The Vickrey Auction with a Single Duplicate Bidder Approximates the Optimal Revenue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bulow and Klemperer's well-known result states that, in a single-item auction where the $n$ bidders' values are independently and identically drawn from a regular distribution, the Vickrey auction with one additional bidder (a duplicate) extracts at least as much revenue as the optimal auction without the duplicate. Hartline and Roughgarden, in their influential 2009 paper, removed the requirement that the distributions be identical, at the cost of allowing the Vickrey auction to recruit $n$ duplicates, one from each distribution, and relaxing its revenue advantage to a $2$-approximation. In this work we restore Bulow and Klemperer's number of duplicates in Hartline and Roughgarden's more general setting with a worse approximation ratio. We show that recruiting a duplicate from one of the distributions suffices for the Vickrey auction to $10$-approximate the optimal revenue. We also show that in a $k$-items unit demand auction, recruiting $k$ duplicates suffices for the VCG auction to $O(1)$-approximate the optimal revenue. As another result, we tighten the analysis for Hartline and Roughgarden's Vickrey auction with $n$ duplicates for the case with two bidders in the auction. We show that in this case the Vickrey auction with two duplicates obtains at least $3/4$ of the optimal revenue. This is tight by meeting a lower bound by Hartline and Roughgarden. En route, we obtain a transparent analysis of their $2$-approximation for $n$~bidders, via a natural connection to Ronen's lookahead auction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".