needed for VCG to outperform optimal mechanisms is linear in n and independent of m, so competition complexity no longer penalizes many-item markets.
  • The same Θ(n/α) bound holds against the Bayesian optimal revenue benchmark, so the welfare benchmark is not giving away the result.
  • With a single bidder and MHR items, four bidders in a grand-bundle second-price auction recover the full welfare benchmark, a constant competition complexity.
  • For any number of regular items, two bidders in the grand-bundle second-price auction recover a constant fraction (1/48) of optimal revenue, and the optimally priced grand bundle recovers a constant fraction (1/18).
  • The gap between prior work's Θ(n log(m/n)) and the new Θ(n/α) quantifies exactly how much stronger α-strong regularity is than plain regularity for the value of distributional knowledge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the extremal role of the generalized Pareto distribution is robust, the same order-statistic comparison may yield competition complexity bounds for other mechanisms that depend mainly on the tail index of the distribution family, not on m.
  • The quantile-matrix coupling between BSPA and the duality benchmark is stated for any m and may give a path toward proving sub-exponential competition complexity for BSPA with general m, a problem the paper leaves open for m≥4.
  • The constant approximation results suggest an empirical prediction: in markets with many regular items and few bidders, simple pure bundling should capture a fixed fraction of optimal revenue, which could be tested in calibrated revenue curves.
  • The paper's lower-bound construction needs m→∞ to make optimal revenue approach welfare; for finite m, the exact number of extra bidders needed may be smaller, and pinning down finite-m rates is a natural next step.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies competition complexity—the number of additional bidders needed for a simple auction to match the optimal revenue with the original bidders—in multi-item additive-value auctions. Under α-strong regularity, the authors prove that the VCG auction's competition complexity against the welfare benchmark is Θ(n/α), independent of the number of items m, with explicit bounds Cn,α ∈ [max{1/α−1,1}·n, 11n/α] (Theorem 1.1), and they show this many additional bidders are necessary even against the Bayesian optimal revenue when m→∞. They also study bundle-based second-price auctions: BSPA has competition complexity at most 3 against welfare for one MHR bidder (Theorem 1.2), at most m against the CDW benchmark for m=2,3 regular items (Theorem 1.3), and BSPA with two bidders is a 48-approximation to optimal revenue for regular items (Theorem 1.4). Along the way they prove BRev is an 18-approximation for regular items and give e-approximations for MHR. The proofs combine an extremal order-statistics reduction to generalized Pareto distributions, a quantile-matrix two-player game for BSPA, and core-tail decompositions.

