arxiv: v3 [cs.gt] 26 Jun 2018

Transcription

1 Informaton lctaton for Bayesan Auctons arxv: v3 [cs.gt] 26 Jun 2018 Jng Chen Bo L Yngka L Department of Computer Scence, Stony Brook Unversty Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA {jngchen, bol2, yngkl}@cs.stonybrook.edu Abstract In ths paper we desgn nformaton elctaton mechansms for Bayesan auctons. Whle n Bayesan mechansm desgn the dstrbutons of the players prvate types are often assumed to be common knowledge, nformaton elctaton consders the stuaton where the players know the dstrbutons better than the decson maker. To weaken the nformaton assumpton n Bayesan auctons, we consder an nformaton structure where the knowledge about the dstrbutons s arbtrarly scattered among the players. In such an unstructured nformaton settng, we desgn mechansms for unt-demand auctons and addtve auctons that aggregate the players knowledge, generatng revenue that are constant approxmatons to the optmal Bayesan mechansms wth a common pror. Our mechansms are 2-step domnant-strategy truthful and the revenue ncreases gracefully wth the amount of knowledge the players collectvely have. Keywords. game theory, mechansm desgn, nformaton elctaton, dstrbuted knowledge, removng common pror The frst author thanks Matt Wenberg for readng a draft of ths paper and for helpful dscussons. The authors thank Constantnos Daskalaks, János Flesch, Hu Fu, Pnyan Lu, Slvo Mcal, Rafael Pass, Andrés Perea, las Tsakas, several anonymous revewers, and the partcpants of semnars at Stony Brook Unversty, Shangha Jaotong Unversty, Shangha Unversty of Fnance and conomcs, Maastrcht Unversty, MIT, and IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center for helpful comments. Ths work s partally supported by NSF CARR Award No

2 1 Introducton Bayesan aucton desgn has been extremely flourshng snce the semnal work of [37]. One of the man focuses s to generate revenue, by sellng m heterogenous tems to n players. ach player has a prvate valuaton functon descrbng how much he values each subset of the tems, and the valuatons are drawn from pror dstrbutons. An mportant assumpton n Bayesan mechansm desgn s that the dstrbutons are commonly known by the seller and the players the common pror assumpton. However, as ponted out by another semnal work [41], such common knowledge s rarely present n experments and never n practce, and only by repeated weakenng of common knowledge assumptons wll the theory approxmate realty. In ths paper, we weaken the nformaton assumpton about the seller and the players by adoptng an nformaton elctaton approach [35]. We consder a framework for auctons where the knowledge about the players value dstrbutons are arbtrarly scattered among the players and the seller. The seller must aggregate peces of nformaton from all players to gan a good understandng about the dstrbutons, so as to decde how to sell the tems. As n nformaton elctaton, the players get rewards for reportng ther knowledge. However, dfferent from classc nformaton elctaton where a player s utlty s exactly hs reward, n our model a player s utlty comes not only from hs knowledge, but also from partcpatng n the aucton (.e., from buyng tems). Moreover, nformaton elctaton usually assumes the pror dstrbuton s correlated: each player observes a prvate sgnal and reports the correspondng posteror dstrbuton. Ths means every player has nformaton about every other player. In our model, followng the conventon n mult-tem auctons, the players value dstrbutons for ndvdual tems are assumed to be ndependent. A player may be totally gnorant about some players and only partally knows some other players dstrbutons. We focus on unt-demand auctons and addtve auctons two valuaton types wdely studed n the lterature [15, 28]. In such auctons, a player s valuaton functon s specfed by m values, one for each tem. For each player and temj, the valuev j s ndependently drawn from a dstrbuton D j. ach player prvately knows hs own values and some (or none) of the dstrbutons of some other players for some tems, lke long-tme compettors n the market. There s no constrant about who knows whch dstrbutons. The seller may also know some of the dstrbutons, but he does not know whch player knows what. A player may or may not know hs own value dstrbutons. However, t s hard to elct a player s knowledge about hs own dstrbuton, and we are not aware of any such study n nformaton elctaton. Thus we do not consder the players self-knowledge. We ntroduce drected knowledge graphs to succnctly descrbe the players knowledge. ach player knows the dstrbutons of hs neghbors, dfferent tems knowledge graphs may be totally dfferent, and the structures of the graphs are not known by anybody. Interestngly, the ntuton behnd such an nformaton structure has long been consdered by phlosophers. In [31], the author dscussed a world where everythng n the world mght be known by somebody, yet not everythng by the same knower. Below we brefly state our man results. 1.1 Man Results Under arbtrary knowledge graphs. Our goal s to desgn 2-step domnant strategy truthful (2- DST) nformaton elctaton mechansms whose expected revenue approxmates that of the optmal Bayesan ncentve compatble (BIC) mechansm, denoted by OPT. 1 In order for the seller to aggregate the players knowledge about the dstrbutons, t s natural for the mechansm to ask each player to report hs knowledge to the seller, together wth hs own values. A 2-DST mechansm 1 A Bayesan mechansm s BIC f t s a Bayesan Nash equlbrum for all players to report ther true values. 1

