arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 2 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 Tight Aroximation Ratio of Anonymous Pricing Yaonan Jin Pinyan Lu Qi Qi Zhihao Gavin Tang Tao Xiao arxiv:8.763v [cs.gt] 2 Nov 28 Abstract We consider two canonical Bayesian mechanism design settings. In the single-item setting, we rove tight aroximation ratio for anonymous ricing: comared with Myerson Auction, it extracts at least 2.62-fraction of revenue; there is a matching lower-bound examle. In the unit-demand single-buyer setting, we rove tight aroximation ratio between the simlest and otimal deterministic mechanisms: in terms of revenue, uniform ricing admits a 2.62-aroximation of item ricing; we further validate the tightness of this ratio. These results settle two oen roblems asked in [3,, 4, 34, 32]. As an imlication, in the single-item setting: we imrove the aroximation ratio of the second-rice auction with anonymous reserve to 2.62, which breaks the state-of-the-art uer bound of e Deartment of IEDA, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. yjinan@ust.hk ITCS, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. lu.inyan@mail.shufe.edu.cn Deartment of IEDA, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. kaylaqi@ust.hk Deartment of Comuter Science, the University of Hong Kong. zhtang@cs.hku.hk Deartment of Comuter Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. xt 992@sjtu.edu.cn

2 Introduction Consider two simle revenue-maximization scenarios: one seller has n items to sell to a unitdemand buyer; 2 one seller has a single item to sell to n otential buyers. In both cases, the seller only knows the buyers valuation distributions {F i } n rather than their exact valuations for the items, and thus would like to maximize his exected revenue. The simlest mechanisms are to ost a fixed rice for the items. In the former case, the seller can ost a uniform rice for all items, after which the unit-demand buyer will take his favorite item given that its valuation exceeds the rice. In the second case, the seller can ost an anonymous rice for the single item, and then the first buyer in arbitrary orders, who values the item no less than the rice, will take the item. In ractice, the above simle ricing schemes are widely used. In terms of revenue, however, they are not necessarily otimal. In the first scenario, the seller can increase his exected revenue by osting item-secific rices, hence the item ricing mechanisms in the literature [6, 7,, 8, 2, 2]. In the second scenario, the seller can even organize an auction, and therefore increase his revenue by leveraging the buyers cometition. To this end, it is well-known that the otimal mechanism is the remarkable Myerson Auction [35]. Comared with the simle ricing schemes, how much extra revenues can the comlicated mechanisms derive? This is a central question in the theory of Bayesian mechanism design, comiled as the simle versus otimal rogram. As we quote from the survey by Lucier [34]: an interesting question is how well one can aroximate the otimal revenue using an anonymous rice, rather than ersonalized rices. In this aer, we settle the aroximation ratios of both simle ricing schemes mentioned above. Theorem. To sell a single item among multile buyers with indeendent regular distributions, the suremum of the ratio of Myerson Auction to anonymous ricing equals to C Theorem 2. To sell heterogeneous items to a unit-demand buyer with indeendent regular distributions for different items, the suremum of the ratio of otimal item ricing to uniform ricing equals to C In statements of both theorems, we introduce constant where Q def = ln C def = 2+ k= e Qx dx 2.622, k 2 2k for all,. Noticeably, the imosed regularity assumtion on distributions whose formal definition is deferred to Section 2 is very standard in economics, and is used in revious works as well. When we allow arbitrarily weird distributions, by contrast, both gas can be as large as n see [4] for more details. Since such weird distributions are uncommon in ractice, these results might not be that informative. The main body of this aer is devoted to roving Theorem. Given that, the uer-bound art of Theorem 2 comes immediately, after we aly the so-called coying technique develoed in [6, 7, 8]. Further, the lower bound examle for Theorem 2 follows from that for Theorem, after re-interretation and fine-turning. All analyses of Theorem 2 can be found in Section 6. As another imlication of Theorem, the ratio of Myerson Auction to the second-rice auction with anonymous reserve [35, 3, 3, 4, 32] is imroved to C This is a main oen roblem left It is noteworthy, in the unit-demand single-buyer setting, that finding otimal item ricing is NP-hard [2].

3 by Hartline and Roughgarden in [3], who roved an uer bound of 4, and a lower bound of 2. Prior to our work, the known best uer bound is e 2.72 [4], and the known best lower bound is 2.5 [32]. Whether our uer bound of C 2.62 is tight or not remains unknown.. Our Techniques To conquer Theorem, like [4, 32], we reresent the ratio by mathematical rogramming, and then manually solve the otimal objective value. The variables of this rogramming are an instance of the underlying mechanism design roblem, which consists of n different distributions {F i } n and the number of n itself. Given a certain instance, the constraint is, for any osted-rice, that the revenue from anonymous ricing is at most ; and 2 the objective is to maximize the revenue from Myerson Auction. The revenue from anonymous ricing is relatively aarent in terms of distributions {F i } n, but the revenue from Myerson Auction is far more comlicated. To escae from this dilemma, Alaei et al. [4] relaxed Myerson Auction to the so-called ex-ante relaxation, and thus obtain a handy uer bound of objective function. However, this relaxation incurs an inevitable cost: although the exact ratio of e was caught between ex-ante relaxation and anonymous ricing, this bound is no longer tight for the original rogramming. One can infer from the above, we must investigate Myerson Auction directly, and acquire its revenue in terms of distributions {F i } n. To do so, a main obstacle is that Myerson Auction is stated in terms of virtual valuations [35]. We introduce the virtual value distributions {D i } n in Section 2, hence the desired objective function. Throughout our analysis, three different formats for a certain distribution are involved: value CDF F i, virtual value CDF D i and revenue-quantile curve r i q. There are one-to-one corresondences among these formats. In different arts of the roof, we use the format that is best for our analyses. To this end, another challenge occur how to relate these three formats which is quite non-trivial. For this, we observe several interesting identities among the formats, which enables our roof. In both [4, 32], a very first ste towards their rogramming is to show, that a worst-case instance is reached by the so-called triangular distributions a subset of regular distributions. Regularity of a distribution requires its revenue-quantile curve to be a concave function. By contrast, that curve of a triangular distribution is basically a triangle, which lies in the boundary between concavity and convexity. In other words, triangular distributions are in the boundary of regular distributions. As a salient feature, describing a triangular distribution requires merely two real numbers. In this, the rogramming in both [4, 32] is greatly simlified, after the reductions to triangular distributions mentioned above. Unfortunately, our rogramming seems not to admit such a reduction. In fact, what enables reductions in [4, 32] is that both objective functions 2 therein contain a fantastic structure: given an instance {F i } n, they only deend on a secific set of value-robability airs { v i,f i v i } n, rather than any other details. Therefore, we can ushthe instance to extreme 3, while keeing the airs { v i,f i v i } n fixed, and keeing the distributions regular. This is exactly the reductions in [4, 32]. Back to our objective function, the revenue from Myerson Auction deends on all details about instance {F i } n ; this is why the desired reduction seems hoeless. Desite of annoyance from regularity, we can still calibrate a worst-case instance from different angles. We notice that a worst-case revenue-quantile curve must be a triangle/quadrangle with 2 In secific, the objective function in [4] is the aforementioned ex-ante relaxation, and the objective function in [32] is the so-called sequential osted-ricing mechanism. 3 This extreme is indeed a triangular instance: as mentioned before, triangular distributions are in the boundary of regular distributions; besides, each air v i,f iv i refers to the two real number needed to secify the distribution. 2

