Fine-Grained Buy-Many Mechanisms Are Not Much Better Than Bundling

Sepehr Assadi; Vikram Kher; George Li; Ariel Schvartzman

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2205.14312

Fine-Grained Buy-Many Mechanisms Are Not Much Better Than Bundling

Sepehr Assadi·Vikram Kher·George Li·Ariel Schvartzman

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Multi-item revenue-optimal mechanisms are known to be extremely complex, often offering buyers randomized lotteries of goods. In the standard buy-one model, it is known that optimal mechanisms can yield revenue infinitely higher than that of any "simple" mechanism -- the ones with size polynomial in the number of items -- even with just two items and a single buyer (Briest et al. 2015, Hart and Nisan 2017). We introduce a new parameterized class of mechanisms, buy-$k$ mechanisms, which smoothly interpolate between the classical buy-one mechanisms and the recently studied buy-many mechanisms (Chawla et al. 2019, Chawla et al. 2020, Chawla et al. 2022). Buy-$k$ mechanisms allow the buyer to buy up to $k$ many menu options. We show that restricting the seller to the class of buy-$n$ incentive-compatible mechanisms suffices to overcome the bizarre, infinite revenue properties of the buy-one model. Our main result is that the revenue gap with respect to bundling, an extremely simple mechanism, is bounded by $O(n^2)$ for any arbitrarily correlated distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over $n$ items for the case of an additive buyer. Our techniques also allow us to prove similar upper bounds for arbitrary monotone valuations, albeit with an exponential factor in the approximation. On the negative side, we show that allowing the buyer to purchase a small number of menu options does not suffice to guarantee sub-exponential approximations, even when we weaken the benchmark to the optimal buy-$k$ deterministic mechanism. If an additive buyer is only allowed to buy $k = \Theta(n^{1/2-\varepsilon})$ many menu options, the gap between the revenue-optimal deterministic buy-$k$ mechanism and bundling may be exponential in $n$. In particular, this implies that no "simple" mechanism can obtain a sub-exponential approximation in this regime.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Sepehr Assadi, Vikram Kher, George Li, Ariel Schvartzman. 2022-05-28. Fine-Grained Buy-Many Mechanisms Are Not Much Better Than Bundling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14312

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