3 [4] s such that, (1) no matter what knowledge the players may report about each other, t s domnant for each player to report hs true values; and (2) gven that all players report ther true values, t s domnant for each player to report hs true knowledge about others. When the knowledge graphs are such that some dstrbutons are not known by anybody, t s easy to see that no nformaton elctaton mechansm can be a bounded approxmaton to OP T. Thus t s natural to consder the followng benchmark: the optmal BIC mechansm appled to players and tems for whom the dstrbutons are ndeed known by somebody, denoted by OPT K. Ths s a natural benchmark when consderng players wth lmted knowledge and, f every dstrbuton s known by somebody, then t s exactly OPT. We have the followng, formalzed n Secton 3. Theorems 1 and 3. (sketched) For any knowledge graph, there s a 2-DST nformaton elctaton mechansm for unt-demand auctons wth revenue OPT K 96, and such a mechansm for addtve auctons wth revenue OPT K 70. To prove Theorem 1, we actually show a general result: any Bayesan mechansm for untdemand auctons that s a good approxmaton n the COPIS settng (formally defned n Secton 3.2) can be converted to nformaton elctaton mechansms; see Theorem 2. Ths apples to a large class of Bayesan mechansms, ncludng the ones n [15, 32, 16]. To prove Theorem 3, we have developed a novel approach for usng the adjusted revenue [43]. Although ths concept s very useful n Bayesan auctons, t was unexpected that we found an nterestng and hghly non-trval way of usng t to analyze nformaton elctaton mechansms. When everythng s known by somebody. When the knowledge graphs become denser, the amount of knowledge ncreases and the seller may generate more revenue. Indeed, f every dstrbuton s known by somebody, OPT K = OPT. We show the revenue that can be generated by nformaton elctaton mechansms ncreases gracefully together wth the amount of knowledge. More precsely, for any nteger k 1, let τ k = k (k+1) k+1 k larger. We have the followng theorems, formalzed n Secton 4.. Note τ 1 = 1 4 and τ k 1 when k gets Theorems 4 and 5. (sketched) k [n 1], when each dstrbuton s known by at least k players, there s a 2-DST nformaton elctaton mechansm for unt-demand auctons wth revenue τ k 24 OPT, and such a mechansm for addtve auctons wth revenue max{ 1 11, τ k 6+2τ k }OPT. Fnally, by explorng the knowledge graph s combnatoral structure, we have the followng for sngle-good auctons. Theorem 6. (sketched) When the knowledge graph s 2-connected, 2 there s a 2-DST nformaton elctaton mechansm for sngle-good auctons wth revenue (1 1 n )OPT. 1.2 Dscussons The use of scorng rules. Snce our mechansms elct the players knowledge about each other s value dstrbutons, we wll use scorng rules (see, e.g., [9]) to reward the players for ther reported knowledge, as typcal n nformaton elctaton. However, the use of scorng rules does not solve the man problems n our auctons. Indeed, because a player s utlty comes both from the reward and from partcpatng n the aucton, the dffcultes n desgnng nformaton elctaton mechansms are to guarantee that, even wthout rewardng the players for ther knowledge, (1) t s domnant for each player to report hs true values, (2) reportng hs true knowledge never hurts hm, and (3) the resultng revenue approxmates the desred benchmark. 2 A drected graph s 2-connected f for any node, the graph wth and all adjacent edges removed s stll strongly connected. 2

4 Accordngly, n Sectons 3 and 4 we focus on desgnng nformaton elctaton mechansms wthout rewardng the players. Scorng rules are used later solely to break the utlty-tes and make t strctly better for a player to report hs true knowledge. In Appendx C, we show how to add scorng rules to our mechansms. xtensons of our results. In our man results, the seller asks the players to report the dstrbutons n ther entrety, wthout beng concerned wth the communcaton complexty for dong so. Ths s common n nformaton elctaton and allows us to focus on the man dffcultes n aggregatng the players knowledge. In Appendx D, we show how to modfy our mechansms so that the players only report a small amount of nformaton about the dstrbutons. Furthermore, n the man body of ths paper we consder aucton settngs where a player s knowledge about another player for an tem j s exactly the pror dstrbuton D j. Ths smplfes the descrpton of the knowledge graphs. In Appendx, we consder settngs where a player may observe prvate sgnals about other players and can further refne the pror. Future drectons. As Bayesan auctons requre the seller (and the players under common-pror assumpton) has correct knowledge about all dstrbutons, n our man results we do not consder scenaros where players have nsder knowledge. If the nsder knowledge s correct (.e., s a refnement of the pror), then our mechansms revenue ncreases; see Appendx. Stll, how to aggregate even the ncorrect nformaton that the players may have about each other s a very nterestng queston for future studes. Another mportant drecton s to elct players nformaton for BIC mechansms. For example, the BIC mechansms n [23, 10] are optmal n ther own settngs, and t s unclear how to convert them to nformaton elctaton mechansms. 1.3 Related Work Informaton elctaton. Followng [35], nformaton elctaton has become an mportant research area n the past decade [38, 44, 33]. A mechansm asks each player to report hs prvate sgnal and hs prvate knowledge about the pror dstrbuton. The decson maker wants the mechansm to be BIC, and a player s rewarded based on hs reported dstrbuton and the other players reported sgnals. Dfferent from auctons, there are no allocatons or prces, and a player s utlty equals hs reward. Proper scorng rules [9, 22] are wdely used. In Appendx C, we wll formally defne scorng rules and use them to reward the players for ther knowledge. Most studes on nformaton elctaton requre a common pror. Mechansms wthout ths assumpton are consdered by [42], and our work s nformaton elctaton n auctons wthout a common pror. Moreover, nformaton elctaton does not consder the players to have any cost for revealng ther knowledge. It would be nterestng to nclude such costs n the general model as well as n ours, to see how the mechansms wll change accordngly. Bayesan aucton desgn. In hs semnal work [37], Myerson ntroduced the frst optmal Bayesan mechansm for sngle-good auctons, whch also apples to many sngle-parameter settngs [1]. Snce then, there has been a huge lterature on desgnng (approxmately) optmal Bayesan mechansms that are ether BIC or domnant-strategy truthful (DST); see [29] for an ntroducton to ths lterature. Mechansms for mult-parameter settngs have been constructed recently. In [10], the authors characterze optmal BIC mechansms for combnatoral auctons. For unt-demand auctons, [15, 16, 32, 11] construct DST Bayesan mechansms that are constant approxmatons. For addtve auctons, [28, 34, 43, 11] provde logarthmc or constant approxmatons under dfferent condtons. Fnally, for subaddtve auctons, logarthmc or constant approxmatons are provded n [5, 17, 12]. 3

