IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v91y2015icp297-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The power of randomness in Bayesian optimal mechanism design

Author

Listed:
  • Chawla, Shuchi
  • Malec, David
  • Sivan, Balasubramanian

Abstract

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 (1981) shows that randomness offers no benefit—the optimal mechanism is always deterministic. In the multi-dimensional case, when agents' preferences are arbitrarily correlated, Briest et al. (2010) 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. We show that when the agents' values involve no correlation or a specific kind of positive correlation, the benefit of randomness is only a small constant factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Chawla, Shuchi & Malec, David & Sivan, Balasubramanian, 2015. "The power of randomness in Bayesian optimal mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 297-317.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:91:y:2015:i:c:p:297-317
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2012.08.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825612001303
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2012.08.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Charles Rochet & Philippe Chone, 1998. "Ironing, Sweeping, and Multidimensional Screening," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 783-826, July.
    2. John Riley & Richard Zeckhauser, 1983. "Optimal Selling Strategies: When to Haggle, When to Hold Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(2), pages 267-289.
    3. Gregory Pavlov, 2006. "Optimal Mechanism for Selling Substitutes," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-014, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    4. Manelli, Alejandro M. & Vincent, Daniel R., 2006. "Bundling as an optimal selling mechanism for a multiple-good monopolist," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 1-35, March.
    5. Manelli, Alejandro M. & Vincent, Daniel R., 2007. "Multidimensional mechanism design: Revenue maximization and the multiple-good monopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 153-185, November.
    6. Shuchi Chawla & Jason Hartline & David Malec & Balasubramanian Sivan, 2010. "Sequential Posted Pricing and Multi-parameter Mechanism Design," Discussion Papers 1486, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    8. Thanassoulis, John, 2004. "Haggling over substitutes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 217-245, August.
    9. Mark Armstrong, 1999. "Price Discrimination by a Many-Product Firm," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 151-168.
    10. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John, 1988. "Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 335-354, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tim Roughgarden & Inbal Talgam-Cohen & Qiqi Yan, 2019. "Robust Auctions for Revenue via Enhanced Competition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 1074-1094, July.
    2. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Strategy-proof multi-object mechanism design: Ex-post revenue maximization with non-quasilinear preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Moshe Babaioff & Michal Feldman & Yannai A. Gonczarowski & Brendan Lucier & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2020. "Escaping Cannibalization? Correlation-Robust Pricing for a Unit-Demand Buyer," Papers 2003.05913, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    4. Alon Eden & Michal Feldman & Ophir Friedler & Inbal Talgam-Cohen & S. Matthew Weinberg, 2021. "A Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for a Buyer with Complements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 188-206, January.
    5. Constantinos Daskalakis & Maxwell Fishelson & Brendan Lucier & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Santhoshini Velusamy, 2020. "Multi-item Non-truthful Auctions Achieve Good Revenue," Papers 2002.06702, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    6. Will Ma, 2023. "When Is Assortment Optimization Optimal?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2088-2105, April.
    7. Yuan Deng & Jieming Mao & Balasubramanian Sivan & Kangning Wang, 2021. "Optimal Pricing Schemes for an Impatient Buyer," Papers 2106.02149, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    8. Adam N. Elmachtoub & Michael L. Hamilton, 2021. "The Power of Opaque Products in Pricing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4686-4702, August.
    9. Chen, Xi & Diakonikolas, Ilias & Paparas, Dimitris & Sun, Xiaorui & Yannakakis, Mihalis, 2018. "The complexity of optimal multidimensional pricing for a unit-demand buyer," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 139-164.
    10. Azar, Pablo D. & Kleinberg, Robert & Weinberg, S. Matthew, 2019. "Prior independent mechanisms via prophet inequalities with limited information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 511-532.
    11. Chawla, Shuchi & Teng, Yifeng & Tzamos, Christos, 2022. "Buy-many mechanisms are not much better than item pricing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 104-116.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Briest, Patrick & Chawla, Shuchi & Kleinberg, Robert & Weinberg, S. Matthew, 2015. "Pricing lotteries," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 144-174.
    2. Hart, Sergiu & Nisan, Noam, 2017. "Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 313-347.
    3. Pavlov Gregory, 2011. "Optimal Mechanism for Selling Two Goods," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-35, February.
    4. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Mishra, Debasis, 2022. "Selling two identical objects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    5. Hart, Sergiu & Nisan, Noam, 2019. "Selling multiple correlated goods: Revenue maximization and menu-size complexity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 991-1029.
    6. Komal Malik & Kolagani Paramahamsa, 2024. "Selling two complementary goods," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(2), pages 423-447, June.
    7. Manelli, Alejandro M. & Vincent, Daniel R., 2007. "Multidimensional mechanism design: Revenue maximization and the multiple-good monopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 153-185, November.
    8. Chen, Bo & Ni, Debing, 2017. "Optimal bundle pricing under correlated valuations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 248-281.
    9. Mark Armstrong, 2016. "Nonlinear Pricing," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 583-614, October.
    10. Pavlov Gregory, 2011. "A Property of Solutions to Linear Monopoly Problems," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Sergiu Hart & Noam Nisan, 2013. "Selling Multiple Correlated Goods: Revenue Maximization and Menu-Size Complexity (old title: "The Menu-Size Complexity of Auctions")," Papers 1304.6116, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    12. Yeon-Koo Che & Weijie Zhong, 2021. "Robustly Optimal Mechanisms for Selling Multiple Goods," Papers 2105.02828, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    13. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Strategy-proof multi-object mechanism design: Ex-post revenue maximization with non-quasilinear preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    14. Schäfers, Sebastian, 2022. "Product Lotteries and Loss Aversion," Working papers 2022/06, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    15. Cai, Yang & Daskalakis, Constantinos, 2015. "Extreme value theorems for optimal multidimensional pricing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 266-305.
    16. Jean‐Charles Rochet & John Thanassoulis, 2019. "Intertemporal price discrimination with two products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(4), pages 951-973, December.
    17. Menicucci, Domenico & Hurkens, Sjaak & Jeon, Doh-Shin, 2015. "On the optimality of pure bundling for a monopolist," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 33-42.
    18. Alon Eden & Michal Feldman & Ophir Friedler & Inbal Talgam-Cohen & S. Matthew Weinberg, 2021. "A Simple and Approximately Optimal Mechanism for a Buyer with Complements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 188-206, January.
    19. Ran Ben-Moshe & Sergiu Hart & Noam Nisan, 2022. "Monotonic Mechanisms for Selling Multiple Goods," Papers 2210.17150, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    20. Devanur, Nikhil R. & Haghpanah, Nima & Psomas, Alexandros, 2020. "Optimal multi-unit mechanisms with private demands," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 482-505.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mechanism design; Randomness; Revenue; Lotteries; Screening; Multi-product pricing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:91:y:2015:i:c:p:297-317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.