Showing 1–9 of 9 results for author: Babaioff, M

Bundling in Oligopoly: Revenue Maximization with Single-Item Competitors

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Linda Cai, Brendan Lucier

Abstract: We consider a principal seller with $m$ heterogeneous products to sell to an additive buyer over independent items. The principal can offer an arbitrary menu of product bundles, but faces competition from smaller and more agile single-item sellers. The single-item sellers choose their prices after the principal commits to a menu, potentially under-cutting the principal's offerings. We explore to w… ▽ More We consider a principal seller with $m$ heterogeneous products to sell to an additive buyer over independent items. The principal can offer an arbitrary menu of product bundles, but faces competition from smaller and more agile single-item sellers. The single-item sellers choose their prices after the principal commits to a menu, potentially under-cutting the principal's offerings. We explore to what extent the principal can leverage the ability to bundle product together to extract revenue. Any choice of menu by the principal induces an oligopoly pricing game between the single-item sellers, which may have multiple equilibria. When there is only a single item this model reduces to Bertrand competition, for which the principal's revenue is $0$ at any equilibrium, so we assume that no single item's value is too dominant. We establish an upper bound on the principal's optimal revenue at every equilibrium: the expected welfare after truncating each item's value to its revenue-maximizing price. Under a technical condition on the value distributions -- that the monopolist's revenue is sufficiently sensitive to price -- we show that the principal seller can simply price the grand-bundle and ensure (in any equilibrium) a constant approximation to this bound (and hence to the optimal revenue). We also show that for some value distributions violating our conditions, grand-bundle pricing does not yield a constant approximation to the optimal revenue in any equilibrium. △ Less

Submitted 19 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: Accepted to EC 2024

Share-Based Fairness for Arbitrary Entitlements

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Uriel Feige

Abstract: We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items to agents that have arbitrary entitlements to the items. Every agent $i$ has a valuation function $v_i$ and an entitlement $b_i$, where entitlements sum up to~1. Which allocation should one choose in situations in which agents fail to agree on one acceptable fairness notion? We study this problem in the case in which each agent focuse… ▽ More We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible items to agents that have arbitrary entitlements to the items. Every agent $i$ has a valuation function $v_i$ and an entitlement $b_i$, where entitlements sum up to~1. Which allocation should one choose in situations in which agents fail to agree on one acceptable fairness notion? We study this problem in the case in which each agent focuses on the value she gets, and fairness notions are restricted to be {\em share based}. A {\em share} $s$ is an function that maps every $(v_i,b_i)$ to a value $s(v_i,b_i)$, representing the minimal value $i$ should get, and $s$ is {\em feasible} if it is always possible to give every agent $i$ value of at least $s(v_i,b_i)$. Our main result is that for additive valuations over goods there is an allocation that gives every agent at least half her share value, regardless of which feasible share-based fairness notion the agent wishes to use. Moreover, the ratio of half is best possible. More generally, we provide tight characterizations of what can be achieved, both ex-post (as single allocations) and ex-ante (as expected values of distributions of allocations), both for goods and for chores. We also show that for chores one can achieve the ex-ante and ex-post guarantees simultaneously (a ``best of both world" result), whereas for goods one cannot. △ Less

Submitted 23 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Fair Shares: Feasibility, Domination and Incentives

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Uriel Feige

Abstract: We consider fair allocation of a set $M$ of indivisible goods to $n$ equally-entitled agents, with no monetary transfers. Every agent $i$ has a valuation $v_i$ from some given class of valuation functions. A share $s$ is a function that maps a pair $(v_i,n)$ to a value, with the interpretation that if an allocation of $M$ to $n$ agents fails to give agent $i$ a bundle of value at least equal to… ▽ More We consider fair allocation of a set $M$ of indivisible goods to $n$ equally-entitled agents, with no monetary transfers. Every agent $i$ has a valuation $v_i$ from some given class of valuation functions. A share $s$ is a function that maps a pair $(v_i,n)$ to a value, with the interpretation that if an allocation of $M$ to $n$ agents fails to give agent $i$ a bundle of value at least equal to $s(v_i,n)$, this serves as evidence that the allocation is not fair towards $i$. For such an interpretation to make sense, we would like the share to be feasible, meaning that for any valuations in the class, there is an allocation that gives every agent at least her share. The maximin share was a natural candidate for a feasible share for additive valuations. However, Kurokawa, Procaccia and Wang [2018] show that it is not feasible. We initiate a systematic study of the family of feasible shares. We say that a share is \emph{self maximizing} if truth-telling maximizes the implied guarantee. We show that every feasible share is dominated by some self-maximizing and feasible share. We seek to identify those self-maximizing feasible shares that are polynomial time computable, and offer the highest share values. We show that a SM-dominating feasible share -- one that dominates every self-maximizing (SM) feasible share -- does not exist for additive valuations (and beyond). Consequently, we relax the domination property to that of domination up to a multiplicative factor of $ρ$ (called $ρ$-dominating). For additive valuations we present shares that are feasible, self-maximizing and polynomial-time computable. For $n$ agents we present such a share that is $\frac{2n}{3n-1}$-dominating. For two agents we present such a share that is $(1 - ε)$-dominating. Moreover, for these shares we present poly-time algorithms that compute allocations that give every agent at least her share. △ Less