5 Removng the common pror assumpton. Followng [41], a lot of effort has been made to remove the common pror assumpton. In DST Bayesan mechansms t suffces to assume that the seller knows the pror dstrbuton. In pror-free mechansms [30, 24] the dstrbuton s unknown and the seller learns t from the values of randomly selected players. In [21, 25, 36] the seller observes ndependent samples from the dstrbuton before the aucton begns. In [19, 20] the players have arbtrary possblstc belef herarches about each other. In robust mechansm desgn [7] the players have arbtrary probablstc belef herarches. In crowdsourced Bayesan auctons [4] each player prvately knows all the dstrbutons (or ther refnements), whch s a specal case of our model. Indeed, all knowledge graphs wll be complete graphs under ther settng (that s, everybody knows everythng), whle we allow arbtrary knowledge graphs. In Appendxes and F we further dscuss how to elct the players knowledge refnements, and how to handle correlated dstrbutons n a settng that s a specal case of our model but s stll more general than that of [4]. 2 Prelmnares In ths work, we focus on mult-tem auctons wth n players (denoted by N) and m tems (denoted by M). A player s value for an tem j, v j, s ndependently drawn from a dstrbuton D j. Let v = (v j ) j M, D = j M D j and D = N D. Player s value for a subsets of tems smax j S v j n unt-demand auctons, and s j S v j n addtve auctons. The players utltes, denoted by u, are quas-lnear, and the players are rsk-neutral. Knowledge graphs. It s llustratve to model the players knowledge graphcally. 3 We consder a vector of knowledge graphs, G = (G j ) M, one for each tem. ach G j s a drected graph wth n nodes, one for each player. For any, an edge (, ) s n G j f and only f player knows D j. There s no constrant about the knowledge graphs: the same player s dstrbutons for dfferent tems may be known by dfferent players, dfferent players dstrbutons for the same tem may also be known by dfferent players, and some dstrbutons may not be known by anybody. ach player knows hs own out-gong edges, and nether the players nor the seller knows the whole graph. We measure the amount of knowledge n the system by the number of players knowng each dstrbuton. For any k {0,1...,n 1}, a knowledge graph s k-nformed f each node has n-degree at least k: a player s dstrbuton s known by at least k other players. The vector G s k-nformed f all knowledge graphs are so. Note that every knowledge graph s 0-nformed, and everythng s known by somebody when k 1. A common pror would mply all knowledge graphs are complete drected graphs, or (n 1)-nformed, whch s the strongest condton n our model. The seller s knowledge can be naturally ncorporated nto the knowledge graphs by consderng hm as a specal player 0. All our mechansms can easly utlze the seller s knowledge, and we wll not further dscuss ths ssue. Informaton elctaton mechansms. Let Î = (N,M,D) be a Bayesan aucton nstance and I = (N,M,D,G) a correspondng nformaton elctaton nstance, where G s a knowledge graph vector. Dfferent from Bayesan mechansms, whch has D as nput, an nformaton elctaton mechansm has nether D nor G as nput. Instead, t asks each player to report a valuaton b = (b j ) j M and a knowledge K =,j MD j a dstrbuton for the valuaton subprofle v. 3 We could have defned the players knowledge usng the standard noton n epstemc game theory [27, 3, 26]: roughly speakng, the state space conssts of all possble dstrbutons of the valuaton profle, and player knows D j f he s n an nformaton set where all dstrbutons have the (,j)-th component equal to D j. However, the knowledge graph s a more succnct representaton and s enough for the purpose of ths work. 4

6 K may contan at some places, ndcatng does not know the correspondng dstrbutons. K s s true knowledge f D j = D j whenever (, ) G j, and D j = otherwse. An nformaton elctaton mechansm maps a strategy profle (b,k ) N to an allocaton and a prce profle, and may be randomzed. To dstngush whether a mechansm M s a Bayesan or an nformaton elctaton mechansm, we may explctly wrte M(Î) or M(I). The (expected) revenue of M s denoted by Rev(M), and sometmes by D Rev(M) to emphasze the dstrbuton. An nformaton elctaton mechansm s 2-step domnant strategy truthful (2-DST) f (1) For any player, true valuaton v, valuaton b, knowledge K, and strategy subprofle s = (b j,k j ) j of the other players, u ((v,k ),s ) u ((b,k ),s ). (2) For any player, true valuaton v, true knowledge K, knowledge K, and knowledge subprofle K (v ) = (K j (v j)) j of the other players, where each K j (v j) s a functon of player j s true valuaton v j, v D u ((v,k ),(v,k (v ))) v D u ((v,k ),(v,k (v ))). 4 3 Under Arbtrary Knowledge Graphs 3.1 Knowledge-Based Revenue Benchmark When the knowledge graphs can be totally arbtrary, some dstrbutons may not be known by anybody. It s not hard to see that n ths case, no nformaton elctaton mechansm can be a bounded approxmaton to OPT. Indeed, f all but one value dstrbutons of the players are constantly 0, and f the only non-zero dstrbuton, denoted by D j, s unknown by anybody, then a Bayesan mechansm can fnd the optmal reserve prce based on D j, whle an nformaton elctaton mechansm can only set the prce for player based on the reported values of the other players, whch are all 0. Thus, for arbtrary knowledge graphs, we defne a natural revenue benchmark: the optmal Bayesan revenue on players and tems for whch the dstrbutons are known n the nformaton elctaton settng. More precsely, let Î = (N,M,D) be a Bayesan nstance and I = (N,M,D,G) a correspondng nformaton elctaton nstance. Let D = N,j M D j be such that D j = D j f there exsts a player wth (,) G j, and D j s constantly 0 otherwse. We refer to D as D projected on G. Lettng I = (N,M,D ) be the resultng Bayesan nstance, the knowledgebased revenue benchmark s OPT K (I) OPT(I ), the optmal BIC revenue on I. Ths s a demandng benchmark n nformaton elctaton settngs: t takes nto consderaton the knowledge of all players, no matter who knows what. When everythng s known by somebody, even f G s only 1-nformed, we wll have I = Î and OPT K(I) = OPT(Î). 3.2 Unt-Demand Auctons For unt-demand auctons, sequental post-prce Bayesan mechansms have been constructed by [16, 32]. For nformaton elctaton, f the seller asks the players to report both ther values and knowledge, and drectly uses the reported dstrbutons n these mechansms, then a player may want to wthhold hs knowledge about the other players. By dong so, a player may prevent the seller from sellng the tems to the others, so that the tems are stll avalable when t s hs turn to buy. A smple dea s to partton the players nto two groups: a set of reporters who wll not receve any tem and s only asked to report ther knowledge; and a set of potental buyers whose knowledge 4 In Appendx C, we ntroduce scorng rules to our mechansms so that the nequalty s strct whenever K K. 5

