{"title":"A tighter welfare guarantee for first-price auctions","authors":"D. Hoy, Sam Taggart, Zihe Wang","doi":"10.1145/3188745.3188944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper proves that the welfare of the first price auction in Bayes-Nash equilibrium is at least a .743-fraction of the welfare of the optimal mechanism assuming agents’ values are independently distributed. The previous best bound was 1−1/e≈.63, derived using smoothness, the standard technique for reasoning about welfare of games in equilibrium. In the worst known example, the first price auction achieves a ≈.869-fraction of the optimal welfare, far better than the theoretical guarantee. Despite this large gap, it was unclear whether the 1−1/e bound was tight. We prove that it is not. Our analysis eschews smoothness, and instead uses the independence assumption on agents’ value distributions to give a more careful accounting of the welfare contribution of agents who win despite not having the highest value.","PeriodicalId":20593,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3188745.3188944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
Abstract
This paper proves that the welfare of the first price auction in Bayes-Nash equilibrium is at least a .743-fraction of the welfare of the optimal mechanism assuming agents’ values are independently distributed. The previous best bound was 1−1/e≈.63, derived using smoothness, the standard technique for reasoning about welfare of games in equilibrium. In the worst known example, the first price auction achieves a ≈.869-fraction of the optimal welfare, far better than the theoretical guarantee. Despite this large gap, it was unclear whether the 1−1/e bound was tight. We prove that it is not. Our analysis eschews smoothness, and instead uses the independence assumption on agents’ value distributions to give a more careful accounting of the welfare contribution of agents who win despite not having the highest value.