Significance. If the proofs are repaired, the VCG result is a substantial advance: it replaces the Θ(n log(m/n)) competition-complexity bound for regular distributions with an item-independent Θ(n/α) bound under strong regularity, and the lower bound against the Bayesian optimal benchmark shows the bound is not an artifact of the welfare benchmark. The quantile-matrix zero-sum formulation of BSPA revenue is elegant and likely useful beyond this paper; the constant-factor approximation results for bundling (Theorems 1.4 and 1.5) are new and nicely complement the known results for selling separately. The paper is also careful to flag which numerical claims in the examples are only numerical. However, several load-bearing proofs are incomplete or contain incorrect statements, so the results are not yet established as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.5] The proof of Lemma 3.3 silently changes the meaning of q† and q‡. Lemma 3.5 is stated with F(v1)=q† and F(v2)=q‡ (CDF values), but in the proof q†<q‡ while v1>v2, and the extremal distribution is written as 1−F̃(v)=q‡·Γ_α(...), so q† and q‡ are being used as survival probabilities. Under the CDF reading, Lemma 3.5 is not correct: at v=v1 it would give 1−q† ≥ q†, and for α=1, Γ^{-1}(q†/q‡) is negative when q†/q‡>1. Additionally, the 'by construction' step is not demonstrated: the shift v0 is defined through (1−q‡) rather than q‡, the stated scale factor is not checked against the standard Pareto survival function, and the sign preservation of F2:N−F1:n under the affine transformation is asserted without proof. Because Theorem 1.1's m-free upper bound depends entirely on Lemma 3.3, this proof gap must be closed with a fully expanded reduction.
  2. [Lemma 3.1] The proof of the upper bound contains an algebraic error: ∫_{τ̂}^∞ (n/2)(1+v)^{-1/(1−α)} dv = n(2n)^{-α}(1−α)/(2α), which equals (2n)^{1−α}(1−α)/(4α), not (2n)^{1−α}(1−α)/(2α) as in Eq. (3). Consequently the displayed sufficient condition N ≥ n(2α/(α(1−α)))^{1/(1−α)} does not follow from the preceding inequalities, and the claimed upper bound Cn,α ≤ 11n/α in Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 1.1 is not established as written. Please correct the computation or supply a different valid derivation of the stated bound.
  3. [Lemma 5.4] The proof uses the concavity inequality R(q) ≥ (1−q)/(1−q*)R(q*) + (q−q*)/(1−q*)R(1) without verifying q ∈ [q*,1]. The needed fact q ≥ q* does follow from OPT1(F)=p* q* ≤ p*, so that the price OPT1(F) is at most the monopoly price p*, but the proof must state this. As written, the derivation of q ≥ 1/2 is incomplete.
  4. [Lemma 5.3 and Appendix C.1, Lemma 5.10] The claim that Pr_{v∼F†}[∑_j v_j ≥ 1/2 SRev1(F)] = 1/2 is false: for two items with equal OPT1(Fj), the left-hand side is 3/4. The correct statement is ≥ 1/2, which follows because the map S ↦ S^c pairs subsets of total weight below W/2 with subsets above W/2. With this replacement the constants 4 and 8 in Lemmas 5.3 and 5.10 are unchanged, so the theorem statements survive, but the proofs as written contain an incorrect assertion.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 4.3] In the display defining CDW1(Q), the term '2g_F(Q*[i,k])' should read '2g_F(Q*[i,2])'.
  2. [Theorem 3.8] The notation BSPA_{n+o(exp(m))} would be clearer as 'for any N = n + o(exp(m)) bidders', since the lower bound is asymptotic in m for a fixed function N(m).
  3. [Definition 3.1] The remark that the identity F2:n+Cn,α = αF1:n+Cn,α − (1−α) 'can be directly computed' should be expanded to show the virtual-value calculation, since this identity is used repeatedly and is central to the definition of Cn,α.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central VCG and BSPA bounds are benchmark-based reductions to external extremal lemmas, not to fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper compares prior-independent mechanisms (VCG, BSPA) against externally defined benchmarks (OPT, CDW, WEL) and fits no parameter that is later renamed as a prediction. The main m-free VCG bound rests on Lemma 3.3, which reduces α-strongly regular distributions to the generalized Pareto distribution via Lemma 3.4 and the external extremal bounds of Allouah et al. (2022). This is a mathematical reduction to a published external theorem, not a definitional equivalence; C_{n,alpha} is defined independently as the generalized-Pareto threshold, and Lemma 3.3 is then needed to transfer that threshold to all α-strongly regular distributions. The compressed 'by construction' shift-and-scale step at the end of the proof of Lemma 3.3, together with the q-dagger/q-double-dagger quantile-versus-survival notation mismatch, is a genuine rigor concern, but it is a proof gap and not a circular step. Similarly, Theorem 3.8 invokes Lemma 3.7 for uniform distributions even though Lemma 3.7 is stated only for generalized Pareto and exponential laws; that is an overstatement of scope, not circularity. Section 5 uses Lemmas 5.2 and 5.9 from Babaioff et al. (2020), which shares an author with the present paper, but that is a published JACM result with stated assumptions and is used as independent support; it does not make the present claims reduce to their own inputs. Other self-citations (Cai et al. 2021, Eden et al. 2017, Beyhaghi and Weinberg 2019) are contextual or benchmark-related and are not load-bearing in a circular way. Overall, no derivation step in the paper is forced by its own premises or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, forces, or fitted parameters. It relies on standard mathematical tools (Myerson theory, order statistics, weak law of large numbers, Hoeffding bounds), standard domain assumptions (i.i.d. additive bidders, atomless distributions, regularity and MHR classes), and a set of cited external lemmas. The main load-bearing external inputs are the extremal characterization of Allouah et al. (2022) and the core-tail decomposition of Babaioff et al. (2020).