4 one curved-edge. It is this curved-edge that makes the revenue-quantile curve difficult to handle. With a concave revenue-quantile curve namely a regular distribution, the curved-edge is uerbounded by each tangent line of it, and is lower-bounded by the line connecting its two ends. In our analysis, we often exloit these two lines rather than the original curved-edge to measure a revenue-quantile curve. These two lines resectively serve as uer and lower bounds, which results in certain roerties of a worst-case distribution. For all rogramming in [4, 32] and in this aer, a worst-case instance is reached when there are infinite buyers namely when n, and each buyer s buying-robability is infinitesimal. Such instances refer to what we call continuous instance. In such a instance, conceivably, the revenue from Myerson Auction is given by an integration. This exlains why constant C 2.62 in our main theorems comes from an imroer integration. To settle our rogramming, it remains to show that a continuous instance does give the best revenue. We adot a direct roof lan: given a fixed number n N and a feasible instance {F i } n, we gradually transform it to a targeted continuous instance, without hurting the object value. In both [4, 32], a similar hilosohy is adoted. Another salient feature of triangular instance simlifies those roofs once again: there is a natural total-order 4 in a triangular instance. In other words, a set of triangular distributions can be transformed one by one in that order to a target continuous instance, without introducing interface in each ste. However, generic regular distributions do not follow such total-order. Therefore, locally each distribution has to be modified iece by iece; globally all distributions have to be modified simultaneously; which incur many technical challenges. To conquer these issues, otential function comes to the rescue: we find a natural otential to indicate status of the current instance; in each ste of our transformation, the otential declines by a re-fixed amount. Hence, the transformation will terminate after finite stes, left with a continuous instance as desired. In some sense, this otential function is the fourth reresentation of a distribution; in this term, the constraint of the rogramming becomes simle enough to deal with..2 Related Works Both of anonymous ricing and uniform ricing mechanisms are widely studied in literature [25,, 9, 3, 4,, 26, 24, 32]. In the single-item setting, another imortant family of ricing schemes is the sequential osted-ricing mechanisms [6, 27, 5, 7, 37, 3, 2, 24,, 22, 34, 5, 8, 32], which allows buyer-secific ricing strategies, and thus dominates anonymous ricing in revenue. Tight ratio between sequential osted-ricing and anonymous ricing is known to be 2.62 [32]. In the single-buyer unit-demand setting, item ricing schemes cover all deterministic mechanisms, among which finding the otimum is NP-hard [2]. When randomization is allowed, the seller can further imrove revenue by emloying lottery [29, 9, 8, 2]. Chen et al. [9] settled the comlexity of finding/describing otimal randomized mechanism. In broader multi-item settings with single or multile buyers having unit-demand and other utility functions, otimal mechanisms are even far more comlicated. In these setting, the last two decades have seen a number of works on roving intractability of otimal mechanisms, and even more abundant works on roving that simle mechanisms aroximate the otima within constant factors. In this amount of sace, evaluating so extensive literature would be imossible. As a guideline, readers can turn to hardness results in [28, 23, 9, 36, 6, 2, 2], and aroximation results in [6, 7,, 7, 8, 38, 2, 3], and the references therein. 4 As mentioned before, a triangular distribution has a triangular revenue-quantile curve; and 2 can be entirely defined by using two arameters. One of the two arameter is exactly the sloe of a secific edge namely the tangent of a secific angle of the triangle. In both [4, 32], the total-order refers to the decreasing-order of the sloes. 3

5 2 Notations and Preliminaries In most art of the aer, we mainly focus on the simlest single-item environment. One seller has a single item to sell, among n otential buyers. Each buyer i [n] has valuation drawn from distribution F i. Therefore, an instance is described by a n distributions {F i } n. We would study these distributions in great detail. In articular, we make use of three mathematically equivalent formats to describe the distributions. In the following three subsections, we will introduce them and some related notations one-by-one. 2. CDF and PDF The most natural way to describe distributions is their cumulative density function CDF and robability density function PDF. F i : cumulative density function CDF of a distribution. For convenience, we would assume that cumulative density function F i is left-continuous 5 rather than right-continuous, as usual. When without ambiguity, we also use F i to denote the corresonding distribution. f i : robability density function PDF of a distribution. By assuming that distribution F i is regular, soon after we will see the suort is a single closed interval; and 2 there exists at most one robability-mass which must be the suort-suremum, if exists. Hence, we can safely assume that robability density function f i is well-defined and left-continuous. We introduce some more useful notions for distribution F i as follows. see Figure a for demonstration. u i, ]: suort-suremum of distribution F i. Note that u i can be infinity. v i argmax { F i :, ] }, ]. If there are multile alternative v i s, we break ties by choosing the greatest one. Clearly, v i can also be infinity, yet cannot exceed u i. q i def = F i v i [,]. To interret these notions intuitively, consider a single-item auction: the seller osts rice for the item, and a single buyer with value drawn from distribution F i decides whether to buy. Since then, u i is the greatest ossible value of the buyer; v i is the revenue-otimal rice osted by the seller, termed the monooly-rice; q i is the selling robability corresonding to monooly-rice v i, termed monooly-quantile. We can easily check that q i = iff v i = u i =. 2.2 Regularity and Virtual Value Conventionally, regularity is elaborated by the notion of virtual value: given CDF F i, suose that its PDF f i is well-defined on,, and further define virtual value function 6 Φ i def = F i f i, ]. 5 That is, with random variable x drawn from the underlying distribution, F i = Pr { x < }. 6 When F i = and f i =, we let F i f i =. When F i < and f i =, we let F i f i =. 4