Submitted 16 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Beyond Pigouvian Taxes: A Worst Case Analysis

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Ruty Mundel, Noam Nisan

Abstract: In the early $20^{th}$ century, Pigou observed that imposing a marginal cost tax on the usage of a public good induces a socially efficient level of use as an equilibrium. Unfortunately, such a "Pigouvian" tax may also induce other, socially inefficient, equilibria. We observe that this social inefficiency may be unbounded, and study whether alternative tax structures may lead to milder losses in… ▽ More In the early $20^{th}$ century, Pigou observed that imposing a marginal cost tax on the usage of a public good induces a socially efficient level of use as an equilibrium. Unfortunately, such a "Pigouvian" tax may also induce other, socially inefficient, equilibria. We observe that this social inefficiency may be unbounded, and study whether alternative tax structures may lead to milder losses in the worst case, i.e. to a lower price of anarchy. We show that no tax structure leads to bounded losses in the worst case. However, we do find a tax scheme that has a lower price of anarchy than the Pigouvian tax, obtaining tight lower and upper bounds in terms of a crucial parameter that we identify. We generalize our results to various scenarios that each offers an alternative to the use of a public road by private cars, such as ride sharing, or using a bus or a train. △ Less

Submitted 28 September, 2021; v1 submitted 26 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Making Auctions Robust to Aftermarkets

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Nicole Immorlica, Yingkai Li, Brendan Lucier

Abstract: A prevalent assumption in auction theory is that the auctioneer has full control over the market and that the allocation she dictates is final. In practice, however, agents might be able to resell acquired items in an aftermarket. A prominent example is the market for carbon emission allowances. These allowances are commonly allocated by the government using uniform-price auctions, and firms can t… ▽ More A prevalent assumption in auction theory is that the auctioneer has full control over the market and that the allocation she dictates is final. In practice, however, agents might be able to resell acquired items in an aftermarket. A prominent example is the market for carbon emission allowances. These allowances are commonly allocated by the government using uniform-price auctions, and firms can typically trade these allowances among themselves in an aftermarket that may not be fully under the auctioneer's control. While the uniform-price auction is approximately efficient in isolation, we show that speculation and resale in aftermarkets might result in a significant welfare loss. Motivated by this issue, we consider three approaches, each ensuring high equilibrium welfare in the combined market. The first approach is to adopt smooth auctions such as discriminatory auctions. This approach is robust to correlated valuations and to participants acquiring information about others' types. However, discriminatory auctions have several downsides, notably that of charging bidders different prices for identical items, resulting in fairness concerns that make the format unpopular. Two other approaches we suggest are either using posted-pricing mechanisms, or using uniform-price auctions with anonymous reserves. We show that when using balanced prices, both these approaches ensure high equilibrium welfare in the combined market. The latter also inherits many of the benefits from uniform-price auctions such as price discovery, and can be introduced with a minor modification to auctions currently in use to sell carbon emission allowances. △ Less

Submitted 15 November, 2022; v1 submitted 13 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Optimal Collaterals in Multi-Enterprise Investment Networks

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Yoav Kolumbus, Eyal Winter

Abstract: We study a market of investments on networks, where each agent (vertex) can invest in any enterprise linked to her, and at the same time, raise capital for her firm's enterprise from other agents she is linked to. Failing to raise sufficient capital results with the firm defaulting, being unable to invest in others. Our main objective is to examine the role of collateral contracts in handling the… ▽ More We study a market of investments on networks, where each agent (vertex) can invest in any enterprise linked to her, and at the same time, raise capital for her firm's enterprise from other agents she is linked to. Failing to raise sufficient capital results with the firm defaulting, being unable to invest in others. Our main objective is to examine the role of collateral contracts in handling the strategic risk that can propagate to a systemic risk throughout the network in a cascade of defaults. We take a mechanism-design approach and solve for the optimal scheme of collateral contracts that capital raisers offer their investors. These contracts aim at sustaining the efficient level of investment as a unique Nash equilibrium, while minimizing the total collateral. Our main results contrast the network environment with its non-network counterpart (where the sets of investors and capital raisers are disjoint). We show that for acyclic investment networks, the network environment does not necessitate any additional collaterals, and systemic risk can be fully handled by optimal bilateral collateral contracts between capital raisers and their investors. This is, unfortunately, not the case for cyclic investment networks. We show that bilateral contracting will not suffice to resolve systemic risk, and the market will need an external entity to design a global collateral scheme for all capital raisers. Furthermore, the minimum total collateral that will sustain the efficient level of investment as a unique equilibrium may be arbitrarily higher, even in simple cyclic investment networks, compared with its corresponding non-network environment. Additionally, we prove computational-complexity results, both for a single enterprise and for networks. △ Less