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Bidders are ex ante symmetric, i.i.d., and have additive valuations over independent items.
    Section 2 states the model: each bidder's value profile is drawn from a product distribution with independent marginal distributions.
  • domain assumption Value distributions are continuous and atomless.
    Section 2 assumes continuous atomless distributions so that CDFs are strictly increasing, quantile functions are well defined, and ties have probability zero.
  • domain assumption Definition of α-strongly regular distributions (virtual values are α-strongly monotone).
    Definition 2.2 introduces the central distributional class studied in Theorem 1.1.
  • standard math Myerson's virtual value characterization and Bulow-Roberts revenue curve concavity.
    Used throughout for revenue equivalence, for the identity E[V2:N] = E[φ(V1:N)] under regularity, and for Lemma 5.5 on concave revenue curves.
  • standard math Extremal bounds for α-strongly regular distributions (Allouah et al., 2022, Lemma 3.5).
    Cited in the proof of Lemma 3.3; this is the key external extremal characterization used to reduce to generalized Pareto distributions.
  • standard math Sums of independent MHR distributions are MHR (Barlow et al., 1963).
    Used in Theorems 1.2 and 3.9 and in the MHR approximation propositions to treat the grand bundle value as a single MHR item.
  • standard math Babaioff et al. (2020): OPT ≤ 2·BRev + 4·SRev, and their core-tail decomposition lemmas.
    Used as external building blocks for the BRev 18-approximation and the BSPA 48-approximation in Section 5.
  • standard math Weak law of large numbers and Hoeffding's inequality.
    Used in Lemma 3.7 to show that optimal revenue converges to welfare for generalized Pareto, and in Theorem 3.8 for the exponential lower bound for bundling.
  • standard math Quantile-based duality benchmark upper bounds optimal revenue for regular distributions (Cai et al., 2021; Eden et al., 2017).
    Theorem 2.2 provides the CDW benchmark used in Theorem 1.3 and Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Competition Complexity in Multi-Item Auctions: Beyond VCG and Regularity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z24CW52V

@misc{pith2026250609291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Competition Complexity in Multi-Item Auctions: Beyond VCG and Regularity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z24CW52V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09291}
}
abstract

We quantify the value of the monopoly's bargaining power in terms of competition complexity--that is, the number of additional bidders the monopoly must attract in simple auctions to match the expected revenue of the optimal mechanisms (c.f., Bulow and Klemperer, 1996, Eden et al., 2017)--within the setting of multi-item auctions. We show that for simple auctions that sell items separately, the competition complexity is $\Theta(\frac{n}{\alpha})$ in an environment with $n$ original bidders under the slightly stronger assumption of $\alpha$-strong regularity, in contrast to the standard regularity assumption in the literature, which requires $\Omega(n \cdot \ln \frac{m}{n})$ additional bidders (Feldman et al., 2018). This significantly reduces the value of learning the distribution to design the optimal mechanisms, especially in large markets with many items for sale. For simple auctions that sell items as a grand bundle, we establish a constant competition complexity bound in a single-bidder environment when the number of items is small or when the value distribution has a monotone hazard rate. Some of our competition complexity results also hold when we compete against the first best benchmark (i.e., optimal social welfare).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The revenue comparison between different mechanisms and benchmark for selling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Hasse diagram of the multi-item mechanisms and benchmarks (i.e., an arrow “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of permutations σi (permutes the i-th row) and σ (permutes all rows) in Definition 4.1. value for item i is F −1 i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graphical illustration of Lemma 5.4 and its analysis. The black solid curve is the concave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the four cases in Lemma 4.5, ”x” represent the position of first/second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pricing with samples