6 Denote by Reg the set of regular distributions. By standard notion [35], distribution F i is regular namely F i Reg iff its virtual value function Φ i is non-decreasing on, ]. As a result, for a regular distribution F i Reg, we know 7 a: The suort must be a single closed interval; b: There exists at most one robability-mass which must be the suort-suremum, if exists. Given the monotonicity of virtual value function Φ i, we define its inverse function as follows: Φ i def = argmax { x, ] : Φ i x }, ]. One may notice that this function is suorted on ositive virtual values. Indeed, to comute the revenue from Myerson Auction, only ositive virtual values are involved see Fact in Section 2.4, due to which we adot this way of definition. Further, we introduce virtual value CDF D i of this distribution: D i = F i Φ i, ]. By definition, we know that 8 Φ i v + i and D i = q i for all,φ i v + i ], which are illustrated in Figure b. Clearly, an equivalent condition for regularity is that the virtual value CDF is well-defined. Essentially, value CDF F i can be transformed to virtual value CDF D i, and vice versa. The above arguments cature one-side transformation since virtual value function Φ i is given by F i. The other-side transformation is relatively unintuitive, and is deferred to Fact 6.2 in Aendix A. F i D i r i q v i q i q i q i v i Φ i v + i Φ iu i r i q i q a value CDF b virtual value CDF c revenue-quantile curve Figure : Demonstrations for value CDF, virtual value CDF and revenue-quantile curve. 2.3 Revenue-Quantile Curve Equivalently, to deict the whole distribution, one can use revenue-quantile curve r i q that takes a quantile q [, ] as inut, and oututs corresonding revenue see Figure c for illustration. Formally, we have r i = lim F i and r i q = q max {, ] : F i q } q,]. 7 For Fact a, assume to the contrary that the suort contains two closed intervals [, 2] and [ 3, 4], where < < 2 < 3 < 4 <. When, 2, definitely Φ i is finite. When 2, 3, we have F i < and f i =, which means Φ i is negative infinity. This violates the monotonicity of Φ i. Similarly, Fact b can be verified by contradiction resect the monotonicity of Φ i. 8 Throughout the aer, for any function g, we use g + to denote the right limit of g at, i.e., lim x +gx. 5

7 For brevity, we might interchange notations F i, D i and r i q to denote an underlying distribution. By standard notion, an equivalent condition for regularity is that revenue-quantile curve r i q is continuous and concave on q [, ]. Clearly, both roerties together imly that r i q is left-/right-differentiable at any q,, and is right-differentiable at q =, and is left-differentiable at q = ; By standard notion, the virtual value at = r i q / q is recisely the right-derivative of r i q. Formally, Φ i ri q / q = + r i q, for all q [,; Resecting the semi-differentiability of r i q, we can safely assume that PDF f i is well-defined recall that Φ i = F i f i. Later, we will interchange all equivalent definitions of regularity, whenever one is more convenient for our use. In terms of revenue-quantile curve r i q, suort-suremum u i, monooly-rice v i and monooly-quantile q i can be re-defined as follows: u i def = lim q + r i q q : clearly, suort-suremum u i = when r i >. q i argmax { r i q : q [,] } : recall that q i is the quantile at monooly-rice v i. If there are multile alternative q i s, we break ties by choosing the smallest one. def v i = r iq i q i : we know monooly-rice v i is the greatest one among the alternatives, because r i q is concave, and q i is the smallest alternative one. Clearly, a concave revenue-quantile curve r i q can be converted into value CDF F i and virtual value CDF D i, and vice versa. In Aendix A, we formalize this statement as Fact 5 and Fact 6, and then obtain a structural result i.e., Main Lemma 4 that will be useful in Section Mechanisms Until Section 6, we always concentrate on single-item environment, where n buyers draw bids 9 {b i } n indeendently from distributions {F i} n Regn. Furthermore, we exlore revenue ga between the following two families of mechanisms. Anonymous Posted-Pricing AP. In such a mechanism, the seller osts the same rice of [, ] for all buyers. The item is allocated if there exists a buyer i bidding b i and remains unsold if no such buyers exist, and the buyer who gets the item ays the osted-rice. It is easy to see that the exected revenue from such mechanism is AP,{F i } n def = n F i. Among all such mechanisms, we abuse AP {F i } n def = max { AP,{F i } n } : [, ] to denote the otimal revenue. When term {F i } n is clear from the context, we would dro that for notational simlicity the same below for OPT. 9 The osted-rice strategy concerned here and all other mechanisms studied in this aer are truthful, and therefore each buyer always bids his true value. 6

