Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2110.11855 v3 pith:H4RP2SJF submitted 2021-10-22 cs.GT cs.AIcs.LG

Auctions Between Regret-Minimizing Agents

classification cs.GT cs.AIcs.LG
keywords agentsauctionsauctionfirst-priceplayersregret-minimizingsecond-pricevaluations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Is Delegated Play Truthful? Within-Range Regret and the Trilemma of Aligned Delegation

    cs.GT 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    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...