BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Balasubramanian Sivan

Balasubramanian Sivan appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computer Science and Game TheoryMachine LearningData Structures and Algorithmsmath.PR

Catalog footprint

What is connected

16works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

16 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Price Manipulability in First-Price Auctions

First-price auctions have many desirable properties, including uniquely possessing some, like credibility. However, first-price auctions are also inherently non-truthful, and non-truthfulness may result in instability and inefficiencies. Given these pros and cons, we seek to quantify the extent to which first-price auctions are susceptible to manipulation. In this work we adopt a metric that was introduced in the context of bitcoin fee design markets: the percentage change in payment that can be achieved by being strategic. We study the behavior of this metric for single-unit and $k$-unit auction environments with $n$ i.i.d. buyers, and seek conditions under which the percentage change tends to zero as $n$ grows large. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first rigorous study of the extent to which large multi-unit first price auctions are susceptible to manipulation. We provide an almost complete picture of the conditions under which they are truthful in the large, and exhibit some surprising boundaries.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Strategizing against Learners in Bayesian Games

We study repeated two-player games where one of the players, the learner, employs a no-regret learning strategy, while the other, the optimizer, is a rational utility maximizer. We consider general Bayesian games, where the payoffs of both the optimizer and the learner could depend on the type, which is drawn from a publicly known distribution, but revealed privately to the learner. We address the following questions: (a) what is the bare minimum that the optimizer can guarantee to obtain regardless of the no-regret learning algorithm employed by the learner? (b) are there learning algorithms that cap the optimizer payoff at this minimum? (c) can these algorithms be implemented efficiently? While building this theory of optimizer-learner interactions, we define a new combinatorial notion of regret called polytope swap regret, that could be of independent interest in other settings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Improved Revenue Bounds for Posted-Price and Second-Price Mechanisms

We study revenue maximization through sequential posted-price (SPP) mechanisms in single-dimensional settings with $n$ buyers and independent but not necessarily identical value distributions. We construct the SPP mechanisms by considering the best of two simple pricing rules: one that imitates the revenue optimal mchanism, namely the Myersonian mechanism, via the taxation principle and the other that posts a uniform price. Our pricing rules are rather generalizable and yield the first improvement over long-established approximation factors in several settings. We design factor-revealing mathematical programs that crisply capture the approximation factor of our SPP mechanism. In the single-unit setting, our SPP mechanism yields a better approximation factor than the state of the art prior to our work (Azar, Chiplunkar & Kaplan, 2018). In the multi-unit setting, our SPP mechanism yields the first improved approximation factor over the state of the art after over nine years (Yan, 2011 and Chakraborty et al., 2010). Our results on SPP mechanisms immediately imply improved performance guarantees for the equivalent free-order prophet inequality problem. In the position auction setting, our SPP mechanism yields the first higher-than $1-1/e$ approximation factor. In eager second-price (ESP) auctions, our two simple pricing rules lead to the first improved approximation factor that is strictly greater than what is obtained by the SPP mechanism in the single-unit setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Why Do Competitive Markets Converge to First-Price Auctions?

We consider a setting in which bidders participate in multiple auctions run by different sellers, and optimize their bids for the \emph{aggregate} auction. We analyze this setting by formulating a game between sellers, where a seller's strategy is to pick an auction to run. Our analysis aims to shed light on the recent change in the Display Ads market landscape: here, ad exchanges (sellers) were mostly running second-price auctions earlier and over time they switched to variants of the first-price auction, culminating in Google's Ad Exchange moving to a first-price auction in 2019. Our model and results offer an explanation for why the first-price auction occurs as a natural equilibrium in such competitive markets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Tight Lower Bounds for Multiplicative Weights Algorithmic Families