8 Myerson Auction OPT. Given a regular instance {F i } n Regn, Myerson Auction runs as follows : After receiving bids {b i } n, the seller first calculates virtual values {Φ ib i } n, and then allocates the item to the buyer with highest virtual value that is at least, and charges this buyer with a threshold bid for the buyer to kee winning. If no buyer has non-negative virtual values, the seller would withhold the item, and charge nothing. Indeed, an allocation rule and a ayment rule comose a mechanism. For a truthful single-item mechanism e.g., Myerson Auction, it is well-known [35] that the allocation rule is monotone, and the ayment rule satisfies the roerty from Lemma in the below. Lemma Myerson Lemma [35]. Given a monotone allocation rule x, there exists a unique ayment rule π such that the mechanism is truthful: π i b = bi z dx i z,b i i [n], b R n +. Equied with this structural result, we cature the revenue from Myerson Auction in Fact whose roof is deferred to Aendix A., in the concerned setting with regular distributions 2. Fact Characterization. Given a regular instance {F i } n Regn, OPT {F i } n n n = r i + D i x dx. Thus far, we can easily formulate the revenue ga between OPT and AP as Program P in the below: the constraint on [,] always holds, and thus is droed. max OPT = {F i } n Regn n r i + subject to: AP = 2.5 Lower-Bound Instance n D i x dx P n F i, ] C As a subset of regular distributions Reg, the family of triangular distributions Tri introduced by Alaei et al. [4] is also used in this aer, serving to construct worst-case instances. Previously, with a triangular instance i.e., Examle, Jin et al. [32] gave a lower bound of Program P that matches to our Theorem. In the following, we resent these notion and examle. For a general instance, Myerson Auction can be more comlicated, and randomization can be necessary. That is, in the secific mechanism, the winner kees to win after unilaterally increasing his bid. 2 For general distributions, all D i s in Fact should be relaced by the virtual value CDF s after ironing [35]. 7

9 v i q i r i q F i q i q i q v i a Revenue-quantile curve b Value CDF Figure 2: Demonstration of triangular distributions Triangular Distributions. Parameterized by u i = v i, ] and q i [,], a triangular distribution Triv i,q i s CDF is defined as: { qi q F i = i +v i q i [,v i ] v i, Intuitively, as Figure 2a conveys, the revenue-quantile curve of Triv i,q i looks like a triangle. Notice that the lower-bound instance by Jin et al. [32] involves a secial triangular distribution 3 F = +, for all,. For brevity, we denote this distribution by Tri. Lower Bound. For triangular instances, Jin et al. [32] obtained an alternative formula for comuting the revenue from Myerson Auction see Fact 2. With a sohisticated triangular instance i.e., Examle, they established a lower bound of C 2.62 for Program P see Theorem 3. Fact 2 [32]. For any triangular instance {Triv i,q i } n that v v 2 v n, OPT {Triv i,q i } n n i = v i q i q i. Examle [32]. Given ǫ,, let a def = Q ln 8 def ǫ >, b instance {Tri } {Triv i,q i } n+ as, for each i [n+], j= = 8 ǫ and δ def v i = b i δ q i = Rv i Rv i v i +Rv i Rv i. = b a n. Define triangular Theorem 3 [32]. Consider the triangular instance in Examle. When n N + is sufficiently large, AP {Tri } {Triv i,q i } n+ and further, C OPT {Tri } {Triv i,q i } n+ n+ i = + v i q i q i C ǫ. 3 Proof Overview: Reductions and Otimizations Our main result is obtained by solving Program P. In this section, we would outline the roof of Theorem, and more details are deferred to Section 4, Section 5 and aendices. 3 CDF F = corresonds to revenue-quantile curve rq = q, for all q [,]. + j= 8

10 3. Transforming Program P into Program P We first roose several reductions among feasible instances of Program P. As a consequence, the otimal objective value of Program P is uer-bounded by that of Program P. max OPT = 2+ {F i } n Regn n D i x dx subject to: v i > and Φ i v i + i [n] C n ln + F i R def 2 = ln F i 2, C2 Secial Buyer {Tri,}. Given a feasible instance { {F i } n of Program P, we would enroll,] a secial buyer Tri,, that is, F n+ = D n+ =,. Afterwards, The objective value of Program P increases to + n r i + Constraint C still holds, since adding F n+ has no effect on constraint C. n D i x dx; With this secial buyer being recruited, each other buyer can contribute to the objective of Program P only if his virtual value strictly exceeds. Using the idea develoed in [4] to tailor distributions, we formalize this statement as Lemma 2 whose roof is deferred to Section 4.. Clearly, Lemma 2. corresonds to constraint C. For notational brevity, we will not exlicitly mention this secial buyer Tri, from now on. P Lemma 2. In a feasible instance {Tri,} {F i } n of Program P, w.l.o.g. for all i [n],. If q i >, then + r i q > for all q [,q i, v i = r iq i q i > and Φ i v + i = lim q q i + r i q ; 2. r i q is increasing on q [,q i ], and r i q = r iq i q i q when q [q i,]. Secial Buyer {Tri }. We continue to exlore worst-case instances of Program P, and thus obtain the following lemma for which we will give a sketched roof in Section 4.2. From now on, we will not exlicitly mention this secial buyer Tri anywhere excet for Section 4. Main Lemma. In a worst-case instance {F i } n i= of Program P, w.l.o.g.. F = + for all,, that is, r q = q for all q [,]; 2. r i = for all i [n]. Getting Program P. Equied with Main Lemma, to investigate a worst-case instance {F i } n i=, we can safely rewrite Program P as follows: 9

