BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Yaonan Jin

Yaonan Jin contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer Science and Game Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The Price of Stability for First Price Auction

This paper establishes the Price of Stability (PoS) for First Price Auctions, for all equilibrium concepts that have been studied in the literature: Bayes Nash Equilibrium $\subsetneq$ Bayes Correlated Equilibrium $\subsetneq$ Bayes Coarse Correlated Equilibrium} $\bullet$ Bayes Nash Equilibrium: For independent valuations, the tight PoS is $1 - 1/ e^{2} \approx 0.8647$, matching the counterpart Price of Anarchy (PoA) bound \cite{JL22}. For correlated valuations, the tight $\PoS$ is $1 - 1 / e \approx 0.6321$, matching the counterpart PoA bound \cite{ST13,S14}. This result indicates that, in the worst cases, efficiency degradation depends not on different selections among Bayes Nash Equilibria. $\bullet$ Bayesian Coarse Correlated Equilibrium: For independent or correlated valuations, the tight PoS is always $1 = 100\%$, i.e., no efficiency degradation, different from the counterpart PoA bound $1 - 1 / e \approx 0.6321$ \cite{ST13,S14}. This result indicates that First Price Auctions can be fully efficient when we allow the more general equilibrium concepts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Tight Revenue Gaps among Multi-Unit Mechanisms

This paper considers Bayesian revenue maximization in the $k$-unit setting, where a monopolist seller has $k$ copies of an indivisible item and faces $n$ unit-demand buyers (whose value distributions can be non-identical). Four basic mechanisms among others have been widely employed in practice and widely studied in the literature: {\sf Myerson Auction}, {\sf Sequential Posted-Pricing}, {\sf $(k + 1)$-th Price Auction with Anonymous Reserve}, and {\sf Anonymous Pricing}. Regarding a pair of mechanisms, we investigate the largest possible ratio between the two revenues (a.k.a.\ the revenue gap), over all possible value distributions of the buyers. Divide these four mechanisms into two groups: (i)~the discriminating mechanism group, {\sf Myerson Auction} and {\sf Sequential Posted-Pricing}, and (ii)~the anonymous mechanism group, {\sf Anonymous Reserve} and {\sf Anonymous Pricing}. Within one group, the involved two mechanisms have an asymptotically tight revenue gap of $1 + Θ(1 / \sqrt{k})$. In contrast, any two mechanisms from the different groups have an asymptotically tight revenue gap of $Θ(\log k)$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Optimal Budget-Feasible Mechanisms for Additive Valuations

In this paper, we show a tight approximation guarantee for budget-feasible mechanisms with an additive buyer. We propose a new simple randomized mechanism with approximation ratio of $2$, improving the previous best known result of $3$. Our bound is tight with respect to either the optimal offline benchmark, or its fractional relaxation. We also present a simple deterministic mechanism with the tight approximation guarantee of $3$ against the fractional optimum, improving the best known result of $(2+ \sqrt{2})$ for the weaker integral benchmark.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Tight Revenue Gaps among Simple Mechanisms

We consider a fundamental problem in microeconomics: selling a single item to a number of potential buyers, whose values are drawn from known independent and regular (not necessarily identical) distributions. There are four widely-used and widely-studied mechanisms in the literature: {\sf Myerson Auction}~({\sf OPT}), {\sf Sequential Posted-Pricing}~({\sf SPM}), {\sf Second-Price Auction with Anonymous Reserve}~({\sf AR}), and {\sf Anonymous Pricing}~({\sf AP}). {\sf OPT} is revenue-optimal but complicated, which also experiences several issues in practice such as fairness; {\sf AP} is the simplest mechanism, but also generates the lowest revenue among these four mechanisms; {\sf SPM} and {\sf AR} are of intermediate complexity and revenue. We explore revenue gaps among these mechanisms, each of which is defined as the largest ratio between revenues from a pair of mechanisms. We establish two tight bounds and one improved bound: 1. {\sf SPM} vs.\ {\sf AP}: this ratio studies the power of discrimination in pricing schemes. We obtain the tight ratio of $\mathcal{C^*} \approx 2.62$, closing the gap between $\big[\frac{e}{e - 1}, e\big]$ left before. 2. {\sf AR} vs.\ {\sf AP}: this ratio measures the relative power of auction scheme vs.\ pricing scheme, when no discrimination is allowed. We attain the tight ratio of $\frac{π^2}{6} \approx 1.64$, closing the previously known bounds $\big[\frac{e}{e - 1}, e\big]$. 3. {\sf OPT} vs.\ {\sf AR}: this ratio quantifies the power of discrimination in auction schemes, and is previously known to be somewhere between $\big[2, e\big]$. The lower-bound of $2$ was conjectured to be tight by Hartline and Roughgarden (2009) and Alaei et al.\ (2015). We acquire a better lower-bound of $2.15$, and thus disprove this conjecture.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access