7 s never used. It s possble that the reported knowledge may not contan a potental buyer s value dstrbutons on all tems, thus the techncal part s to prove that the seller generates a good revenue even though the players knowledge s only partally recovered. Our mechansm M IUD s smple and ntutve; see Mechansm 1, where M UD s the Bayesan mechansm of [32]. It s worth pontng out that, although mechansm M UD s used as a black-box, Mechansm 1 s not a reducton from arbtrary Bayesan mechansms. Instead, we wll prove a projecton lemma that allows such a reducton from an mportant class of Bayesan mechansms, where mechansm M UD s an mportant example. We have the followng theorem, whose proof s sketched below and formal proof s provded n Appendx A.1. Mechansm 1. M IUD 1: ach player reports to the seller a valuaton b = (b j ) j M and a knowledge K = (D j ),j M. 2: Randomly partton the players nto two sets, N 1 and N 2, where each player s ndependently put n each set wth probablty : Set N 3 =. 4: for players N 1 lexcographcally do 5: For each player N 2 and tem j M, f D j has not been defned yet and D j, then set D j = D j and add player to N 3. 6: end for 7: For each N 3 and j M such that D j s not defned, set D j 0 (.e., 0 wth probablty 1) and b j = 0. 8: Run mechansm M UD on the unt-demand Bayesan aucton (N 3,M,(D j ) N 3,j M), wth the players values beng (b j ) N3,j M. Let x = (x j ) N 3,j M be the resultng allocaton where x j {0,1}, and let p = (p ) N 3 be the prces. Wthout loss of generalty, x j = 0 f D j 0. 9: For each player N 3, gets no tem and hs prce s p = 0. 10: For each player N 3, gets tem j f x j = 1, and hs prce s p = p. Theorem 1. Mechansm M IUD for unt-demand auctons s 2-DST and, for any nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G), Rev(M IUD (I)) OPT K(I) 96. Lemma 1. Mechansm M IUD s 2-DST. Proof sketch. The key s that the use of the players values and the use of ther knowledge are dsentangled: for players n N 1, the mechansm only uses ther knowledge but not ther values; and the opposte holds for players n N 2. If a player ends up n N 2, then whether he s n N 3 or not does not depend on hs own strategy. As mechansm M UD s DST and player s assgned to N 2 wth postve probablty, t s domnant for hm to report hs true values n M IUD, no matter what the reported knowledge s. Moreover, f a player ends up n N 1, then he s guaranteed to get no tem and pay 0, thus reportng hs true knowledge never hurts hm. In Appendx C, we add scorng rules to mechansm M IUD to reward the players knowledge, so that a player s utlty wll be strctly larger when he reports hs true knowledge than when he les about t. To analyze the revenue of M IUD, note that t runs the Bayesan mechansm on a smaller (randomzed) Bayesan nstance: Î projected to the player-tem pars (,j) such that N 3 and D j has been reported. To understand how much revenue s lost by the projecton, we consder the COPIS nstance [16], ÎCP = (N CP,M CP,D CP ), as a brdge between the orgnal Bayesan nstance and the nformaton elctaton nstance. Î CP s obtaned from Î by replacng each player 6

8 wth m copes and each tem wth n copes, where a player s copy j only wants tem j s copy, wth the value dstrbuted accordng tod j. Thus ÎCP s a sngle-parameter aucton, wth N CP = N M, M CP = M N, and D CP = (,j) N CPD j. We now lower-bound the optmal BIC revenue n the projected COPIS nstance. For any subset NM N M, let ÎCP NM be ÎCP projected to NM. By defnton, OPT(ÎCP NM ) s the optmal BIC revenue for ÎCP NM. Moreover, let OPT(ÎCP ) NM be the revenue of the optmal BIC mechansm for Î CP obtaned from players n NM. Lemma 2 (The projecton lemma). For any Î and NM N M, OPT(ÎCP NM ) OPT(ÎCP ) NM. We elaborate the related defntons and prove Lemma 2 n Appendx A.1. Gven mechansm M IUD, the subset NM s the set of player-tem pars (,j) such that N 3 and D j s reported. Theorem 1 holds by combnng the projecton lemma, the randomzed partton n M IUD, and the results on COPIS settng n Bayesan auctons [32, 11]. Note that Lemma 2 s only concerned wth COPIS nstances. Usng ths lemma and smlar to our proof of Theorem 1, any Bayesan mechansm M whose revenue can be properly lower-bounded by the COPIS nstance can be converted to an nformaton elctaton mechansm n a black-box way. We have the followng theorem, wth the proof omtted. Theorem 2. Let M be any DST Bayesan mechansm such that Rev(M(Î)) αopt(îcp ) for some α > 0. There exsts a 2-DST nformaton elctaton mechansm that uses M as a black-box and s a α 16 -approxmaton to OPT K. By Theorem 2, the mechansms n [15] and [16] automatcally mply nformaton elctaton mechansms. For sngle-good auctons, replacng mechansm M UD wth Myerson s mechansm, the nformaton elctaton mechansm s a 4-approxmaton to OPT K. 3.3 Addtve Auctons Informaton elctaton mechansms for addtve auctons are harder to construct and analyze than for unt-demand auctons. Frst, randomly parttonng the players as before may cause a sgnfcant revenue loss, as the revenue of addtve auctons may come from sellng a subset of tems as a bundle to a player. ven when s value dstrbuton for each tem s reported wth constant probablty, the probablty that hs dstrbutons for all tems n the bundle are reported may be very low, thus the mechansm may rarely sell the bundle to at the optmal prce. Second, the seller can no longer throw away player-tem pars whose dstrbutons are not reported and focus on the projected nstance. When the players are not parttoned nto reporters and potental buyers, dong so may cause a player to le and wthhold hs knowledge about others, so that they are thrown away. To smultaneously acheve truthfulness and a good revenue guarantee, our mechansm s very stngy and never throws away any nformaton. If a player s value dstrbuton for an tem j s reported by others, then j may be sold to va the β-bundlng mechansm of [43], denoted by Bund. If s dstrbuton for j s not reported, then j may stll be sold to va the second-prce mechansm. Indeed, our mechansm handles the players nether solely based on the orgnal Bayesan nstance Î nor solely based on the projected nstance I. Rather, t works on a hybrd of the two. Our mechansm M IA s stll smple; see Mechansm 2. However, sgnfcant effort s needed to analyze ts revenue. Indeed, note that n Mechansm 2, each M s defned accordng to the orgnal Bayesan nstance Î, whle the partton of M s done accordng to the knowledge graphs n the nformaton elctaton nstance I. The mechansm Bund s run on a hybrd nstance, where β s based on Î and D s based on I. Fnally, part of player s wnnng set s sold accordng to mechansm Bund and part of t s sold usng second-prce. 7

