Skip to main content

Simple Mechanisms for a Subadditive Buyer and Applications to Revenue Monotonicity

Author(s): Rubinstein, Aviad; Weinberg, S Matthew

Download
To refer to this page use: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/pr1x268
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRubinstein, Aviad-
dc.contributor.authorWeinberg, S Matthew-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-08T19:48:05Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-08T19:48:05Z-
dc.date.issued2015-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationRubinstein, Aviad, and S. Matthew Weinberg. "Simple Mechanisms for a Subadditive Buyer and Applications to Revenue Monotonicity." In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (2015): pp. 377-394. doi:10.1145/2764468.2764510en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.07637v1.pdf-
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/pr1x268-
dc.description.abstractWe study the revenue maximization problem of a seller with n heterogeneous items for sale to a single buyer whose valuation function for sets of items is unknown and drawn from some distribution D. We show that if D is a distribution over subadditive valuations with independent items, then the better of pricing each item separately or pricing only the grand bundle achieves a constant-factor approximation to the revenue of the optimal mechanism. This includes buyers who are k-demand, additive up to a matroid constraint, or additive up to constraints of any downwards-closed set system (and whose values for the individual items are sampled independently), as well as buyers who are fractionally subadditive with item multipliers drawn independently. Our proof makes use of the core-tail decomposition framework developed in prior work showing similar results for the significantly simpler class of additive buyers [Li and Yao 2013; Babaioff et al.2014]. In the second part of the paper, we develop a connection between approximately optimal simple mechanisms and approximate revenue monotonicity with respect to buyers' valuations. Revenue non-monotonicity is the phenomenon that sometimes strictly increasing buyers' values for every set can strictly decrease the revenue of the optimal mechanism [Hart and Reny 2012]. Using our main result, we derive a bound on how bad this degradation can be (and dub such a bound a proof of approximate revenue monotonicity); we further show that better bounds on approximate monotonicity imply a better analysis of our simple mechanisms.en_US
dc.format.extent377 - 394en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.ispartofACM Conference on Economics and Computationen_US
dc.rightsAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.titleSimple Mechanisms for a Subadditive Buyer and Applications to Revenue Monotonicityen_US
dc.typeConference Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1145/2764468.2764510-
pu.type.symplectichttp://www.symplectic.co.uk/publications/atom-terms/1.0/conference-proceedingen_US

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
SubadditiveBuyerAppRevenueMonotonicity.pdf315.38 kBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.