arxiv: v2 [cs.gt] 14 Apr 2017

Transcription

1 Best-Response Dynamcs n Combnatoral Auctons wth Item Bddng Paul Düttng Thomas Kesselhem arxv: v2 [cs.gt] 14 Apr 2017 November 8, 2018 Abstract In a combnatoral aucton wth tem bddng, agents partcpate n multple sngle-tem second-prce auctons at once. As some tems mght be substtutes, agents need to strategze n order to mze ther utltes. A number of results ndcate that hgh welfare can be acheved ths way, gvng bounds on the welfare at equlbrum. Recently, however, crtcsm has been rased that equlbra are hard to compute and therefore unlkely to be attaned. In ths paper, we take a dfferent perspectve. We study smple best-response dynamcs. That s, agents are actvated one after the other and each actvated agent updates hs strategy myopcally to a best response aganst the other agents current strateges. Often these dynamcs may take exponentally long before they converge or they may not converge at all. However, as we show, convergence s not even necessary for good welfare guarantees. Gven that agents bd updates are aggressve enough but not too aggressve, the game wll reman n states of good welfare after each agent has updated hs bd at least once. In more detal, we show that f agents have fractonally subaddtve valuatons, natural dynamcs reach and reman n a state that provdes a 1/3 approxmaton to the optmal welfare after each agent has updated hs bd at least once. For subaddtve valuatons, we can guarantee an Ω1/logm) approxmaton n case of m tems that apples after each agent has updated hs bd at least once and at any pont after that. The latter bound s complemented by a negatve result, showng that no knd of best-response dynamcs can guarantee more than an ologlogm/logm) fracton of the optmal socal welfare. 1 Introducton In a combnatoral aucton, n players compete for the assgnment of m tems. The players have prvate preferences over bundles of tems as expressed by a valuaton functon v : 2 [m] R 0. Our goal n ths work s to fnd a partton of the tems nto sets S 1,...,S n that mzes socal welfare v S ), based on reported valuatons bds) b : 2 [m] R 0 wth the freedom to mpose payments p 1,...,p n on the players. Even f valuatons are known, fndng an allocaton that mzes socal welfare s typcally NP-hard. Furthermore, snce valuatons are assumed to be prvate nformaton, some mechancs An extended abstract appeared n Proceedngs of the 28th ACM-SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, SODA 2017, Barcelona, Span. Department of Mathematcs, London School of Economcs, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK p.d.duettng@lse.ac.uk). Part of ths work was done whle the author was Senor Researcher n the Department of Computer Scence at ETH Zürch. Department of Computer Scence, TU Dortmund, Otto-Hahn-Str. 14, Dortmund, Germany thomas.kesselhem@cs.tu-dortmund.de). Ths work was done whle the author was at Max Planck Insttute for Informatcs and Saarland Unversty, supported n part by the DFG through Cluster of Excellence MMCI. 1

2 are needed to extract ths nformaton. The tradtonal approach s to ncentvze players to bd truthfully. Insstng on truthfulness has the advantage that for the ndvdual players t s easy to partcpate as t s not necessary to act strategcally. However, truthfulness requres central coordnaton of the entre allocaton and payments. An alternatve approach to ths problem that s arguably seen more often n practce s to let players partcpate n a smpler, non-truthful mechansm and to accept strategc behavor. To derve theoretcal performance guarantees, one then seeks to prove bounds on the so-called Prce of Anarchy, the worst-case rato between the optmal socal welfare and the welfare at equlbrum. The most promnent example n the context of combnatoral auctons s tem bddng, where the tems are sold through separate sngle-tem auctons. One can show that for pretty general classes of valuatons, such as submodular or the even more general classes fractonally subaddtve and subaddtve, all equlbra from a broad range of equlbrum concepts obtan a decent fracton of the optmal socal welfare. More recently, however, these