    Amine Allouah, Achraf Bahamou, and Omar Besbes. Pricing with samples. Operations Research, 70 0 (2): 0 1088--1104, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Optimal pricing with a single point

    Amine Allouah, Achraf Bahamou, and Omar Besbes. Optimal pricing with a single point. Management Science, 69 0 (10): 0 5866--5882, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Fine-grained buy-many mechanisms are not much better than bundling

    Sepehr Assadi, Vikram Kher, George Li, and Ariel Schvartzman. Fine-grained buy-many mechanisms are not much better than bundling. In Kevin Leyton - Brown, Jason D. Hartline, and Larry Samuelson, editors, Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2023, London, United Kingdom, July 9-12, 2023 , pages 123--152. ACM , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Optimal deterministic mechanisms for an additive buyer

    Moshe Babaioff, Noam Nisan, and Aviad Rubinstein. Optimal deterministic mechanisms for an additive buyer. In \' E va Tardos, Edith Elkind, and Rakesh Vohra, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Ithaca, NY, USA, June 18-22, 2018 , page 429. ACM , 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Matthew Weinberg

    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 0 (4): 0 24:1--24:40, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Properties of probability distributions with monotone hazard rate

    Richard E Barlow, Albert W Marshall, and Frank Proschan. Properties of probability distributions with monotone hazard rate. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 375--389, 1963

    work page 1963

  7. [7]

    Revenue maximization for selling multiple correlated items

    MohammadHossein Bateni, Sina Dehghani, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, and Saeed Seddighin. Revenue maximization for selling multiple correlated items. In Nikhil Bansal and Irene Finocchi, editors, Algorithms - ESA 2015 - 23rd Annual European Symposium, Patras, Greece, September 14-16, 2015, Proceedings , volume 9294 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages ...

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Haupt, and Alex Smolin

    Dirk Bergemann, Alessandro Bonatti, Andreas A. Haupt, and Alex Smolin. The optimality of upgrade pricing. In Michal Feldman, Hu Fu, and Inbal Talgam - Cohen, editors, Web and Internet Economics - 17th International Conference, WINE 2021, Potsdam, Germany, December 14-17, 2021, Proceedings , volume 13112 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 41--58. ...

    work page 2021

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Matthew Weinberg

    Hedyeh Beyhaghi and S. Matthew Weinberg. Optimal (and benchmark-optimal) competition complexity for additive buyers over independent items. In Moses Charikar and Edith Cohen, editors, Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019, Phoeni...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Approximating gains from trade in two-sided markets via simple mechanisms

    Johannes Brustle, Yang Cai, Fa Wu, and Mingfei Zhao. Approximating gains from trade in two-sided markets via simple mechanisms. In Constantinos Daskalakis, Moshe Babaioff, and Herv \' e Moulin, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '1...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Auctions versus negotiations

    Jeremy Bulow and Paul Klemperer. Auctions versus negotiations. The American Economic Review, 86 0 (1): 0 180--194, 1996

    1996

  4. [12]

    The simple economics of optimal auctions

    Jeremy Bulow and John Roberts. The simple economics of optimal auctions. Journal of political economy, 97 0 (5): 0 1060--1090, 1989

    1989

  5. [13]

    Linda Cai and Raghuvansh R. Saxena. 99 \ In P \' e ter Bir \' o , Shuchi Chawla, and Federico Echenique, editors, EC '21: The 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Budapest, Hungary, July 18-23, 2021 , pages 224--241. ACM , 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Simple mechanisms for subadditive buyers via duality

    Yang Cai and Mingfei Zhao. Simple mechanisms for subadditive buyers via duality. In Hamed Hatami, Pierre McKenzie, and Valerie King, editors, Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2017, Montreal, QC, Canada, June 19-23, 2017 , pages 1...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Devanur, and S

    Yang Cai, Nikhil R. Devanur, and S. Matthew Weinberg. A duality-based unified approach to bayesian mechanism design. SIAM Journal on Computing, 50 0 (3), 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Benjamin Miller

    Shuchi Chawla and J. Benjamin Miller. Mechanism design for subadditive agents via an ex ante relaxation. In Vincent Conitzer, Dirk Bergemann, and Yiling Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '16, Maastricht, The Netherlands, Jul...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Hartline, and Robert D

    Shuchi Chawla, Jason D. Hartline, and Robert D. Kleinberg. Algorithmic pricing via virtual valuations. In Jeffrey K. MacKie - Mason, David C. Parkes, and Paul Resnick, editors, Proceedings 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-2007), San Diego, California, USA, June 11...

