Welfare and Rationality Guarantees for the Simultaneous Multiple-Round Ascending Auction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simultaneous multiple-round auction (SMRA) and the combinatorial clock auction (CCA) are the two primary mechanisms used to sell bandwidth. Under truthful bidding, the SMRA is known to output a Walrasian equilibrium that maximizes social welfare provided the bidder valuation functions satisfy the gross substitutes property. Recently, it was shown that the combinatorial clock auction (CCA) provides good welfare guarantees for general classes of valuation functions. This motivates the question of whether similar welfare guarantees hold for the SMRA in the case of general valuation functions. We show the answer is no. But we prove that good welfare guarantees still arise if the degree of complementarities in the bidder valuations are bounded. In particular, if bidder valuations functions are $α$-near-submodular then, under truthful bidding, the SMRA has a welfare ratio (the worst case ratio between the social welfare of the optimal allocation and the auction allocation) of at most $(1+α)$. The special case of submodular valuations, namely $α=1$, and produces individually rational solutions. However, for $α>1$, this is a bicriteria guarantee, to obtain good welfare under truthful bidding requires relaxing individual rationality. Finally, we examine what strategies are required to ensure individual rationality in the SMRA with general valuation functions. First, we provide a weak characterization, namely \emph{secure bidding}, for individual rationality. We then show that if the bidders use a profit-maximizing secure bidding strategy the welfare ratio is at most $1+α$. Consequently, by bidding securely, it is possible to obtain the same welfare guarantees as truthful bidding without the loss of individual rationality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".