results have been crtczed for gnorng the computatonal complexty of fndng an equlbrum. In fact, by now, there s qute a selecton of mpossblty results showng that fndng exact equlbra s often computatonally ntractable. Our approach n ths paper s dfferent. We consder smple, best-response dynamcs, n whch players are actvated n a round-robn fashon and players when actvated buy ther favorte set of tems at the current prces, n a myopc way. Chrstodoulou et al. [7] showed that one nstance of such dynamcs converges f players valuaton functons are fractonally subaddtve. However, they also showed that t takes exponental tme. For subaddtve valuatons, even convergence cannot be guaranteed because any fxed pont would be a pure Nash equlbrum, and pure Nash equlbra may not exst see Appendx A). We show that despte possbly long convergence tme or no convergence at all, the socal welfare reaches a good level very fast. 1.1 The Settng We study combnatoral auctons wth n bdders N and m tems M. Each bdder N has a valuaton functon v : 2 M R 0. Our objectve s to fnd a feasble allocaton,.e., a partton of the tems, S 1,...,S n, that mzes socal welfare N v S ). We assume that an allocaton of tems to bdders s found by dstrbuted strategc behavor of the bdders usng tem bddng. That s, each bdder N places a bd b,j on each tem j M. Each tem j M s assgned to the bdder N wth the hghest bd b,j at a prce of p j = b,j. Tes are broken n an arbtrary, but fxed manner. We assume that bdders choose ther bds strategcally so as to mze ther quas-lnear utltes. Bdder s utlty u as a functon of the bds b = b ) N s u b) = v S) j S p j, where S s the set of tems won by bdder. We say that a bd b s a best response to the bds b f bdder s utlty s mzed by b. That s, u b,b ) u b,b ) for all b. Note that any best response must gve bdder a set of tems S that mzes u b) = v S) j S p j. We call these sets of tems demand sets. A pure) Nash equlbrum n ths settng s a profle of bds b = b ) N such that for each bdder N hs bd b s a best response aganst bds b. We study smple game-playng dynamcs n whch bdders get actvated n turn and myopcally choose to play a best response. More formally, startng from an ntal bd vector b 0, n each tme step t 1, some bdder N s actvated and updates hs bd b t 1 from the prevous round to a best response to the other players bds b t = bt 1 whch do not change from the prevous to the current round. The fxed ponts of such best-response dynamcs are Nash equlbra. However, Nash equlbra do not necessarly exst and even f they do best-response dynamcs may not converge. 2

3 We wll evaluate best-response dynamcs by the socal welfare that they acheve. For bd profle b and correspondng allocaton S 1,...,S n we wrte SWb) = v S ) for the socal welfare at bd profle b. We seek to compare ths to the optmal socal welfare OPTv). 1.2 Varants of Best-Response Dynamcs Snce payments n combnatoral auctons wth tem bddng are second prce, there are typcally many ways to choose a best response. Clearly, not all best responses wll ensure that good states n terms of socal welfare) wll be reached quckly. Example 1.1 Gross Underbddng). Consder a sngle-tem aucton wth n bdders. Suppose v 1 = C and v = 1 for 2, where C 1. Suppose we start at b = 0,...,0) and the tem assgned to bdder 1. A possble best response sequence has bdders update ther bds n roundrobn fashon, each tme ncreasng the wnnng bd by ǫ. Example 1.2 Gross Overbddng). Consder the same settng as n the prevous example. If n the frst round of updates the last bdder bds C +ǫ ths wll termnate the dynamcs. Note that n both these examples the socal welfare after each round of best responses and on average) s 1, whch can be arbtrarly smaller than the optmal socal welfare C. The ssue n each of these examples s as follows. Through the bds b,j, the bdders effectvely j S b,j, declare addtve valuatons. The allocaton mzes the declared welfare DWb) = whch usually dffers from the actual welfare SWb). In both examples, there exst update steps n whch the declared utlty of the bdder,.e., u D b) = j S b,j j S k b k,j, s very dfferent from hs actual utlty. We wll prove bounds on the