11 The objective value of Program P becomes 2+ same to that of Program P; Constraint C becomes n lnf i = n n + n D i x dx, which is exactly F i, or equivalently, ln + F i 2 ln F i 2,. We would use a trick exloited in [4] to relax constraint C3. Clearly, ln + x ln+x for all > and x. Alying this to constraint C3, we acquire constraint C2. Hitherto, it suffices to conquer Program P instead of Program P. 3.2 Continuous Instance Our next ste is to solve Program P. In fact, we have an otimal solution for that. We first introduce this solution and then rove its otimality. Besides, a guiding notion here refers to what we call continuous instance: the worst-case instance of Program P also falls into this family. Before defining continuous instance, let us recall two functions aeared in Program P and Theorem, resectively: R = ln 2 and Q = ln Li. It turns out that 2 these two functions are naturally correlated, based on the following mathematical facts the roofs are deferred in Aendix B.2. Lemma 3 artially roved in [32]. For R = ln 2 2. R = Q, R < Q < and R >, for all, ; 2. R = Q = and R + = Q + = ; 3. R and R 2 2, for all,. C3 and Q = ln Li, 2 Next, let us define a continuous instance Contγ, with arameter γ [,. Intuitively, it is defined to be an instance with infinitely many triangular distributions where the constraint is tight for all choices of γ. A formal definition is shown in Definition, from which we know Contγ satisfies both constraints in Program P. In articular, constraint C2 is tight in the range of γ,. Definition. Given γ [, and m N +, triangular instance {Triv i,q i } n2 v i = γ +n i n, for all i [n2 def ]. For notational simlicity, let v = ; i ln + v iq i q i = Rv i, that is, q i = erv i Rv i, for all i v i +e Rv i Rv i [n2 ]. j= When n aroaches to infinity, {Triv i,q i } n2 converges to Contγ. satisfies that The following lemma calibrates the objective function i.e., the revenue from Myerson Auction for continuous instances, and the roof is deferred in Aendix D.

12 Lemma 4. OPTContγ = 2+ e Q max{x,γ} dx is decreasing for all γ [,. Notably, by assigning γ in Lemma 4, we cature the formula in Theorem. 3.3 Catching Otimal Solution A high level idea to rove the otimality of Cont is, that we can covert any a feasible instance of Program P into some continuous instance Cont γ, without hurting the objective function. Potential Function. A crucial ingredient used in deriving otimal solution is the otential function defined as follows. For a regular distribution F i Reg, define its otential function Ψ,{F i } def = ln + F i,. F i For simlicity, we abuse notations as Ψ {F i } def = ln + v iq i q i and Ψ,{F i } n def = n Ψ,{F i }. As shown in Lemma 5, otential function Ψ,{F i } is strictly decreasing on [v i,u i ], and remains maximum Ψ {F i } when,v i ], and inherently remains when u i,. Lemma 5. Potential function Ψ,{F i } def = ln and remains ln + v iq i q i when,v i ]. + F i F i is strictly decreasing on [v i,u i ], Ψ,{F i } Ψ {F i } Ψ,{F i } Ψ {F i } i v i u i u i v i = v i u i u i a Potential function of the existing F i b Potential function of the new F i Figure 3: Demonstration for otential-based construction of {F i } n from {F i} n We note that the otential function for a triangular distribution is simly degenerated ste function, and thus the otential argument was not needed in revious aers [4, 32]. Recursive Construction. We adot the most natural roof lan: construct a list finite sequence of instances, where the head is the given feasible instance {F i } n, and the tail is a continuous instance Cont γ. In the middle of the list, we have hybrid instances with both continuous and discrete comonents. For brevity, in an iteration of the recursive construction, re-denote by Contγ {F i } n and Contγ {F i} n the existing and new instances, resectively. The new instance Contγ {F i } n is acquired as follows: Discrete-comonent : The new discrete-comonent {F i } n is derived from the existing discretecomonent {F i } n in a uniform fashion.

13 Local-uniformity : As Figure 3 demonstrates, for each i [n], the new distribution F i is constructed by uniformly diminishing the existing distribution F i as follows: Ψ,{F i } = Ψ,{F i } i,u i ], where i is otential-decrease contributed by this distribution, and u i is suortsuremum of the new distribution F i ; Global-uniformity : Let u and u be suort-suremum of {F i } n and that of {F i} n, resectively. In fact, the above i s and u i s are carefully chosen: Each distribution F i is strictly diminish that is, i > when u i = u; and if so, each such new distribution F i conformably satisfies that u i = u; Suort-suremum u of {F i } n is carefully chosen, so that total otential-decrease def = n i usually 4 equals to re-fixed ste-size >. The local-uniformity w.r.t. suort-suremum will be formalized as Lemma 6. in Section 5.3. Moreover, the global-uniformity w.r.t. otential-decrease means that the iteration terminates in finite iterations. Soon after, we will see these uniformities are crucial for roving the feasibility and otimality. Continuous-comonent : The new continuous-comonent Contγ is obtained by augmenting the continuous-comonent existing Contγ, so as to offset influences on the constraints and objective value of Program P caused by diminishing the discrete-comonent. Main Remarks. The benefit from such recursive and otential-based construction refer to the involved uniformities, in articular is twofold. To see so, let us first rewrite constraint C2 for the existing instance Contγ {F i } n : R max{,γ} +Ψ,{F i } n R, C2 Observe that augmenting continuous-comonent is just to offset the slack of constraint C2 caused by diminishing discrete-comonent. Based on the local-uniformity and global-uniformity, it is not hard to see that the new instance Contγ {F i } n also satisfies constraint C2. Additionally, the global-uniformity w.r.t. suort-suremum cooerated with other details allows us to decomose an iteration into n simler rocesses: In the k-th rocess, We only transform one existing distribution F k into another new distribution F k, and then augment the continuous-comonent corresondingly. Afterwards, we can exloit standard tools from mathematical analysis to verify, in each of these n rocesses, that the objective value of Program P monotonically increases. By induction, we conclude that OPT Contγ {F i } n OPT Contγ {Fi } n. 4 Main Proof: Reduction Part In this and the next section, we will imlement the aforementioned roof lan. We will describe most roof ideas and roof stes with sufficient details. To imrove the readability, however, verifications 4 When otential-decrease in a secific iteration is less than ste-size, at least one F i will become vanishing that is, Ψ {F i} =. Clearly, this secial case haens at most n times. More details will be rovided soon after. 2

