On the efficiency of the walrasian mechanism

Moshe Babaioff, Brendan Lucier, N. Nisan, R. Leme
{"title":"On the efficiency of the walrasian mechanism","authors":"Moshe Babaioff, Brendan Lucier, N. Nisan, R. Leme","doi":"10.1145/2600057.2602850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Central results in economics guarantee the existence of efficient equilibria for various classes of markets. An underlying assumption in early work is that agents are price-takers, i.e., agents honestly report their true demand in response to prices. A line of research in economics, initiated by Hurwicz (1972), is devoted to understanding how such markets perform when agents are strategic about their demands. This is captured by the Walrasian Mechanism that proceeds by collecting reported demands, finding clearing prices in the reported market via an ascending price tatonnement procedure, and returns the resulting allocation. Similar mechanisms are used, for example, in the daily opening of the New York Stock Exchange and the call market for copper and gold in London. In practice, it is commonly observed that agents in such markets reduce their demand leading to behaviors resembling bargaining and to inefficient outcomes. We ask how inefficient the equilibria can be. Our main result is that the welfare of every pure Nash equilibrium of the Walrasian mechanism is at least one quarter of the optimal welfare, when players have gross substitute valuations and do not overbid. Previous analysis of the Walrasian mechanism have resorted to large market assumptions to show convergence to efficiency in the limit. Our result shows that approximate efficiency is guaranteed regardless of the size of the market. We extend our results in several directions. First, our results extend to Bayes-Nash equilibria and outcomes of no regret learning via the smooth mechanism framework. We also extend our bounds to any mechanism that maximizes welfare with respect to the declared valuations and never charges agents more than their bids. Additionally, we consider other classes of valuations and bid spaces beyond those satisfying the gross substitutes conditions. Finally, we relax the no-overbidding assumption, and present bounds that are parameterized by the extent to which agents are willing to overbid.","PeriodicalId":203155,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2600057.2602850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

Abstract

Central results in economics guarantee the existence of efficient equilibria for various classes of markets. An underlying assumption in early work is that agents are price-takers, i.e., agents honestly report their true demand in response to prices. A line of research in economics, initiated by Hurwicz (1972), is devoted to understanding how such markets perform when agents are strategic about their demands. This is captured by the Walrasian Mechanism that proceeds by collecting reported demands, finding clearing prices in the reported market via an ascending price tatonnement procedure, and returns the resulting allocation. Similar mechanisms are used, for example, in the daily opening of the New York Stock Exchange and the call market for copper and gold in London. In practice, it is commonly observed that agents in such markets reduce their demand leading to behaviors resembling bargaining and to inefficient outcomes. We ask how inefficient the equilibria can be. Our main result is that the welfare of every pure Nash equilibrium of the Walrasian mechanism is at least one quarter of the optimal welfare, when players have gross substitute valuations and do not overbid. Previous analysis of the Walrasian mechanism have resorted to large market assumptions to show convergence to efficiency in the limit. Our result shows that approximate efficiency is guaranteed regardless of the size of the market. We extend our results in several directions. First, our results extend to Bayes-Nash equilibria and outcomes of no regret learning via the smooth mechanism framework. We also extend our bounds to any mechanism that maximizes welfare with respect to the declared valuations and never charges agents more than their bids. Additionally, we consider other classes of valuations and bid spaces beyond those satisfying the gross substitutes conditions. Finally, we relax the no-overbidding assumption, and present bounds that are parameterized by the extent to which agents are willing to overbid.
论瓦尔拉斯机制的效率
经济学的核心结果保证了各类市场的有效均衡的存在。早期研究的一个基本假设是,代理人是价格接受者,也就是说,代理人诚实地报告他们对价格的真实需求。由赫维奇(Hurwicz, 1972)发起的一系列经济学研究,致力于理解当代理人对自己的需求具有战略性时,这样的市场是如何表现的。瓦尔拉斯机制(Walrasian Mechanism)捕捉到了这一点,该机制通过收集报告的需求,通过一个上升的价格控制过程在报告的市场中找到出清价格,并返回结果分配。例如,纽约证券交易所(New York Stock Exchange)的每日开市,以及伦敦铜和黄金的看涨期权市场,都采用了类似的机制。在实践中,通常观察到这样的市场中的代理人减少他们的需求,导致类似议价的行为和低效的结果。我们问均衡的效率有多低。我们的主要结果是,瓦尔拉斯机制的每个纯纳什均衡的福利至少是最优福利的四分之一,当参与者有总替代估值并且不过高出价时。先前对瓦尔拉斯机制的分析采用了大市场假设,以表明在极限情况下对效率的收敛。我们的结果表明,无论市场规模大小,都能保证近似的效率。我们把结果扩展到几个方向。首先,我们的研究结果通过光滑机制框架扩展到贝叶斯-纳什均衡和无悔学习的结果。我们还将我们的范围扩展到任何机制,即在宣布的估值方面使福利最大化,并且从不向代理人收取高于其出价的费用。此外,除了满足总替代条件外,我们还考虑了其他类别的估值和投标空间。最后,我们放宽了无超额出价的假设,并给出了由代理愿意超额出价的程度参数化的边界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信