Sequential Posted-Price Mechanisms with Correlated Valuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the revenue performance of sequential posted-price mechanisms and some natural extensions for a setting where the valuations of the buyers are drawn from a correlated distribution. Sequential posted-price mechanisms are conceptually simple mechanisms that work by proposing a “take-it-or-leave-it” offer to each buyer. We apply sequential posted-price mechanisms to single-parameter multiunit settings in which each buyer demands only one item and the mechanism can assign the service to at most k of the buyers. For standard sequential posted-price mechanisms, we prove that with the valuation distribution having finite support, no sequential posted-price mechanism can extract a constant fraction of the optimal expected revenue, even with unlimited supply. We extend this result to the case of a continuous valuation distribution when various standard assumptions hold simultaneously (i.e., everywhere-supported, continuous, symmetric, and normalized (conditional) distributions that satisfy regularity , the MHR condition , and affiliation ). In fact, it turns out that the best fraction of the optimal revenue that is extractable by a sequential posted-price mechanism is proportional to the ratio of the highest and lowest possible valuation. We prove that a simple generalization of these mechanisms achieves a better revenue performance; namely, if the sequential posted-price mechanism has for each buyer the option of either proposing an offer or asking the buyer for its valuation, then a Ω (1/max { 1, d }) fraction of the optimal revenue can be extracted, where d denotes the degree of dependence of the valuations, ranging from complete independence ( d =0) to arbitrary dependence ( d = n -1).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".