14 of a few lemmas those extremely technically involved ones are ostoned to aendices. This is why we call these two sections Main Proof. 4. Proof of Lemma 2 [Lemma 2]. In a feasible instance {F i } n+. If q i >, then + r i q > for all q [,q i, v i = r iq i q i of Program P, w.l.o.g. for all i [n], > and Φ i v + i = lim q q i 2. r i q is increasing on q [,q i ], and r i q = r iq i q i q when q [q i,]. + r i q ; Proof. For each i [n], the regularity of F i imlies that revenue-quantile curve r i q is concave on q [,] see Section 2.2. As Figure 4 demonstrates, we would tailor F i as follows: In term of revenue-quantile curve, let 5 def q i = min{q [,q i ] : + r i q }, and define r i q def = { ri q q [,q i ] r i q i q q q q i i,]. Clearly, r i q is also concave on q [,], and satisfies both claims in the lemma. r i q r i q r i q i = v i q i r i q i r i q i = v i q i r i q i q r i q i q a Original r iq b r iq after tailoring Figure 4: Demonstration for reduction in Lemma 2. It remains to confirm the feasibility and otimality of {F i } n {Fn+ }. Recall the reductions between a CDF and its revenue-quantile curve see Fact 5. For each i [n], the concavity of r i q imlies that r i q r i q for all q [,] and thus, F i F i for all,. Therefore, AP,{F i } n {Fn+ } AP,{F i } n+, for all,. On the other hand, we surely have r i = r i, and can infer from Fact 5.2 that D i = D i for all,. Hence, OPT {F i } n {Fn+ } n n =+ r i + D i x dx =+ This comletes the roof of the lemma. n r i + n D i x dx = OPT {F i } n+. 5 Weknow +r iq i <, inthatq i = argmax{r iq : q [,]}. Therefore, q i = min{q [,q i] : +r iq } must be well-defined in [,q i]. 3

15 4.2 Proof Plan of Main Lemma The roof of Main Lemma consists of the following three arts. [Main Lemma ]. In a worst-case instance {F i } n i= of Program P, w.l.o.g.. F = + for all,, that is, r q = q for all q [,]; 2. r i = for all i [n]. Ste I: Secial Buyer {F }. Our first ste is to show, in the worst-case instance, that w.l.o.g. there is at most one buyer with monooly-quantile of. Provided with a feasible instance {F i } n def, let Ω = {i [n] : q i = }. Based on Lemma 2, for each i Ω, we can assume w.l.o.g. that r i q = r i q q [,] F i = Define r def = i Ω r i, and F def = +r i,. +r for all,. Now consider {F } {F i } i [n]\ω : Otimality: OPT {F } {F i } i [n]\ω = OPT {Fi } n, since r = r i, and i Ω D i =,, i {} Ω; Feasibility: AP,{F } {F i } i [n]\ω AP,{Fi } n for all,, in that F = + r = + r i i Ω i Ω + r i = By Lemma 2 and the above reduction, w.l.o.g. in a worst-case instance {F i } n i=,. With some r [,], we have r q = r q for all q [,]; 2. For each i [n], we have q i >, + r i q > for all q [,q i, v i = r iq i q i >. i Ω F i. Ste II: Auxiliary Proerty. Thesecond andthird stes aredevoted to showing that r = i.e., F = Tri in a worst-case instance. Towards that, we rove certain technical roerties of a worst-case instance in a straightforward way: Assuming a given instance violates a certain roerty, we exlicitly construct a new instance that satisfies the roerty; and 2 kees the revenue ga between OPT and AP. Alaei et al. [4] studied the revenue ga between ex-ante relaxation and anonymous ricing, and the secial buyer F = Tri also aears in a worst-case instance of that roblem. Comared with their roof, however, ours is significantly more involved and technical 6. To offer intuitions, we illustrate several most imortant constructions here, and leave rigorous roofs to Aendix C. The following roerty is a major ingredient of our roof. 6 Alaei et al. [4] also modeled the ex-ante relaxation vs. anonymous ricing roblem as a rogram. Observing secial structures of that rogram i.e., secial structures of ex-ante relaxation, they roved that the worst case must be a triangular instance. As mentioned before, rovided with two arameters v i and q i, it suffices to resent a triangular distribution Triv i,q i. By contrast, to define a regular distribution F i ointwisely interreted as an abstract function, infinity arameters are required. 4

16 Lemma 6. There exists a worst-case instance {F i } n i= of Program P, such that for all i [n] with r i >, + r i > +r. Proof Sketch. Assume to the contrary: k [n] such that r k > and + r k +r. We would construct two new distributions F and F k in terms of revenue-quantile curves r and r k, to relace the original distributions F and F k. Define r q def = r +r k q for all q [,]; { def Define q k = q k and r k q def rk q r k q [,q = k ] r k q k r k q k, as Figure 5 illustrates. q q q k,] r k q r k q r k q k r k q k r k > q k q r k = q k = q k q a Original r k q b r k q after reduction Figure 5: Demonstrations for the construction in Lemma 6 The feasibility of the new instance, i.e., AP,{F } {F k } {F i } i [n]\{k} when, ], is rovided in AendixC.. Besides, we have OPT {F } {F k } {F i } i [n]\{k} = OPT {Fi } n i=. The integration art of OPT remains the same: Cho r k from the k-th revenue-quantile curve this has no affect on the k-th virtual value CDF, in whole integrating range of, refer to all ositive virtual values, as Figure 5 suggests; The summation art of OPT also remains the same: The loss of r k incurred by choing the k-th distribution is recisely comensated by filling u the secial -th distribution. We shall emhasize, after such reduction, that n r i remains the same, whereas r increases i= strictly. These facts will be useful for later roofs. Ste III: Case Analyses. IntherestofSection4, wealways assumetheroertyfromlemma6. Towards Main Lemma, our final ste refers to case analyses, based on the value of r. Secifically, we rovide different construction schemes when r 3 and when r 2. Lemma 7. There exists a worst-case instance {F i } n i= of Program P such that r > 3. Lemma 8. Given a feasible instance {F i } n i= of Program P that r 2, there exists another feasible instance {F i } n i= such that OPT {F i } n i= OPT {Fi } n i=, and r q = q q [,] r i = i [n]. 5