welfare acheved by best-response dynamcs that are quantfed by the extent to whch declared utltes can dffer from the actual utltes as captured by the followng defntons. Defnton 1.3. Let α 0. We call a bd b by bdder aganst bds b α-aggressve f u D b) α b u b,b ). Defnton 1.4. Let β 1. A bddng dynamc s β-safe f t ensures that u D b) β u b) for all players and reachable bd profles b. We wll usually apply Defnton 1.3 when b s a best response to b. However, t also leaves the freedom to consder approxmate best responses. We wll see that one way to acheve Defnton 1.4 s to requre strong no overbddng, but we wll also see an example of safe dynamcs that allow overbddng. Note that n both cases players wll have non-negatve actual utltes at all tmes because u b t ) 1 β ud bt ) 0 for every bdder and tme step t. 1.3 Our Results Our frst man result s that round-robn best-response dynamcs are capable of reachng states wth near-optmal socal welfare strkngly fast, despte the fact that convergence to equlbrum may take exponentally long or they may not converge at all. In fact, our result apples to any round-robn bddng dynamcs, provded that players choose bds that are aggressve enough but not too aggressve. Ths, n partcular, ncludes dynamcs n whch players choose to play only approxmate best responses. Also, ther way of makng choces does not need to be consstent n any way. 3

4 Man Result 1. In a β-safe round-robn bddng dynamc wth α-aggressve bd updates the socal welfare at any tme step t n satsfes SWb t ) α 1+α+β)β OPTv). In other words, once every player had the chance to update hs bd, the socal welfare, at any tme step after that, wll be wthn α/1+α+β)β of optmal. For fractonally subaddtve valuatons and subaddtve valuatons there exst round-robn bestresponse dynamcs wth α,β) = 1,1) and α,β) = 1/lnm,1) respectvely. The result for XOS requres access to demand and XOS oracles [11], the result for subaddtve valuatons requres access to demand oracles and that the greedy algorthm for set cover problems can be executed [16, 2]. Our guarantee on the socal welfare acheved by best-response dynamcs shows that these dynamcs provde a 1/3 resp. Ω1/ log m)) approxmaton to the optmal socal welfare that apples after a sngle round of bd updates, and at any tme step after that. We also prove a bound on the average socal welfare of 1/22 + α)β, whch mproves upon the above bound for large β. In partcular, for subaddtve valuatons t s also possble to acheve α,β) = 1,lnm). Whle the pont-wse guarantee of ths dynamcs s only Ω1/log 2 m), ts average socal welfare s wthn Ω1/logm) of optmal. We show that the pont-wse welfare guarantee of 1/3 for fractonally subaddtve valuatons s tght for the respectve mechansm. Our second man result s that the Ω1/logm) bounds are almost best possble n a more general sense. Man Result 2. For players wth subaddtve valuatons no best-response dynamcs n whch players do not overbd on the grand bundle can guarantee a better than ologlogm/logm) fracton of the optmal socal welfare at any tme step. For round-robn bddng dynamcs, ths pont-wse mpossblty result extends to an mpossblty for the average socal welfare that can be acheved. Theassumpton that players donot overbd on thegrand bundles qute natural, ands satsfed by all dynamcs that have been proposed n the lterature. It obvously apples to strong nooverbddng dynamcs, but t also apples to dynamcs n whch players use weak no-overbddng strateges on the tems that they wn and bd zero on all other tems. Our proof of the lower bound s based on a non-trval constructon explotng the algebrac propertes of lnearly ndependent vector spaces. It presents an nterestng separaton from the Prce of Anarchy lterature, where no such lower bound can be proved. Fnally, we explore to whch extent our postve results depend on round-robn actvaton. We show that our postve results extend to the case where at each step a player s chosen unformly at random, whle the socal welfare can be as low as O1/n) of optmal when the order of actvaton s chosen adversarally. 1.4 Related Work Best-response dynamcs are a central topc n Algorthmc Game Theory. Probably, the best-studed applcaton are congeston games, where best-response dynamcs always converge but, except n specal cases, take worst-case exponental tme before they do so [23, 21, 1]. On the other hand, a number of results show that certan types of best-response dynamcs reach states of low socal cost quckly [19, 6, 3, 15, 25]. Some of these results extend to weghted congeston games, where equlbra may not exst and best-response sequences may not converge for ths reason. 4