We study the fundamental problem of prediction with expert advice and develop regret lower bounds for a large family of algorithms for this problem. We develop simple adversarial primitives, that lend themselves to various combinations leading to sharp lower bounds for many algorithmic families. We use these primitives to show that the classic Multiplicative Weights Algorithm (MWA) has a regret of $\sqrt{\frac{T \ln k}{2}}$, there by completely closing the gap between upper and lower bounds. We further show a regret lower bound of $\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{\frac{T\ln k}{2}}$ for a much more general family of algorithms than MWA, where the learning rate can be arbitrarily varied over time, or even picked from arbitrary distributions over time. We also use our primitives to construct adversaries in the geometric horizon setting for MWA to precisely characterize the regret at $\frac{0.391}{\sqrtδ}$ for the case of $2$ experts and a lower bound of $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\ln k}{2δ}}$ for the case of arbitrary number of experts $k$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Towards Optimal Algorithms for Prediction with Expert Advice

We study the classical problem of prediction with expert advice in the adversarial setting with a geometric stopping time. In 1965, Cover gave the optimal algorithm for the case of 2 experts. In this paper, we design the optimal algorithm, adversary and regret for the case of 3 experts. Further, we show that the optimal algorithm for $2$ and $3$ experts is a probability matching algorithm (analogous to Thompson sampling) against a particular randomized adversary. Remarkably, our proof shows that the probability matching algorithm is not only optimal against this particular randomized adversary, but also minimax optimal. Our analysis develops upper and lower bounds simultaneously, analogous to the primal-dual method. Our analysis of the optimal adversary goes through delicate asymptotics of the random walk of a particle between multiple walls. We use the connection we develop to random walks to derive an improved algorithm and regret bound for the case of $4$ experts, and, provide a general framework for designing the optimal algorithm and adversary for an arbitrary number of experts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Price Competition, Fluctuations, and Welfare Guarantees

In various markets where sellers compete in price, price oscillations are observed rather than convergence to equilibrium. Such fluctuations have been empirically observed in the retail market for gasoline, in airline pricing and in the online sale of consumer goods. Motivated by this, we study a model of price competition in which an equilibrium rarely exists. We seek to analyze the welfare, despite the nonexistence of an equilibrium, and present welfare guarantees as a function of the market power of the sellers. We first study best response dynamics in markets with sellers that provide a homogeneous good, and show that except for a modest number of initial rounds, the welfare is guaranteed to be high. We consider two variations: in the first the sellers have full information about the valuation of the buyer. Here we show that if there are $n$ items available across all sellers and $n_{\max}$ is the maximum number of items controlled by any given seller, the ratio of the optimal welfare to the achieved welfare will be at most $\log(\frac{n}{n-n_{\max}+1})+1$. As the market power of the largest seller diminishes, the welfare becomes closer to optimal. In the second variation we consider an extended model where sellers have uncertainty about the buyer's valuation. Here we similarly show that the welfare improves as the market power of the largest seller decreases, yet with a worse ratio of $\frac{n}{n-n_{\max}+1}$. The exponential gap in welfare between the two variations quantifies the value of accurately learning the buyer valuation. Finally, we show that extending our results to heterogeneous goods in general is not possible. Even for the simple class of $k$-additive valuations, there exists a setting where the welfare approximates the optimal welfare within any non-zero factor only for $O(1/s)$ fraction of the time, where $s$ is the number of sellers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

How to sell an app: pay-per-play or buy-it-now?

We consider pricing in settings where a consumer discovers his value for a good only as he uses it, and the value evolves with each use. We explore simple and natural pricing strategies for a seller in this setting, under the assumption that the seller knows the distribution from which the consumer's initial value is drawn, as well as the stochastic process that governs the evolution of the value with each use. We consider the differences between up-front or "buy-it-now" pricing (BIN), and "pay-per-play" (PPP) pricing, where the consumer is charged per use. Our results show that PPP pricing can be a very effective mechanism for price discrimination, and thereby can increase seller revenue. But it can also be advantageous to the buyers, as a way of mitigating risk. Indeed, this mitigation of risk can yield a larger pool of buyers. We also show that the practice of offering free trials is largely beneficial. We consider two different stochastic processes for how the buyer's value evolves: In the first, the key random variable is how long the consumer remains interested in the product. In the second process, the consumer's value evolves according to a random walk or Brownian motion with reflection at 1, and absorption at 0.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Cost-Recovering Bayesian Algorithmic Mechanism Design