Submitted 20 March, 2022; v1 submitted 12 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

Comments: Published in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 (WWW'22). https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512053

Esca** Cannibalization? Correlation-Robust Pricing for a Unit-Demand Buyer

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Michal Feldman, Yannai A. Gonczarowski, Brendan Lucier, Inbal Talgam-Cohen

Abstract: We consider a robust version of the revenue maximization problem, where a single seller wishes to sell $n$ items to a single unit-demand buyer. In this robust version, the seller knows the buyer's marginal value distribution for each item separately, but not the joint distribution, and prices the items to maximize revenue in the worst case over all compatible correlation structures. We devise a co… ▽ More We consider a robust version of the revenue maximization problem, where a single seller wishes to sell $n$ items to a single unit-demand buyer. In this robust version, the seller knows the buyer's marginal value distribution for each item separately, but not the joint distribution, and prices the items to maximize revenue in the worst case over all compatible correlation structures. We devise a computationally efficient (polynomial in the support size of the marginals) algorithm that computes the worst-case joint distribution for any choice of item prices. And yet, in sharp contrast to the additive buyer case (Carroll, 2017), we show that it is NP-hard to approximate the optimal choice of prices to within any factor better than $n^{1/2-ε}$. For the special case of marginal distributions that satisfy the monotone hazard rate property, we show how to guarantee a constant fraction of the optimal worst-case revenue using item pricing; this pricing equates revenue across all possible correlations and can be computed efficiently. △ Less

Submitted 25 August, 2020; v1 submitted 12 March, 2020; originally announced March 2020.

A New Approach to Fair Distribution of Welfare

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Uriel Feige

Abstract: We consider transferable-utility profit-sharing games that arise from settings in which agents need to jointly choose one of several alternatives, and may use transfers to redistribute the welfare generated by the chosen alternative. One such setting is the Shared-Rental problem, in which students jointly rent an apartment and need to decide which bedroom to allocate to each student, depending on… ▽ More We consider transferable-utility profit-sharing games that arise from settings in which agents need to jointly choose one of several alternatives, and may use transfers to redistribute the welfare generated by the chosen alternative. One such setting is the Shared-Rental problem, in which students jointly rent an apartment and need to decide which bedroom to allocate to each student, depending on the student's preferences. Many solution concepts have been proposed for such settings, ranging from mechanisms without transfers, such as Random Priority and the Eating mechanism, to mechanisms with transfers, such as envy free solutions, the Shapley value, and the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution. We seek a solution concept that satisfies three natural properties, concerning efficiency, fairness and decomposition. We observe that every solution concept known (to us) fails to satisfy at least one of the three properties. We present a new solution concept, designed so as to satisfy the three properties. A certain submodularity condition (which holds in interesting special cases such as the Shared-Rental setting) implies both existence and uniqueness of our solution concept. △ Less

Submitted 25 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Bulow-Klemperer-Style Results for Welfare Maximization in Two-Sided Markets

Authors: Moshe Babaioff, Kira Goldner, Yannai A. Gonczarowski

Abstract: We consider the problem of welfare maximization in two-sided markets using simple mechanisms that are prior-independent. The Myerson-Satterthwaite impossibility theorem shows that even for bilateral trade, there is no feasible (IR, truthful, budget balanced) mechanism that has welfare as high as the optimal-yet-infeasible VCG mechanism, which attains maximal welfare but runs a deficit. On the othe… ▽ More We consider the problem of welfare maximization in two-sided markets using simple mechanisms that are prior-independent. The Myerson-Satterthwaite impossibility theorem shows that even for bilateral trade, there is no feasible (IR, truthful, budget balanced) mechanism that has welfare as high as the optimal-yet-infeasible VCG mechanism, which attains maximal welfare but runs a deficit. On the other hand, the optimal feasible mechanism needs to be carefully tailored to the Bayesian prior, and is extremely complex, eluding a precise description. We present Bulow-Klemperer-style results to circumvent these hurdles in double-auction markets. We suggest using the Buyer Trade Reduction (BTR) mechanism, a variant of McAfee's mechanism, which is feasible and simple (in particular, deterministic, truthful, prior-independent, anonymous). First, in the setting where buyers' and sellers' values are sampled i.i.d. from the same distribution, we show that for any such market of any size, BTR with one additional buyer whose value is sampled from the same distribution has expected welfare at least as high as the optimal in the original market. We then move to a more general setting where buyers' values are sampled from one distribution and sellers' from another, focusing on the case where the buyers' distribution first-order stochastically dominates the sellers'. We present bounds on the number of buyers that, when added, guarantees that BTR in the augmented market have welfare at least as high as the optimal in the original market. Our lower bounds extend to a large class of mechanisms, and all of our results extend to adding sellers instead of buyers. In addition, we present positive results about the usefulness of pricing at a sample for welfare maximization in two-sided markets under the above two settings, which to the best of our knowledge are the first sampling results in this context. △ Less

Submitted 23 December, 2019; v1 submitted 15 March, 2019; originally announced March 2019.