17 Note that 3 > 2, combining both lemmas together leads to Main Lemma immediately. Assuming the roerty from Lemma 6, we will outline how to settle the first case i.e., Lemma 7 in Section 4.3. Furthermore, the roof of the second case i.e., Lemma 8 is of the same sirit as that of Lemma 6, and is deferred to Aendix C Proof Plan of Lemma 7 To conquer Lemma 7, we shall define a useful arameter 7 : β {F i } n def i= = max {, ] : AP,{F i } n } i= =. For brevity, we often dro the term {F i } n i=, when there is no ambiguity from the context. Recall Lemma 2. that v i > for all i [n]. The following lemmas are roved in Aendix C.2. Lemma 9. AP,{F i } n i= is strictly increasing, when < < min { vi : i [n] }. Lemma. lim AP,{F i } n n i= = r i. i= In a worst-case instance {F i } n i= of Program P, definitely max{ AP :, ] } =, as otherwise we can always scale u all distributions. Based on Lemma 9, max { AP :, ] } is reached when = β min { v i : i [n] } > notice that the maximizer β can be infinity. Hence, β must be well-defined can be infinity. By definition we have APβ = and further, When β,, the feasibility to constraint C ensures + APβ and APβ ; When β =, it follows from Lemma that n r i = AP = APβ =. Case I when β < : This case is a bit strange since the constraint of AP is not tight for > β. Intuitively, one can slightly increase the distribution for > β so that the constraint of AP is still satisfied while the objective function is strictly increased. This seems always ossible. The only reason that we cannot do this is due to the hidden constraint that the distributions are regular. This motivates the following notion of critical instance in Definition 2. The first condition for criticality means, for each i [n] with F i β <, that revenue-quantile curve r i q is a line segment 8 on q [, F i β] this range refers to all values [β, ]. i= Definition 2. A critical instance {F i } n i= is feasible, has well-defined and finite β, and satisfies:. i [n]: F i β <, a i >, b i : F i = b i a i for all β, ; 2. + AP β =. Case I. when {F i } n i= is non-critical: Given that β,, indeed we can transform any a non-critical instance into another critical instance, or an instance with β =, while reserve the roerty from Lemma 6. 7 Each regular distribution F i has at most one robability-mass which must be suort-suremum u i if exists. Therefore, function AP is continuous when is sufficiently large. We define β def = when lim AP =. 8 In terms of notations in Definition 2, we have r iq = a i q +b i for all q [, F iβ]. 6

18 Suose the first condition for criticality fails: There exists k [n] with q β def = F k β >, so that revenue-quantile curve r k q is not a line segment yet still concave on q [,q β ]. Given r >, as Figure 6a demonstrates, there is a unique line segment r k q such that r k = r k + r ; and 2 r k q is tangent to r k q at q β,r k q β, for some q β >. In the range of q q β,], we further define r k q def = r k q. Interreted as a revenue-quantile curve, r k q corresonds to some distribution F k. We shall find the maximum r > such that AP,{F } {F k } {F i } i [n]\{k} for all, ]. Such r and r k q always exist, which can be inferred from the following facts 9. a: r k q is not a line segment yet still concave on q [,q β ]. b: Given β, ], AP,{F i } n i= is strictly smaller than, due to the definition of β. c: AP β,{f i } n i= =. Since r k q r k q for all q [,], distribution F k stochastically dominates distribution F k. Hence, after relacing F k by F k, we know the revenue from OPT can never decrease; and 2 n r i strictly increases by r >. i= Otherwise, the second condition for criticality fails, yet the first holds: + AP β, and for all i [n] with F k β <, revenue-quantile curve r k q is a line segment on q [, F k β]. Once again, we can find a distribution F k such that, after relacing F k by F k, the revenue from OPT can never decrease; and 2 n r i strictly increases by r >. i= To see so, we shall notice that 2 + APβ < and + APβ. In other words, there exists def k [n] such that q β = F k β > and + F k β > F k β. In terms of revenue-quantile curve, we have + r k q β < r k q β, as Figure 6b suggests. As er this, the existence of desired distribution F k comes from same arguments as before. r k q r k q r k q β = r k q β r k q β = r k q β r k q r k q β = r k q β r k q r k = r k + r r k q β q β q k q r k = r k + r r k q β q k q a When the first condition for criticality fails b When the first condition for criticality holds Figure 6: Demonstration for the reduction from a non-critical instance to a critical instance 9 Combining facts a,b together imlies the existence of candidates r >. Also, combine facts a,c together, the maximum r = r k r k is no more than r k q β +r k q β q β r k. Note that line segment r k q is tangent to r k q at q β,r k q β, when r k = r k q β +r k q β q β. 2 As mentioned before, +APβ and +APβ, based on the feasibility to constraint C. Moreover, since the second condition for criticality fails, we have +APβ. 7

19 After relacing F k by the above F k, ossible + r k +r, which violates the roerty from Lemma 6. In this case, we further aly the reduction involved in Lemma 6 to the k-th n distribution. Afterwards, as mentioned before, r i remains same, yet r increases strictly. i= To sum u, each of the above reductions brings greater n r i and greater r, where one quantity increases strictly. On the other hand, i= n r i = AP,{F i } n i= and r 2 3. i= Thus, the rocedure invoking the above reductions will converge, and bring either a critical instance {F i } n i= see Case I.2; or 2 an instance {F i} n i= with β = see Case II. Case I.2 when {F i } n i= is critical: Given that β,, we are left to investigate all critical instances. When a critical instance {F i } n i= satisfies the roerty from Lemma 6, the following lemma whose roof is deferred to AendixC.4 imlies that r > 3 in the worst case. Lemma. Given a critical instance {F i } n i= of Program P that satisfies the roerty from Lemma 6 i.e., + r i > +r for all i [n] with r i >, then r > 3. Case II when β = : In this case, as mentioned before, constraint C is tight when goes n to infinity: r i = AP = APβ =. Given this, we testify Lemma 2 in Aendix C.5, i= and thus narrow down the feasible sace of Program P. Aarently, resect the roerty from Lemma 6, an instance {F i } n i= with r 3 and n r i = can never be feasible. Lemma 2. Given a feasible instance {F i } n i= of Program P that n r i = and satisfies the roerty from Lemma 6 i.e., + r i > +r for all i [n] with r i >, then r > To sum u, utting the above Case I and Case II Lemma and Lemma 2 essentially together comletes the roof of Lemma 7. 5 Main Proof: Otimization Part In the otimization art of the main roof, we are rovided with Program P, which is rewritten as fellow. For convenience, constraint C2 is reformulated in terms of otential functions. Recall that Ψ,{F i } = ln + F i F i and R = ln 2, for all,. 2 n i= i= r i = AP,{F i} n i= is due to Lemma and feasibility to constraint C. r 3 resects the statement of Lemma 7. 2 i= 3. 8