5 The study of the Prce of Anarchy n combnatoral auctons wth tem bddng was ntated by Chrstodoulou et al. [7], and subsequently refned and mproved upon n [2, 20, 26, 14, 18]. Some of these bounds are based on mechansm smoothness, others are not. They provde welfare guarantees for a broad range of equlbrum concepts rangng from pure Nash equlbra, over coarse) correlated equlbra, to Bayes-Nash equlbra. For fractonally subaddtve valuatons there s a smoothnessbased proof that shows that the Prce of Anarchy wth respect to pure Nash equlbra s at most 2 [7, 26]. For subaddtve valuatons the Prce of Anarchy wth respect to pure Nash equlbra s also at most 2 [2], but the best smoothness-based proof gves a bound of Ologm) [2, 26]. In fact, as shown by Roughgarden [24], combnatoral auctons wth tem bddng acheve near-)optmal Prce of Anarchy among a broad class of smple mechansms. Also relevant to our analyss n ths context s that Chrstodoulou et al. [7] gave a smple, bestresponse dynamcs for fractonally subaddtve valuatons, that they called Potental Procedure. They showed that ths procedure always converges to a pure Nash equlbrum, but also that t may take exponentally many steps before t converges. Lately, attempts at provng Prce of Anarchy bounds for combnatoral auctons wth tem bddng have been crtczed for not beng constructve, n the sense that the computatonal complexty of fndng an equlbrum remaned open. Dobznsk et al. [13], for example, showed that for subaddtve valuatons computng a pure Nash equlbrum requres exponental communcaton. Regardng fractonally subaddtve valuatons they concluded that f there exsts an effcent algorthm that fnds an equlbrum, t must use technques that are very dfferent from our current ones. Further negatve fndngs were reported by Ca and Papadmtrou [5], who showed that computng a Bayes-Nash equlbrum s PP-hard. Most recently, Daskalaks and Syrgkans[8] consdered coarse correlated equlbra. They showed that even for unt-demand players a strct subclass of submodular) there are no polynomal-tme no-regret learnng algorthms for fndng such equlbra, unless RP NP, closng the last gap n the equlbrum landscape. However, they also proposed a novel soluton concept to escape the hardness trap, no-envy learnng, and gave a polynomal-tme no-envy learnng algorthm for XOS valuatons and complemented ths wth a proof showng that for ths class of valuatons every no-envy outcome recovers at least 1/2 of the optmal socal welfare. Further relevant work comes from Devanur et al. [9], who proposed an alternatve to smultaneous second-prce auctons, the so-called sngle-bd aucton. Ths mechansm also admts a polynomal-tme no-regret learnng algorthm and by a result of [4] acheves optmal Prce of Anarchy bounds wthn a broader class of mechansms. A fnal pont of reference are truthful mechansms for combnatoral auctons. Whle no mechansm can acheve a better than 1/m 1/2 ǫ approxmaton for submodular valuatons wth valuaton queres alone [12], Dobznsk [10] recently managed to mprove a long-standng approxmaton guarantee of Ω1/logm) for submodular valuatons to Ω1/ logm) for fractonally subaddtve valuatons, requrng access to both value and demand oracles. 2 Achevng Aggressve and Safe Bds As already dscussed, best responses are generally not unque n our settngs. Our postve results requre that updates are aggressve and safe. In ths secton we brefly descrbe how to guarantee these propertes for fractonally subaddtve a.k.a. XOS) valuatons and subaddtve valuatons. The mssng proofs are provded n Appendx B. A valuaton functon s fractonally subaddtve, or XOS, f there are values v,j l 0 such that v S) = l j S vl,j. It s subaddtve f for all S,T M, v S T) v S)+v T). 5