9 Mechansm 2. M IA 1: ach player reports a valuaton b = (b j ) j M and a knowledge K = (D j ),j M. 2: For each tem j, set (j) = argmax b j (tes broken lexcographcally) and p j = max b j. 3: for each player do 4: Let M = {j (j) = } be player s wnnng set. 5: Partton M nto M 1 and M 2 as follows: j M 1, some has reported Dj (f there are more than one reporters, take the lexcographcally frst); and j M 2, D j = for all. 6: j M 1, set D j = D j ; and j M2, set D j 0. 7: Compute the optmal entry fee e and reserve prces (p j ) j M 1 accordng to mechansm Bund wth respect to (D,β ), where β j = max b j j M. By the defnton of Bund, we always have p j β j for each j. If e = 0 then t s possble that p j > β j for some j; whle f e > 0 then p j = β j for every j. 8: Sell M 1 M to player accordng to Bund. That s, f e > 0 then do the followng: f j M 1 M b j e + j M 1 M p j, player gets M1 M wth prce e + j M 1 M p j ; otherwse the tems n M 1 M are not sold. If e = 0 then do the followng: for each tem j M 1 M, f b j p j, player gets tem j wth prce p j ; otherwse tem j s not sold. 9: In addton, sell each tem j n M 2 M to player wth prce p j (= β j ). 10: end for Although runnng Bund on I acheves a constant approxmaton to OPT(I ), some tems sold by Bund under I may end up beng sold by M IA usng second-prce, and the revenue of M IA cannot be lower-bounded by that of Bund on I. To overcome ths dffculty, we develop a novel way to use the adjusted revenue [43] n our analyss; see Lemmas 4 and 6 n Appendx A.2, where we also recall the related defntons. As we show there, the adjusted revenue n a hybrd nformaton settng, combned wth the revenue of the second-prce sale, eventually provdes a desrable lower-bound to the revenue of M IA. We have the followng theorem, proved n Appendx A.2. Theorem 3. Mechansm M IA for addtve auctons s 2-DST and, for any nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G), Rev(M IA (I)) OPT K(I) When verythng Is Known by Somebody When the knowledge graph vector G s k-nformed wth k 1, everythng s known by somebody and OPT K = OPT. Both mechansms n Secton 3 of course apply here, but we can do better when k gets larger: that s, when the amount of knowledge n the system ncreases. 4.1 Unt-Demand Auctons and Addtve Auctons For unt-demand auctons, mechansm M IUD here s almost the same as mechansm M IUD, except t randomly parttons the players dfferently. The probablty that each player s assgned to N 1 s now q = 1 (k +1) 1 k, and the probablty to N 2 s 1 q. When k = 1, we have q = 1 2 and mechansm M IUD s exactly as before. The probablty q s chosen to acheve the maxmum probablty for each dstrbuton to be reported, and the latter s exactly τ k =. We only state the theorem below, proved n Appendx B.1. k (k+1) k+1 k Theorem 4. k [n 1], any unt-demand aucton nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G) where G s k-nformed, mechansm M IUD s 2-DST and Rev(M IUD (I)) τ k OPT(Î). 24 8

10 As k gets larger (although can stll be much smaller than n), the approxmaton rato of M IUD approaches 24, the best known approxmaton to OPT by DST Bayesan mechansms [32, 11]. For addtve auctons, to mprove the approxmaton rato when k 1, followng [11] we can dvde the β-bundlng mechansm nto the bundlng part and the ndvdual sale part. The former s referred to as the Bundle VCG mechansm, denoted by BVCG; and the latter s the ndvdual 1-lookahead mechansm, denoted by M 1LA, whch sells each tem separately usng the 1-lookahead mechansm of [40]. Mechansm M 1LA can also be replaced by the ndvdual Myerson mechansm, denoted by IM, whch sells each tem separately usng Myerson s mechansm. By choosng the mechansm that generates a hgher expected revenue between IM and BV CG, [11] provdes a Bayesan mechansm that s an 8-approxmaton to OPT. We desgn correspondng nformaton elctaton mechansms separately for mechansms BVCG and IM. The resultng mechansms are denoted by M IBVCG and M IIM, whch are defned n Appendx B.2. Because the seller does not know the pror D, he cannot compute the expected revenue of the two nformaton elctaton mechansms and choose the better one. Instead, we let hm choose between the two mechansms randomly, accordng to a probablty dstrbuton dependng on k. It s worth pontng out that whenk 1, mechansm M IBVCG s able to recover all dstrbutons n Î, thus ts revenue equals the correspondng Bayesan revenue, whch s lower-bounded n [11]. For M IIM, nformaton elctaton s done by randomzed partton dependng on the value of k. However, we can do even better. Indeed, although n Bayesan auctons the mechansm IM s optmal for ndvdual tem-sale and outperforms mechansm M 1LA, n nformaton elctaton auctons there s a tradeoff between the two. In order for the players to report ther knowledge truthfully for mechansm IM, we need to randomly partton them nto reporters and potental buyers, thus each dstrbuton s only recovered wth probablty τ k. In contrast, no partton s needed for aggregatng the players knowledge n mechansm M 1LA, and we can recover all dstrbutons smultaneously wth probablty 1. The resultng nformaton elctaton mechansm, M I1LA, s also defned n the appendx. As mechansm M 1LA s a 2-approxmaton to mechansm IM, sometmes t s actually more advantageous to use M I1LA rather than M IIM, dependng on the value of k. Properly combnng the above gadgets together, our mechansm M IA s defned as follows: when k 7, t runs M IBVCG wth probablty 2 11 and M I1LA wth probablty 9 11 ; when k > 7, t runs M IBVCG wth probablty τ k 3 3+τ k and M IIM wth probablty 3+τ k. The choce of the two cases s to acheve the best approxmaton rato for each k. We have the followng theorem, proved n Appendx B.2. Theorem 5. k [n 1], any addtve aucton nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G) where G s k-nformed, M IA s 2-DST and Rev(M 1 IA (I)) max{ 11, τ k 6+2τ }OPT(Î). k The same paradgm can be appled to arbtrary knowledge graphs. However, when not everythng s known, the bundlng part does not recover all dstrbutons n Î and a more complex analyss s needed to lower-bound ts revenue, essentally stll va adjusted revenue. 4.2 Sngle-Good Auctons wth 2-Connected Knowledge Graphs As we have seen, the amount of revenue our mechansms generate ncreases wth k, the amount of knowledge n the system. If the knowledge graph s only k-nformed for some small k, but reflects certan combnatoral structures, good revenue may also be generated by leveragng such structures. In ths subsecton we consder sngle-good auctons, so a player s value v s a sngle number rather than a vector. Followng Lemma 8 n Appendx B.2, for any k 1, when there s a sngle tem and the knowledge graph s k-nformed, mechansm M IIM s a τ k -approxmaton to the optmal 9