20 max OPT = 2+ {F i } n Regn n D i x dx P subject to: v i > and Φ i v i + i [n] C Ψ,{F i } n n = Ψ,{F i } R, C2 As mentioned in Section 3.3, we adot the most natural roof lan for solving Program P: construct a list finite sequence of instances, where the head is the given feasible instance {F i } n, and the tail is a continuous instance Cont γ. This roof lan will be imlemented as MAIN namely Algorithm in Section 5.. To convey basic ideas, we would outline the main stes before introducing MAIN: with given recision ǫ,, a: For the head instance {F i } n, we would cature its next instance Contγ {Fi }n see line 2 to line 5 of MAIN. While being feasible to Program P see Section 5.2, the next instance Contγ {Fi }n further ossesses three roerties:. Hybridization: Different from the discrete instance head {F i } n, the next is a mix of continuous-comonent Contγ and discrete-comonent {Fi }n, and thus is closer to the continuous instance tail Cont γ. Notably, γ 33 is finite see Lemma 3; ǫ 2 2. Constraint-slack see inequality in Section 5.2: For discrete-comonent {Fi }n of the next instance, let u denote its suort-suremum. W.r.t. the next instance, there is a fixed arameter δ 32 ǫ2 see Lemma 3 such that, for all,u ], LHS of constraint C2 RHS of constraint C2 δ ; 3. Near-otimality see Section 5.2: OPT next OPT head 5ǫ. b: We acquire the remaining list iteratively, by invoking SUBROUTINE namely Algorithm 2 in Section 5.3 in line 7 of MAIN. Each remaining instance current is constructed from its revious instance in a tailor-made way again, see Section 5.3. Here, we shall stress that a secific current is feasible to Program P, and reserves analogous roerties:. Hybridization see Section 5.3: The current is constructed from its revious through augmenting the continuous-comonent, and diminishing the discrete-comonent. As a consequence, the current is closer to the continuous instance tail Cont γ, comared with its revious; 2. Constraint-slack see Section 5.4.2: For discrete-comonent of the current, denote by u its suort-suremum. Our tailor-made construction see Section 5.3 automatically resects this roerty: given the current, in the range of,u], we have LHS of constraint C2 RHS of constraint C2 δ ; 3. Otimality see Section 5.5: OPT current OPT revious. Suose that the list of instances is indeed finite to be affirmed soon after, then SUBROUTINE returns a continuous instance tail Cont γ. Accordingly, alying roof lan b.3 inductively gives OPT tail OPT next a.3 OPT head 5ǫ. In other words, OPT Cont γ OPT {F i } n 5ǫ. 9

21 c: Now, we would briefly exlain why the list is finite, and defer more details to Section 5.3. In each iteration of SUBROUTINE, how we construct a current instance from its revious instance is otential-based recall Section 3.2 for more details; As inut of SUBROUTINE, the next instance Contγ {Fi }n has a finite otential. On the other hand, the tail instance if attainable is of -otential. To see the list is a finite sequence of instances, it suffices to find a suitable and fixed 22 ste-size >, which rescribes the otential-decrease 23 er iteration; A workable ste-size > is defined in line 6 of MAIN. Such is carefully chosen, to enable our roof lan b.3 that OPT current OPT revious. Notably, such is roortional to δ, and is inversely roortional to γ 2. Hence, roof lan a. and a.2 are both necessary: to make bounded away from +, introduce continuous-comonent Contγ, where γ 33 ǫ 2, and constraint-slack δ 32 ǫ2. To sum u, the desired list is finite, ending u with the continuous instance tail Cont γ. The above ideas will be imlemented as algorithm MAINnamely Algorithm. Basically, algorithm MAIN consists of two arts: PREPROCESSING and SUBROUTINE. Inut: MAIN takes a feasible instance {F i } n of Program P and a fixed ǫ > as inut; Outut: MAIN oututs a continuous instance Cont γ that is rovably better than the inut instance {F i } n in terms of the objective value, within 5ǫ-loss; PREPROCESSING: with recision ǫ > and inut instance {F i } n, we construct a hybrid instance Contγ {Fi }n ; SUBROUTINE: we construct a finite sequence of instances, and therefore gradually transform Contγ {Fi }n into Cont γ. SUBROUTINEis an iterative algorithm: in each iteration, by invoking algorithm DIMINISH see Section 5.3, we get a new regular instance that is feasible to Program P, and generates a greater objective value than revious instances; In Section 5.2, we will rove that Contγ {Fi }n is regular, feasible to Program P, and gives an objective value at least OPT {F i } n 5ǫ. Further, all roofs about SUBROUTINE are given in Section 5.3, Section 5.4 and Section 5.5. Particularly, we will show that SUBROUTINE terminates after finite iterations, and then oututs our final continuous instance Cont γ. 5. PREPROCESSING We first resent algorithm MAIN, which invokes algorithm SUBROUTINE at the end. Noticeably, benefits from the PREPROCESSING art namely line to line 6 in the below are threefold: it introduces a continuous instance Contγ, incurring only a small loss of objective value; 2 it gives a uniform uer bound u deending on ǫ for suorts of all distributions Fi s; and 3 it secifies a fixed ste-size for algorithm SUBROUTINE, which is helful in roving that algorithm SUBROUTINE and thus algorithm MAIN terminates in finite time. 22 Here, fixed means the ste-size > only deends on the head instance {F i} n and recision ǫ >. 23 That is, how closer to the tail instance a current instance is, comared with its revious instance. 2