IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03583826.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Note on the Tight Simplification of Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Eduardo Perez

    (ECON - Département d'économie (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This note offers characterizations of tightness and weak tightness. It shows that when the preference domainis that of continuous utility functions on the outcome space, the two notions are equivalent to the outcomeclosure property of Milgrom (2010a).

Suggested Citation

  • Eduardo Perez, 2011. "A Note on the Tight Simplification of Mechanisms," Post-Print hal-03583826, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03583826
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2010.10.007
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03583826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03583826/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.10.007?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milgrom, Paul, 2010. "Simplified mechanisms with an application to sponsored-search auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 62-70, September.
    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. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    2. Manjunath, Vikram & Westkamp, Alexander, 2021. "Strategy-proof exchange under trichotomous preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    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. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    2. Frank Kelly & Peter Key & Neil Walton, 2016. "Efficient Advert Assignment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 822-837, August.
    3. Augenblick, Ned & Bodoh-Creed, Aaron, 2018. "To reveal or not to reveal: Privacy preferences and economic frictions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 318-329.
    4. Dütting, Paul & Henzinger, Monika & Starnberger, Martin, 2018. "Valuation compressions in VCG-based combinatorial auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87419, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Andor Goetzendorff & Martin Bichler & Pasha Shabalin & Robert W. Day, 2015. "Compact Bid Languages and Core Pricing in Large Multi-item Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1684-1703, July.
    6. Liran Einav & Chiara Farronato & Jonathan Levin, 2016. "Peer-to-Peer Markets," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 615-635, October.
    7. Dütting, Paul & Fischer, Felix & Parkes, David C., 2019. "Expressiveness and robustness of first-price position auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Gomes, Renato & Sweeney, Kane, 2014. "Bayes–Nash equilibria of the generalized second-price auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 421-437.
    9. Peter Cramton, 2013. "Spectrum Auction Design," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(2), pages 161-190, March.
    10. Ko, Chiu Yu & Konishi, Hideo, 2012. "Profit-maximizing matchmaker," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 217-232.
    11. Martin, Simon & Schlag, Karl H., 2020. "Split it up to create incentives: Investment, public goods and crossing the river," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. Patrick Hummel, 2018. "Hybrid mechanisms for Vickrey–Clarke–Groves and generalized second-price bids," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 331-350, March.
    13. Kos, Nenad, 2012. "Communication and efficiency in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 233-249.
    14. Dütting, Paul & Fischer, Felix & Parkes, David C., 2016. "Truthful Outcomes from Non-Truthful Position Auctions," Scholarly Articles 32227268, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    15. Itai Ashlagi & Alvin E. Roth, 2021. "Kidney Exchange: An Operations Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5455-5478, September.
    16. Martin, Simon & Schlag, Karl, 2017. "Finite Horizon Holdup and How to Cross the River," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168136, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Yan, Haomin, 2021. "Position auctions with multi-unit demands," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 179-193.
    18. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    19. Perez-Richet, Eduardo, 2011. "A note on the tight simplification of mechanisms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 15-17, January.
    20. Bichler, Martin & Goeree, Jacob K., 2017. "Frontiers in spectrum auction design," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 372-391.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mechanism design; Simplification; Tightness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:hal:journl:hal-03583826. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.