11 Bayesan mechansm of Myerson [37]. Below we construct an nformaton elctaton mechansm that s nearly optmal under a natural structure of the knowledge graph. More precsely, recall that a drected graph s strongly connected f there s a drected path from any node to any other node. Intutvely, n a knowledge graph ths means that for any two players Alce and Bob, Alce knows a guy who knows a guy... who knows Bob. Also recall that a drected graph s 2-connected f t remans strongly connected after removng any sngle node and the adjacent edges. In a knowledge graph, ths means there does not exst a crucal player as an nformaton hub, wthout whom the players wll splt nto two parts, wth one part havng no nformaton about the other. It s easy to see that a knowledge graph beng strong connected (or 2-connected respectvely) mples t beng 1-nformed (or 2-nformed respectvely), but not vce versa. In fact, a graph of n nodes can be ( n 2 1)-nformed wthout beng connected. When the knowledge graph s 2-connected, we construct the nformaton elctaton Myerson mechansm M IM n Mechansm 3. Recall that Myerson s mechansm maps each player s reported value b to the (roned) vrtual value, φ (b ;D ). It runs the second-prce mechansm wth reserve prce 0 on vrtual values and maps the resultng vrtual prce back to the wnner s value space, as hs prce. Mechansm 3 M IM 1: ach player reports a value b and a knowledge K = (Dj ) j N\{}. 2: Randomly choose a player a, let S = {j Dj a }, N = N \({a} S), and D j = Da j j S. 3: If S =, the tem s unsold, the mechansm sets prce p = 0 for each N and stop here. 4: Set = argmax j S φ j (b j ;D j ), wth tes broken lexcographcally. 5: whle N do 6: Set S = {j j N, S \{ } s.t. Dj }. 7: If S = then go to Step 12. 8: For each j S, set D j = D j, where s the frst player n S \{ } wth Dj. 9: Set S = { } S and N = N \S. 10: Set = argmax j S φ j (b j ;D j ), wth tes broken lexcographcally. 11: end whle 12: Set φ second = max j N\({a, } N )φ j (b j ;D j ) and the prce p = 0 for each player. 13: If φ (b ;D ) < 0 then the tem s unsold; otherwse, the tem s sold to player and p = φ 1 (max{φ second,0};d ). To help understandng our mechansm, we llustrate n Fgure 2 of Appendx B.3 the sets of players nvolved n the frst round. We have the followng theorem, proved n Appendx B.4. Theorem 6. For any sngle-good aucton nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G) where G s 2-connected, M IM s 2-DST and Rev(M IM (I)) (1 1 n )OPT(Î). Proof deas. The mechansm dsentangles the use of the players values and the use of ther knowledge, but n a more subtle and stngy way than randomzed partton. Indeed, when computng a player s vrtual value n Step 10, hs knowledge has not been used yet. If he s player then hs knowledge wll not be used n the next round ether. Only when a player s removed from S that s, when t s guaranteed that he wll not get the tem, wll hs knowledge be used. Ths s why t never hurts a player to report hs true knowledge. Now consder the revenue when the players report ther true values and true knowledge. Note that S 2 n Step 2 due to 2-connectedness, so the mechansm does not stop n Step 3. In the teratve steps, because player s excluded from the set of reporters, we need that there s stll a 10

12 reporter who knows a dstrbuton for players n N : that s, there s an edge from N \(N { }) to N, and player s not an nformaton hub between N \N and N. Ths s agan guaranteed by 2-connectedness (note that strong connectedness alone s not enough). Accordngly, M IM does not stop untl N = and all players dstrbutons have been reported (excludng, perhaps, that of player a). Therefore M IM recovers Î and runs Myerson s mechansm on t after randomly excludng a player a, and the revenue guarantee follows. If the seller knows at least two dstrbutons, the mechansm can use hm as the startng pont and the revenue wll be exactly OPT. Snce no nformaton elctaton mechansm can be a ( 1 2 +δ)- approxmaton for any constant δ > 0 when n = 2 [4], our result s tght. Interestngly, after obtanng our result, we found that 2-connected graphs have been explored several tmes n the game theory lterature [6, 39], for totally dfferent problems. For addtve auctons, when the knowledge graphs are 2-connected, nstead of usng mechansm M I1LA or M IIM, one can use M IM for each tem j. We thus have the followng corollary, where the mechansm M IA runs M IM wth probablty 3 4 and M IBVCG wth probablty 1 4. Corollary 1. For any addtve aucton nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G) where each G j s 2-connected, mechansm M IA s 2-DST and DRev(M IA (I)) 1 8 (1 1 n )OPT(Î). It would be very nterestng to see f other combnatoral structures of knowledge graphs can be leveraged n nformaton elctaton mechansms and facltate the aggregaton of the players knowledge. 11

13 Appendx A Proofs for Secton 3 A.1 Proof of Theorem 1 Lemma 1. (restated) Mechansm M IUD s 2-DST. Proof. We start wth the frst requrement n the soluton concept: t s the best for a player to report hs true values, no matter what knowledge he reports and what strateges the others use. Clam 1. For any player, true valuaton v, valuaton b, knowledge K, and strategy subprofle s = (b j,k j ) j of the other players, MIUD u ((v,k ),s ) MIUD u ((b,k ),s ), where the expectaton s taken over the mechansm s random cons. Proof. If player s not n N 3 gven the mechansm s randomness and the reported knowledge of all players, then hs reported valuaton s never used to compute hs allocaton or prce, and he gets the same utlty for reportng any valuaton. Thus u ((v,k ),s ) = u ((b,k ),s ) condtonal on / N 3. If player s n N 3, then hs utlty s determned by M UD. If D j s defned to be 0 wth probablty 1 n Step 7, then s reported value for tem j s not gven to M UD as nput, and gets the same utlty for reportng any value for j, ncludng v j. Moreover, because does not get such an tem j, hs utlty s the same as an magnary player î whose valuaton s the same as s, except that the true value of î for j s 0. Snce M UD s DST, no matter what the dstrbutons are and what values the other players report, t s the best for î to report hs true valuaton. Accordngly, t s the best for to report hs true valuaton v as well. That s, u ((v,k ),s ) u ((b,k ),s ) condtonal on N 3. Combnng these two cases, Clam 1 holds. We now prove the second requrement n the soluton concept: gven that all players report ther true valuatons, t s the best for a player to report hs true knowledge. Clam 2. For any player, true valuaton v, true knowledge K, knowledge K, and knowledge subprofle K (v ) = (K j (v j)) j of the other players, where each K j (v j) s a functon of player j s true valuaton v j, v D u ((v,k ),(v,k (v ))) v D u ((v,k ),(v,k (v ))). Proof. If player s n N 1, then he s guaranteed to get no tem and pay 0, so hs utlty s 0 no matter whch knowledge he reports. If player s n N 2, then hs knowledge s never used, and he agan gets the same utlty no matter whch knowledge he reports. Thus v D u ((v,k ),(v,k (v ))) = v D u ((v,k ),(v,k (v ))) and Clam 2 holds. Lemma 1 follows drectly from Clams 1 and 2. The COPIS settng. Before analyzng the revenue of mechansm M IUD, we frst recall the COPIS settng for reducng mult-parameter settngs to sngle-parameter settngs [16]. Gven a unt-demand aucton nstance Î = (N,M,D), the correspondng COPIS nstance s constructed as follows. We make m copes for each player, called player copes, and denote the resultng player set by N CP = N M. We make n copes for each tem, called tem copes, and denote the resultng tem set by M CP = M N. ach player copy (,j) has value v j D j for the tem copy (j,), and 0 for all the other tem copes. 12