We study the design of Bayesian incentive compatible mechanisms in single parameter domains, for the objective of optimizing social efficiency as measured by social cost. In the problems we consider, a group of participants compete to receive service from a mechanism that can provide such services at a cost. The mechanism wishes to choose which agents to serve in order to maximize social efficiency, but is not willing to suffer an expected loss: the agents' payments should cover the cost of service in expectation. We develop a general method for converting arbitrary approximation algorithms for the underlying optimization problem into Bayesian incentive compatible mechanisms that are cost-recovering in expectation. In particular, we give polynomial time black-box reductions from the mechanism design problem to the problem of designing a social cost minimization algorithm without incentive constraints. Our reduction increases the expected social cost of the given algorithm by a factor of O(log(min{n, h})), where n is the number of agents and h is the ratio between the highest and lowest nonzero valuations in the support. We also provide a lower bound illustrating that this inflation of the social cost is essential: no BIC cost-recovering mechanism can achieve an approximation factor better than Ω(log(n)) or Ω(log(h)) in general. Our techniques extend to show that a certain class of truthful algorithms can be made cost-recovering in the non-Bayesian setting, in such a way that the approximation factor degrades by at most O(log(min{n, h})). This is an improvement over previously-known constructions with inflation factor O(log n).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Prior-Independent Mechanisms for Scheduling

We study the makespan minimization problem with unrelated selfish machines under the assumption that job sizes are stochastic. We design simple truthful mechanisms that under various distributional assumptions provide constant and sublogarithmic approximations to expected makespan. Our mechanisms are prior-independent in that they do not rely on knowledge of the job size distributions. Prior-independent approximation mechanisms have been previously studied for the objective of revenue maximization [Dhangwatnotai, Roughgarden and Yan'10, Devanur, Hartline, Karlin and Nguyen'11, Roughgarden, Talgam-Cohen and Yan'12]. In contrast to our results, in prior-free settings no truthful anonymous deterministic mechanism for the makespan objective can provide a sublinear approximation [Ashlagi, Dobzinski and Lavi'09].

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Vickrey Auctions for Irregular Distributions

The classic result of Bulow and Klemperer \cite{BK96} says that in a single-item auction recruiting one more bidder and running the Vickrey auction achieves a higher revenue than the optimal auction's revenue on the original set of bidders, when values are drawn i.i.d. from a regular distribution. We give a version of Bulow and Klemperer's result in settings where bidders' values are drawn from non-i.i.d. irregular distributions. We do this by modeling irregular distributions as some convex combination of regular distributions. The regular distributions that constitute the irregular distribution correspond to different population groups in the bidder population. Drawing a bidder from this collection of population groups is equivalent to drawing from some convex combination of these regular distributions. We show that recruiting one extra bidder from each underlying population group and running the Vickrey auction gives at least half of the optimal auction's revenue on the original set of bidders.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Lower Bounds on Revenue of Approximately Optimal Auctions

We obtain revenue guarantees for the simple pricing mechanism of a single posted price, in terms of a natural parameter of the distribution of buyers' valuations. Our revenue guarantee applies to the single item n buyers setting, with values drawn from an arbitrary joint distribution. Specifically, we show that a single price drawn from the distribution of the maximum valuation Vmax = max {V_1, V_2, ...,V_n} achieves a revenue of at least a 1/e fraction of the geometric expecation of Vmax. This generic bound is a measure of how revenue improves/degrades as a function of the concentration/spread of Vmax. We further show that in absence of buyers' valuation distributions, recruiting an additional set of identical bidders will yield a similar guarantee on revenue. Finally, our bound also gives a measure of the extent to which one can simultaneously approximate welfare and revenue in terms of the concentration/spread of Vmax.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Single-Call Mechanisms