6 The dynamcs that we consder approach players n round-robn fashon. When player s actvated he pcks a demand set D at the current prces and updates hs bd as descrbed below. Note that here we assume eager updatng. Ths assumpton leads to cleaner proofs, but s not necessary as we demonstrate n Appendx G. 2.1 Bd Updates for XOS Valuatons For XOS valuatons we can update bds as descrbed by [7]. If D s the demand set chosen by player, let v,j l ) j M be the supportng valuaton on ths demand set for whch j D vl,j = v D), and set b t,j = vl,j for j D and bt,j = 0 otherwse. Note that these update steps can be performed n polynomal tme usng demand and XOS oracles. Proposton 2.1. Startng from an ntal bd vector b 0 satsfyng strong no-overbddng, the bd updates descrbed above lead to a sequence of bds b 0,b 1,b 2,... that s 1-safe and n whch each update s a 1-aggressve best response. 2.2 Bd Updates for Subaddtve Valuatons For subaddtve functons, t s generally not possble to guarantee α = 1 and β = 1 at the same tme. We descrbe two dfferent, reasonable ways of bd updates. No-Overbddng Updates Gven a bd vector b, defne ũ S,b ) = v S) j S k b k,j. That s, ũ S,b ) s the utlty bdder can derve from buyng the set S. Observe that ũ,b ) s subaddtve for every b. Let D be an ncluson-wse mnmal demand set of bdder gven b. We can show that ũ S,b t ) > 0 for all S D unless D =. Therefore, by [2] there exsts an addtve approxmaton a such that a) j D a,j 1/lnm ũ D,b t ) and b) j S a,j ũ S,b t ) for all S D wth the property that a,j > 0 for all j D. We set bds b t,j = a,j + k b t k,j for j D and bt,j = 0 otherwse. These update steps can be performed n polynomal tme wth a demand oracle f t s possble to compute the addtve approxmaton, whch corresponds to executng the greedy set-cover algorthm on ũ,b t ). Proposton 2.2. Startng from an ntal bd vector b 0 that satsfes strong no-overbddng, the bd updates descrbed above lead to a sequence of bds b 0,b 1,b 2,... that s 1-safe and n whch each update s a 1/ ln m)-aggressve best response. Aggressve Updates The basc constructon s the same as above except that nstead of consderng a we consder ã such that ã,j = γ a,j for all tems j D, where 0 < γ lnm s such that j D a,j = 1/γ ũ D,b t ). Note that these bds satsfy: a) j Dã,j = ũ D,b t ) and b) j Sã,j γ ũ S,b t ) for all S D. Proposton 2.3. Startng from an ntal bd vector b 0 that satsfes strong no-overbddng, the bd updates descrbed above lead to a sequence of bds that s lnm-safe and n whch each update s a 1-aggressve best response. 3 Welfare Guarantees In ths secton we prove our frst man result Theorem 3.1). The theorem provdes a pont-wse socal welfare guarantee, parametrzed n α and β, for round-robn bddng dynamcs. It shows that 6

7 the socal welfare s hgh already after a sngle round of updates, and remans hgh at every sngle step after that. Theorem 3.1. In a β-safe round-robn bddng dynamc wth α-aggressve bd updates the socal welfare at any tme step t n satsfes SWb t ) α 1+α+β)β OPTv). As we have argued n Proposton 2.1 and Proposton 2.2 there exst round-robn best-response dynamcs wth α,β) = 1,1) for fractonally subaddtve valuatons and α,β) = 1/lnm,1) for subaddtve valuatons. So two corollares of our theorem are pont-wse welfare guarantees of 1/3 and Ω1/ log m) for the respectve mechansms. We also show a welfare guarantee for the average socal welfare, Theorem 3.2 below, that mproves upon the pontwse guarantee for large β. Note that the term 1 n T ) s 1 o1) for T ωn) and at least 1/2 for T 2n. Theorem 3.2. In a β-safe round-robn bddng dynamc wth α-aggressve bd updates the average socal welfare n the frst T steps satsfes 1 T T t=1 SWbt ) α 2α+1)β 1 n T) OPTv). Ths theorem shows that the best-response dynamcs descrbed n Proposton 2.3 wth α, β) = 1,lnm), whose pont-wse welfare guarantee s only Ω1/log 2 m) by Theorem 3.1, guarantees an average socal welfare of Ω1/ log m). In Appendx C we show that the pont-wse welfare guarantee of 1/3 for fractonally subaddtve valuatons s tght for the respectve mechansm. In Secton 4 we show that the Ω1/logm) bounds are essentally best possble n a more general sense. 