14 The set of feasble allocatons n the orgnal unt-demand aucton naturally defnes the set of feasble allocatons n the COPIS aucton: for any feasble allocaton A n the orgnal settng, f player gets tem j, then n the correspondng allocaton n the COPIS settng, player s copy j gets tem j s copy, and all other copes of get nothng. Snce n the orgnal settng each tem s sold to at most one player, n the COPIS settng, for all copes of the same tem, at most one of them s sold. Moreover, snce each player gets one tem n the orgnal settng, n the COPIS settng, for all copes of the same player, at most one of them gets an tem copy. We denote by Î CP = (N CP,M CP,D CP ) the COPIS nstance, wth D CP = (,j) N CPD j. The projected settng. Next, we consder the optmal Bayesan revenue for the COPIS settng when projected to smaller nstances. Let NM N M be a subset of player-tem pars and N be NM projected to N. The unt-demand nstance ÎNM = (N,M,D N ), referred to as Î projected to NM, s such that D j = D j f (,j) NM, and D j 0 otherwse. Let ÎCP NM = (N CP,M CP,D N CP ) be the COPIS nstance correspondng to ÎNM. It can also be consdered as ÎCP projected to NM. That s, when projectng a COPIS nstance to a set of player-tem pars, we stll want the resultng nstance to be a COPIS nstance, thus we patch t up wth the mssng player-tem pars but wth values constantly 0. The relatons of these nstances are llustrated n Fgure 1. We are nterested n the optmal Bayesan revenue under ÎCP NM, OPT(ÎCP NM ). Î projecton Î NM COPIS COPIS Î CP projecton ÎNM CP Fgure 1: Relatons of the COPIS and the projected nstances Let OPT(ÎCP ) NM be the revenue of the optmal Bayesan mechansm for ÎCP obtaned from NM: that s, for any par (,j) / NM, the prce pad by the j-th copy of player s not counted, even though ths player copy may get the -th copy of tem j accordng to the optmal mechansm for ÎCP. We have the followng lemma, where we explctly wrte out the dstrbutons for dfferent Bayesan nstances. Lemma 2. (The projecton lemma, restated) For any Î and NM N M, OPT(ÎCP NM) OPT(ÎCP ) NM. D CP N D CP Proof. Gven the nstance ÎCP NM, consder a Bayesan mechansm M as follows: Patch up the nstance to be exactly ÎCP, ncludng changng the dstrbuton D j D j for any (,j) wth N and (,j) / NM; from 0 to For any (,j) NM, let s copy j report hs value, whle for any (,j) NM, sample the value of s copy j from D j ; Run the optmal DST Bayesan mechansm onîcp, wth the reported and the sampled values; 5 5 Snce COPIS s a sngle-parameter settng, Myerson s mechansm s both the optmal BIC mechansm and the optmal DST mechansm here. In partcular, the optmal BIC revenue equals the optmal DST revenue. 13

15 Project the resultng outcome to NM. The key s to show that M s a DST Bayesan mechansm for ÎCP NM. Indeed, for any (,j) such that N and (,j) / NM, the value of s copy j n ÎCP NM s 0 wth probablty 1, hs reported value s not used by M, and at the end ths player copy gets nothng and pays 0. Therefore t s domnant for ths player copy to report hs true value 0. For any (,j) NM, the utlty of s copy j under M s the same as that under the optmal DST Bayesan mechansm on ÎCP. As t s domnant for ths player copy to report hs true value n the latter, so s t n M. Accordngly, OPT(ÎCP NM ) Rev(M (ÎCP NM )), D CP N D CP N by the defnton of OPT. By constructon we have thus Lemma 2 holds. Rev(M (ÎCP NM )) = OPT(ÎCP ) NM, D CP N D CP Note that the projecton lemma s not true for non-copis settngs n general, because the correspondng mechansm M s not DST. Indeed, when the same player has (,j) NM and (,j ) / NM for some tems j and j, he prefers recevng j to recevng j n the patched-up aucton, even f the former leads to a smaller utlty: hs projected utlty wll be 0 under the latter. Now we are ready to fnsh the proof of Theorem 1. Theorem 1. (restated) Mechansm M IUD for unt-demand auctons s 2-DST and, for any nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G), Rev(M IUD (I)) OPT K(I) 96. Proof. Lettng I = (N,M,D ) be the Bayesan nstance where D s D projected on the knowledge graph G, the COPIS nstance I CP s respectvely defned. Followng Lemma 1 and by the defnton of OPT K, t remans to show Rev(M IUD (I)) OPT(I ). 96 For any player and tem j wth D j known by some other players, we have Pr(D j s reported n the mechansm) = Pr( N 2 )Pr( N 1 s.t. (,) G j N 2 ) = 1 4, where the nequalty s because there exsts at least one player wth (,) G j, and players and are parttoned ndependently. Below we use NM 3 to denote the set of player-tem pars whose dstrbuton s reported n the mechansm: that s, the set of players N 3 together wth ther reported tems. Accordngly, Pr((,j) NM 3 ) 1 4. (1) Also, we use D NM3 = (,j) NM3 D j and v NM3 = (v j ) (,j) NM3 to denote the vector of dstrbutons and the vector of true values for NM 3, respectvely. Let ÎNM 3 = (N 3,M,D N 3 ) be the unt-demand nstance gven to M UD n Step 8. Note that t s exactly I projected to NM 3 : that s, D j = D j for any (,j) NM 3 and D j 0 for any (,j) / NM 3. Accordngly, 14

16 Rev(M IUD (I)) = NM3 Rev(M UD (ÎNM 3 )). (2) v NM3 D NM3 LetÎCP NM 3 = (N CP 3,M CP,D CP N 3 ) be the COPIS nstance correspondng toînm 3. Followng [32], gven any set NM 3, the revenue of M UD under the unt-demand Bayesan nstance ÎNM 3 s a 6- approxmaton to the optmal revenue for the COPIS nstance. That s, for any NM 3, Combnng Inequaltes 2 and 3, we have By Lemma 2, thus Rev(M UD (Î NM3 )) 1 v NM3 D NM3 6 OPT(ÎNM CP 3 ). (3) D N CP 3 NM 3 Rev(M IUD (I)) 1 6 NM 3 OPT(ÎCP NM 3 ) OPT(I CP ) NM3, D N CP D CP 3 OPT(ÎCP NM 3 ) D N CP NM3 3 OPT(ÎCP NM 3 ). (4) D N CP 3 OPT(I CP ) NM3. (5) D CP LetP j (OPT(I CP )) be the prce pad by player s copyj under the optmal mechansm fori CP. We can rewrte the rght-hand sde of quaton 5 as follows. NM 3 = D CP = D CP OPT(I CP ) NM3 = P j (OPT(I CP )) D CP NM3 D CP (,j) NM 3 P j (OPT(I CP )) NM3 (,j) NM 3 Pr((,j) NM 3 ) P j (OPT(I CP )), (6) (,j) N M where the frst equalty s by the defnton of the projecton, the second s because samplng from D CP s done ndependently from NM 3, and the thrd s because P j (OPT(ÎCP )) does not depend on NM 3. We can further lower-bound the last term of quaton 6 as follows: D CP = D CP 1 4 D CP (,j) N M Pr((,j) NM 3 ) P j (OPT(I CP )) Pr((,j) NM 3 ) P j (OPT(I CP )) (,j) N M: s.t. (,) G j P j (OPT(I CP )) (,j) N M: s.t. (,) G j = 1 4 OPT(I CP ) 1 16 OPT(I ). (7) 15