    2007

  10. [18]

    Hartline, David L

    Shuchi Chawla, Jason D. Hartline, David L. Malec, and Balasubramanian Sivan. Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing. In Leonard J. Schulman, editor, Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, ...

    2010

  11. [19]

    The power of randomness in bayesian optimal mechanism design

    Shuchi Chawla, David Malec, and Balasubramanian Sivan. The power of randomness in bayesian optimal mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 91: 0 297--317, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Applications of \( \) -strongly regular distributions to bayesian auctions

    Richard Cole and Shravas Rao. Applications of \( \) -strongly regular distributions to bayesian auctions. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 5 0 (4): 0 18:1--18:29, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    The sample complexity of revenue maximization

    Richard Cole and Tim Roughgarden. The sample complexity of revenue maximization. In David B. Shmoys, editor, Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2014, New York, NY, USA, May 31 - June 03, 2014 , pages 243--252. ACM , 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, volume 208

    Stuart Coles. An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, volume 208. Springer, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    Strong duality for a multiple-good monopolist

    Constantinos Daskalakis, Alan Deckelbaum, and Christos Tzamos. Strong duality for a multiple-good monopolist. Econometrica, 85 0 (3), 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Matthew Weinberg, and Eric Xue

    Mahsa Derakhshan, Emily Ryu, S. Matthew Weinberg, and Eric Xue. Settling the competition complexity of additive buyers over independent items. In Dirk Bergemann, Robert Kleinberg, and Daniela Sab \' a n, editors, Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computat...

    2024

  17. [25]

    The optimal mechanism for selling to a budget constrained buyer: The general case

    Nikhil R Devanur and S Matthew Weinberg. The optimal mechanism for selling to a budget constrained buyer: The general case. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 39--40. ACM, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Revenue maximization with a single sample

    Peerapong Dhangwatnotai, Tim Roughgarden, and Qiqi Yan. Revenue maximization with a single sample. Games and Economic Behavior, 91: 0 318--333, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

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

    Alon Eden, Michal Feldman, Ophir Friedler, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and S Matthew Weinberg. The competition complexity of auctions: A bulow-klemperer result for multi-dimensional bidders. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 343--343. ACM, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Michal Feldman, Ophir Friedler, and Aviad Rubinstein. 99 \ In \' E va Tardos, Edith Elkind, and Rakesh Vohra, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Ithaca, NY, USA, June 18-22, 2018 , pages 443--460. ACM , 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Beyond regularity: Simple versus optimal mechanisms, revisited

    Yiding Feng and Yaonan Jin. Beyond regularity: Simple versus optimal mechanisms, revisited. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03583, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The vickrey auction with a single duplicate bidder approximates the optimal revenue

    Hu Fu, Christopher Liaw, and Sikander Randhawa. The vickrey auction with a single duplicate bidder approximates the optimal revenue. In Anna R. Karlin, Nicole Immorlica, and Ramesh Johari, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2019, P...

