A flow‐based ascending auction to compute buyer‐optimal Walrasian prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider a market where a set of objects is sold to a set of buyers, each equipped with a valuation function for the objects. The goal of the auctioneer is to determine reasonable prices together with a stable allocation. One definition of “reasonable” and “stable” is a Walrasian equilibrium, which is a tuple consisting of a price vector together with an allocation satisfying the following desirable properties: (i) the allocation is market‐clearing in the sense that as much as possible is sold, and (ii) the allocation is stable in the sense that every buyer ends up with an optimal set with respect to the given prices. Moreover, “buyer‐optimal” means that the prices are smallest possible among all Walrasian prices. In this paper, we present a combinatorial network flow algorithm to compute buyer‐optimal Walrasian prices in a multi‐unit matching market with truncated additive valuation functions. The algorithm can be seen as a generalization of the classical housing market auction and mimics the very natural procedure of an ascending auction. We use our structural insights to prove monotonicity of the buyer‐optimal Walrasian prices with respect to changes in supply or demand.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".