Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2591796.2591867acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The sample complexity of revenue maximization

Published: 31 May 2014 Publication History

Abstract

In the design and analysis of revenue-maximizing auctions, auction performance is typically measured with respect to a prior distribution over inputs. The most obvious source for such a distribution is past data. The goal of this paper is to understand how much data is necessary and sufficient to guarantee near-optimal expected revenue.
Our basic model is a single-item auction in which bidders' valuations are drawn independently from unknown and nonidentical distributions. The seller is given m samples from each of these distributions "for free" and chooses an auction to run on a fresh sample. How large does m need to be, as a function of the number k of bidders and ε 0, so that a (1 -- ε)-approximation of the optimal revenue is achievable?
We prove that, under standard tail conditions on the underlying distributions, m = poly(k, 1/ε) samples are necessary and sufficient. Our lower bound stands in contrast to many recent results on simple and prior-independent auctions and fundamentally involves the interplay between bidder competition, non-identical distributions, and a very close (but still constant) approximation of the optimal revenue. It effectively shows that the only way to achieve a sufficiently good constant approximation of the optimal revenue is through a detailed understanding of bidders' valuation distributions. Our upper bound is constructive and applies in particular to a variant of the empirical Myerson auction, the natural auction that runs the revenue-maximizing auction with respect to the empirical distributions of the samples. To capture how our sample complexity upper bound depends on the set of allowable distributions, we introduce α-strongly regular distributions, which interpolate between the well-studied classes of regular (α = 0) and MHR (α = 1) distributions. We give evidence that this definition is of independent interest.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (p243-sidebyside.mp4)

References

[1]
M. Anthony and P. Bartlett. Neural Network Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[2]
M.-F. Balcan, A. Blum, J. D. Hartline, and Y. Mansour. Reducing mechanism design to algorithm design via machine learning. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 74(8):1245--1270, 2008.
[3]
S. Baliga and R. Vohra. Market research and market design. Advances in Theoretical Economics, 3, 2003. Article 5.
[4]
J. Bulow and P. Klemperer. Auctions versus negotiations. American Economic Review, 86(1):180--194, 1996.
[5]
S. Chawla, J. Hartline, D. Malec, and B. Sivan. Sequential posted pricing and multi-parameter mechanism design. In STOC, 2010.
[6]
S. Chawla, J. D. Hartline, and R. D. Kleinberg. Algorithmic pricing via virtual valuations. In EC, pages 243--251, 2007.
[7]
N. Devanur, J. Hartline, A. Karlin, and T. Nguyen. Prior-independent multi-parameter mechanism design. In Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE), 2011.
[8]
P. Dhangwatnotai, T. Roughgarden, and Q. Yan. Revenue maximization with a single sample. In EC, 2010.
[9]
A. V. Goldberg, J. D. Hartline, A. Karlin, M. Saks, and A. Wright. Competitive auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 55(2):242--269, 2006.
[10]
B. Q. Ha and J. D. Hartline. Mechanism design via consensus estimates, cross checking, and profit extraction. In SODA, pages 887--895, 2012.
[11]
J. Hartline, V. Mirrokni, and M. Sundararajan. Optimal marketing strategies over social networks. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '08, pages 189--198, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
[12]
J. D. Hartline. Mechanism design and approximation. Book draft. October, 2013.
[13]
J. D. Hartline and A. Karlin. Profit maximization in mechanism design. In N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, É. Tardos, and V. V. Vazirani, editors, Algorithmic Game Theory, chapter 13, pages 331--362. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[14]
J. D. Hartline and T. Roughgarden. Simple versus optimal mechanisms. In EC, 2009.
[15]
R. Myerson. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operations Research, 6(1):58--73, 1981.
[16]
Z. Neeman. The effectiveness of English auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 43(2):214--238, 2003.
[17]
M. Ostrovsky and M. Schwarz. Reserve prices in internet advertising auctions: A field experiment. Working paper, December 2009.
[18]
T. Roughgarden, I. Talgam-Cohen, and Q. Yan. Supply-limiting mechanisms. In EC, 2012.
[19]
I. Segal. Optimal pricing mechanisms with unknown demand. American Economic Review, 93(3):509--529, 2003.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)IID prophet inequality with a single data pointArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2025.104296(104296)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2024)Decentralized online learning in general-sum stackelberg gamesProceedings of the Fortieth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3702676.3702866(4056-4077)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Nash incentive-compatible online mechanism learning via weakly differentially private online learningProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3692070.3692898(20643-20659)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. The sample complexity of revenue maximization

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    STOC '14: Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
    May 2014
    984 pages
    ISBN:9781450327107
    DOI:10.1145/2591796
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 31 May 2014

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Myerson's auction
    2. sample complexity

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    STOC '14
    Sponsor:
    STOC '14: Symposium on Theory of Computing
    May 31 - June 3, 2014
    New York, New York

    Acceptance Rates

    STOC '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 91 of 319 submissions, 29%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

    Upcoming Conference

    STOC '25
    57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2025)
    June 23 - 27, 2025
    Prague , Czech Republic

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)45
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
    Reflects downloads up to 07 Mar 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)IID prophet inequality with a single data pointArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2025.104296(104296)Online publication date: Feb-2025
    • (2024)Decentralized online learning in general-sum stackelberg gamesProceedings of the Fortieth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3702676.3702866(4056-4077)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Nash incentive-compatible online mechanism learning via weakly differentially private online learningProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3692070.3692898(20643-20659)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Applying Opponent Modeling for Automatic Bidding in Online Repeated AuctionsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662938(843-851)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
    • (2024)Conformal Online Auction DesignSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4823113Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)Selling Joint Ads: A Regret Minimization PerspectiveProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3670865.3673520(164-194)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Bandit Sequential Posted Pricing via Half-ConcavityProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3670865.3673495(922-939)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Optimal Auctions through Deep Learning: Advances in Differentiable EconomicsJournal of the ACM10.1145/363074971:1(1-53)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Prior-Free Mechanism with Welfare GuaranteesProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645500(135-143)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
    • (2024)User Response in Ad Auctions: An MDP Formulation of Long-term Revenue OptimizationProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645495(111-122)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media