    2019

  23. [31]

    A characterization for optimal bundling of products with nonadditive values

    Soheil Ghili. A characterization for optimal bundling of products with nonadditive values. American Economic Review: Insights, 5 0 (3): 0 311--326, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Selling two goods optimally

    Yiannis Giannakopoulos and Elias Koutsoupias. Selling two goods optimally. Information and Computation, 261: 0 432--445, 2018 a

    2018

  25. [33]

    Duality and optimality of auctions for uniform distributions

    Yiannis Giannakopoulos and Elias Koutsoupias. Duality and optimality of auctions for uniform distributions. SIAM Journal on Computing, 47 0 (1): 0 121--165, 2018 b

    2018

  26. [34]

    Optimal pricing for mhr and -regular distributions

    Yiannis Giannakopoulos, Diogo Po c as, and Keyu Zhu. Optimal pricing for mhr and -regular distributions. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 9 0 (1): 0 1--28, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Robust revenue maximization under minimal statistical information

    Yiannis Giannakopoulos, Diogo Po c as, and Alexandros Tsigonias-Dimitriadis. Robust revenue maximization under minimal statistical information. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 10 0 (3): 0 1--34, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    When is pure bundling optimal? The Review of Economic Studies, 88 0 (3): 0 1127--1156, 2021

    Nima Haghpanah and Jason Hartline. When is pure bundling optimal? The Review of Economic Studies, 88 0 (3): 0 1127--1156, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items

    Sergiu Hart and Noam Nisan. Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items. Journal of Economic Theory, 172: 0 313--347, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    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 0 (3): 0 893--922, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Hartline and Tim Roughgarden

    Jason D. Hartline and Tim Roughgarden. Simple versus optimal mechanisms. In John Chuang, Lance Fortnow, and Pearl Pu, editors, Proceedings 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-2009), Stanford, California, USA, July 6--10, 2009 , pages 225--234. ACM , 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    On revenue maximization for selling multiple independently distributed items

    Xinye Li and Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. On revenue maximization for selling multiple independently distributed items. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 0 (28): 0 11232--11237, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    On the competition complexity of dynamic mechanism design

    Siqi Liu and Christos - Alexandros Psomas. On the competition complexity of dynamic mechanism design. In Artur Czumaj, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2018, New Orleans, LA, USA, January 7-10, 2018 , pages 2008--20...

    2018

  34. [42]

    Bundling as an optimal selling mechanism for a multiple-good monopolist

    Alejandro M Manelli and Daniel R Vincent. Bundling as an optimal selling mechanism for a multiple-good monopolist. Journal of Economic Theory, 127 0 (1): 0 1--35, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design

    R Preston McAfee and John McMillan. Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design. Journal of Economic Theory, 46 0 (2): 0 335--354, 1988

    1988

  36. [44]

    Bidding rings

    R Preston McAfee and John McMillan. Bidding rings. American Economic Review, 82: 0 579--599, June 1992

    1992

  37. [45]

    Optimal auction design

    Roger B Myerson. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of operations research, 6 0 (1): 0 58--73, 1981

    1981

  38. [46]

    Simple mechanisms for a subadditive buyer and applications to revenue monotonicity

    Aviad Rubinstein and S Matthew Weinberg. Simple mechanisms for a subadditive buyer and applications to revenue monotonicity. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 6 0 (3-4): 0 19, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Performance bounds for optimal sales mechanisms beyond the monotone hazard rate condition

    Nikolaus Schweizer and Nora Szech. Performance bounds for optimal sales mechanisms beyond the monotone hazard rate condition. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 82: 0 202--213, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Optimal mechanisms for selling two items to a single buyer having uniformly distributed valuations

    D Thirumulanathan, Rajesh Sundaresan, and Y Narahari. Optimal mechanisms for selling two items to a single buyer having uniformly distributed valuations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 82: 0 1--30, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Optimal mechanisms with simple menus

    Zihe Wang and Pingzhong Tang. Optimal mechanisms with simple menus. In Moshe Babaioff, Vincent Conitzer, and David A. Easley, editors, ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '14, Stanford , CA, USA, June 8-12, 2014 , pages 227--240. ACM , 2014

    2014

  42. [50]

    The simple economics of optimal bundling

    Frank Yang. The simple economics of optimal bundling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12623, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    An n-to-1 bidder reduction for multi-item auctions and its applications

    Andrew Chi - Chih Yao. An n-to-1 bidder reduction for multi-item auctions and its applications. In Piotr Indyk, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, January 4-6, 2015 , pages 92--109. SIAM , 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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