17 Here the frst equalty s because P j (OPT(I CP )) = 0 for every (,j) such that D j s unknown, the frst nequalty s by quaton 1, the second equalty s by the defnton of revenue, and the second nequalty s because OPT(I CP ) OPT(I ) 4 by [11]. Combnng quatons 4, 5, 6 and 7, we have and Theorem 1 holds. A.2 Proof of Theorem 3 Lemma 3. Mechansm M IA s 2-DST. Rev(M IUD (I)) OPT(I ) = OPT(I ), 96 Proof. The structure of a detaled proof for Lemma 3 wll be followng the two requrements n the soluton concept and smlar to that of Lemma 1. Thus we only hghlght the key ponts here. For each player, gven the dstrbutons and values reported by the other players, the subsets M 1 and M 2 do not depend on player s strategy, nether do the entry fee e and reserve prces (p j ) j M 1. As far as player s concerned, the other players values are always taken to be b, even f some of ther value dstrbutons are not reported. Computng s wnnng sets M M 1 and M M 2 s just part of the two mechansms, Bund and second-prce, agan wth the other players values taken to be b. Thus, t s domnant for to report hs true values for M 1, followng the truthfulness of Bund; and t s domnant for hm to report hs true values for M 2, followng the truthfulness of the second-prce mechansm. Moreover, gven that all players truthfully report ther values, for each player, reportng hs true knowledge never hurts hm, no matter what knowledge the other players report. Indeed, the wnnng set M only depends on the players reported values. Player s reported knowledge may affect how M s parttoned nto M 1 and M 2 for another player, but does not affect the sets M 1 and M 2, or whether he gets some tems or not, or the prces he pays. Thus M IA s 2-DST as desred. The adjusted revenue. To lower-bound the expected revenue ofm IA, we frst ntroduce several mportant concepts followng [43]. For any sngle-player Bayesan nstance Î = ({},M,D ) and any non-negatve reserve-prce vector β = (β j ) j M, a sngle-player DST Bayesan mechansm s β -exclusve f t never sells an tem j to whenever hs bd for j s no larger than β j. Denote by Rev X (Î,β ) the optmal β -exclusve revenue for Î: that s, the superor over the revenue of β -exclusve mechansms. For any sngle-player DST Bayesan mechansm, ts β -adjusted revenue on Î s ts revenue mnus ts socal welfare generated from player-tem pars (,j) such that s bd for j s no larger than β j. Denote by Rev A (Î,β ) the optmal β -adjusted revenue for Î: that s, the superor over the β -adjusted revenue of all sngle-player DST Bayesan mechansms. Note that f a mechansm s β -exclusve, then ts β -adjusted revenue s exactly ts revenue. Gven a Bayesan nstance Î = (N,M,D), for each player and valuaton subprofle v D, let β (v ) = (β j (v )) j M be such that β j (v ) = max v j for each tem j. Note that we are slghtly abusng notatons here: each β j s now a functon rather than a value. The optmal β-adjusted revenue for Î s D Rev A (Î,β) = Rev A (Î,β (v )) = v D v D Rev A (Î,β (v )). 16

18 When v s clear from the context, we may smply wrte β and β j. Because we also consder the projected Bayesan nstance I = (N,M,D ), let v be v projected on the knowledge graph G: that s, v j = v j f there exsts a player wth (,) G j, and v j = 0 otherwse. As v s dstrbuted accordng to D, v s dstrbuted accordng to D. Thus we sometmes drectly sample v D rather than sample v frst and then map t to v. Let β j (v ) = max v j for each player and tem j. The optmal β -adjusted revenue for I s defned respectvely: D Rev A (I,β ) = v D Rev A (I,β (v )) = v D v D RevA (I,β (v )). It s mportant to emphasze that, gven v and β (v ), the optmal β -exclusve revenue and the optmal β -adjusted revenue are well defned for any Bayesan nstance for player, whether t s Î or I. In partcular, we wll consder RevX (I,β ) and Rev A (I,β ), whch are on the hybrd of Î and I. The optmal β-adjusted revenue on the hybrd of Î and I are smlarly defned: D Rev A (I,β) = v D v D RevA (I,β (v )). To hghlght that n the nner expectaton, player s value s v even f t s obtaned by frst samplng v D and then projectng on G, we may also wrte t as v D Rev A (I,β ;v ) and D Rev A (I,β) = v D v D Rev A (I,β (v );v ) = Rev A (I,β (v );v ). Fnally, denote by IM the ndvdual Myerson mechansm, whch sells each tem separately usng Myerson s mechansm [37]. The revenue of IM under the projected Bayesan nstance I, denoted by IM(I ), s thus the optmal revenue by sellng each tem separately. Havng defned the notons and notatons needed n our proof, we prove Theorem 3 va the followng two techncal lemmas. For each lemma, note that on the left-hand sde the values are drawn from the orgnal Bayesan nstance, and on the rght-hand sde the values are drawn from the projected nstance. Lemma 4. Rev(M IA (I)) 1 68 v D Rev A (I,β ). Lemma 5. Rev(M IA (I)) 1 2 v D IM(I ). Theorem 3. (restated) Mechansm M IA for addtve auctons s 2-DST and, for any nstances Î = (N,M,D) and I = (N,M,D,G), Rev(M IA (I)) OPT K(I) 70. Proof. By Theorem 8.1 of [43], v D RevA (I,β ) + v D IM(I ) OPT(I ). Combnng ths nequalty wth Lemmas 4 and 5, we have and Theorem 3 holds. Below we prove the two lemmas. Rev(M IA (I)) OPT(I ) 70 = OPT K(I), 70 17