Truthfulness is fragile and demanding. It is oftentimes computationally harder than solving the original problem. Even worse, truthfulness can be utterly destroyed by small uncertainties in a mechanism's outcome. One obstacle is that truthful payments depend on outcomes other than the one realized, such as the lengths of non-shortest-paths in a shortest-path auction. Single-call mechanisms are a powerful tool that circumvents this obstacle --- they implicitly charge truthful payments, guaranteeing truthfulness in expectation using only the outcome realized by the mechanism. The cost of such truthfulness is a trade-off between the expected quality of the outcome and the risk of large payments. We largely settle when and to what extent single-call mechanisms are possible. The first single-call construction was discovered by Babaioff, Kleinberg, and Slivkins [BKS10] in single-parameter domains. They give a transformation that turns any monotone, single-parameter allocation rule into a truthful-in-expectation single-call mechanism. Our first result is a natural complement to [BKS10]: we give a new transformation that produces a single-call VCG mechanism from any allocation rule for which VCG payments are truthful. Second, in both the single-parameter and VCG settings, we precisely characterize the possible transformations, showing that that a wide variety of transformations are possible but that all take a very simple form. Finally, we study the inherent trade-off between the expected quality of the outcome and the risk of large payments. We show that our construction and that of [BKS10] simultaneously optimize a variety of metrics in their respective domains. As an example, we analyze pay-per-click advertising auctions, where the truthfulness of the standard VCG-based auction is easily broken when the auctioneer's estimated click-through-rates are imprecise.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Optimal Crowdsourcing Contests

We study the design and approximation of optimal crowdsourcing contests. Crowdsourcing contests can be modeled as all-pay auctions because entrants must exert effort up-front to enter. Unlike all-pay auctions where a usual design objective would be to maximize revenue, in crowdsourcing contests, the principal only benefits from the submission with the highest quality. We give a theory for optimal crowdsourcing contests that mirrors the theory of optimal auction design: the optimal crowdsourcing contest is a virtual valuation optimizer (the virtual valuation function depends on the distribution of contestant skills and the number of contestants). We also compare crowdsourcing contests with more conventional means of procurement. In this comparison, crowdsourcing contests are relatively disadvantaged because the effort of losing contestants is wasted. Nonetheless, we show that crowdsourcing contests are 2-approximations to conventional methods for a large family of "regular" distributions, and 4-approximations, otherwise.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Sequential Posted Pricing and Multi-parameter Mechanism Design

We consider the classical mathematical economics problem of {\em Bayesian optimal mechanism design} where a principal aims to optimize expected revenue when allocating resources to self-interested agents with preferences drawn from a known distribution. In single-parameter settings (i.e., where each agent's preference is given by a single private value for being served and zero for not being served) this problem is solved [Myerson '81]. Unfortunately, these single parameter optimal mechanisms are impractical and rarely employed [Ausubel and Milgrom '06], and furthermore the underlying economic theory fails to generalize to the important, relevant, and unsolved multi-dimensional setting (i.e., where each agent's preference is given by multiple values for each of the multiple services available) [Manelli and Vincent '07]. In contrast to the theory of optimal mechanisms we develop a theory of sequential posted price mechanisms, where agents in sequence are offered take-it-or-leave-it prices. These mechanisms are approximately optimal in single-dimensional settings, and avoid many of the properties that make optimal mechanisms impractical. Furthermore, these mechanisms generalize naturally to give the first known approximations to the elusive optimal multi-dimensional mechanism design problem. In particular, we solve multi-dimensional multi-unit auction problems and generalizations to matroid feasibility constraints. The constant approximations we obtain range from 1.5 to 8. For all but one case, our posted price sequences can be computed in polynomial time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

The power of randomness in Bayesian optimal mechanism design

We investigate the power of randomness in the context of a fundamental Bayesian optimal mechanism design problem--a single seller aims to maximize expected revenue by allocating multiple kinds of resources to "unit-demand" agents with preferences drawn from a known distribution. When the agents' preferences are single-dimensional Myerson's seminal work [Myerson '81] shows that randomness offers no benefit--the optimal mechanism is always deterministic. In the multi-dimensional case, where each agent's preferences are given by different values for each of the available services, Briest et al. [Briest, Chawla, Kleinberg, and Weinberg '10] recently showed that the gap between the expected revenue obtained by an optimal randomized mechanism and an optimal deterministic mechanism can be unbounded even when a single agent is offered only 4 services. However, this large gap is attained through unnatural instances where values of the agent for different services are correlated in a specific way. We show that when the agent's values involve no correlation or a specific kind of positive correlation, the benefit of randomness is only a small constant factor (4 and 8 respectively). Our model of positively correlated values (that we call additive values) is a natural model for unit-demand agents and items that are substitutes. Our results extend to multiple agent settings as well.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access