3.1 Proof of Theorem 3.1 The core of our proof of the pontwse welfare guarantee are two lemmata. The frst Lemma 3.4) shows that the declared socal welfare after a sngle round of updates s hgh when the ntal declared welfare s low and the second Lemma 3.5) shows that the declared welfare after a sngle round of updates s hgh when the ntal declared welfare s hgh. To prove these lemmata we need the followng auxlary lemma. Lemma 3.3. Consder a sequence b 0,...,b n n whch bdder updates hs bd n step. Denote bdder s declared utlty n step by u D b ). Then, n =1 ud b ) DWb n ). Proof. Consder an arbtrary bdder. Bdder updates hs bd n step. Suppose bdder s update buys hm the set of tems S. Then u D b ) = ) b,j j S k b k,j. For > 0, let zj = k b k,j for all j. That s, z j s the mum bd on tem j that s placed by one of the bdders 1,...,, zj 0 = 0 for all j. The crucal observaton s that j S b,j k b k,j ) j M z j z 1 j ). The reason s as follows. For j S, we have zj z 1 j by defnton. For j S, b,j = z j and k b k,j k< b k,j = k<b 1 k,j = z 1 j. Summng over all players we obtan Nu D b ) zj zj 1 ). N j M 7

8 The double sum s telescopng and zj n = kb n k,j and z0 j = 0 by defnton. So, whch proves the clam. N u D b ) j Mz n j z 0 j) = j M b n k,j = k DWbn ), Wth the help of ths lemma we can now prove our key lemmata. Lemma 3.4. Let S 1,...,S n be any feasble allocaton, n whch player receves tems S. Consder a sequence b 0,...,b n n whch bdder updates hs bd n step usng an α-aggressve bd. We have α+1) DWb n )+α DWb 0 ) α N v S ). Proof. Consder player s acton n tme step. Instead of choosng bd b, he could have bought the set of tems S. As b s α-aggressve, we get u D b ) α v S) ) k b k,j. j S Defne p t j = b t,j for all tems j. That s, pt j s the mum bd that s placed on tem j n bd profle b t. We clam that for every j S, k b k,j pn j +p0 j. Ths s correct because f b k,j attans ts mum for k < then k b k,j pn j as k s bd on tem j wll not change anymore. In the other case, f k >, then k b k,j p0 j because k has not yet changed the bd on tem j. Usng that both p 0 j and pn j are never negatve, the bound follows. We thus have u D b )+α p n j +p0 j ) α v S ). j S Summng ths nequalty over all bdders N yelds n u D b )+α =1 n p n j +p 0 j) α =1 j S n v S). We can upper bound the frst sum by DWb n ) usng Lemma 3.3. The double sum adds up every j M exactly once and we have j M pn j = DWbn ) and j M p0 j = DWb0 ). We obtan as clamed. α+1) DWb n )+α DWb 0 ) α =1 n v S), Lemma 3.5. Consder a β-safe bd sequence b 0,...,b n n whch player changes hs bd from b 1 to b usng an α-aggressve bd. Then, DWb n ) α β DWb0 ). Proof. Consder an arbtrary bdder and hs update from b 1 to b. Denote the set of tems that bdder won under bds b 1 by S 1, and the set of tems that he wns under bds b by S. So u D b 1 ) = b 1,j k b 1 k,j and, u D b ) = b,j k b k,j. j S j S j S 1 j S 1 =1 8

9 Usng that for all k and all j we have b 1 k,j = b k,j we obtan that the dfference n declared welfare over all bdders between steps 1 and s equal to the dfference n bdder s declared utlty at these tme steps. Formally, DWb ) = k b 1 k,j + b,j j S j M\S = j M k b 1 k,j + j S = j M k b 1 k,j +ud b ) = j M\S 1 = j M\S 1 b,j j S k b 1 k,j + j S 1 k b 1 k,j + j S 1 = DWb 1 )+u D b ) u D b 1 ). k b k,j k b 1 k,j +ud b ) b 1,j +u D b ) j S 1 b 1,j + j S 1 k b 1 k,j We now extend ths dentty to a lower bound on DWb ). Snce b s α-aggressve, we have u D b ) α u b 1 ). Snce the bddng sequence s β-safe, u D bt ) β u b t ) for all t. So, DWb ) = DWb 1 )+u D b ) u D b 1 ) DWb 1 )+u D b ) β u b 1 ) DWb 1 )+u D b ) β α ud b ) ) β = DWb 1 ) α 1 u D b ). Summng ths nequalty over all bdders N and usng the telescopng sum N DWb ) DWb 1 ) = DWb n ) DWb 0 ) we obtan ) β DWb n ) DWb 0 ) α 1 u D b ). N Snce α 1 and β 1 the factor β/α 1) 0. We can therefore use Lemma 3.3 to conclude that ) β DWb n ) DWb 0 ) α 1 DWb n ), whch concludes the proof. We wll use our key lemmata to show a lower bound on the declared welfare. To relate the declared welfare to the socal welfare we wll use the followng lemma. Lemma 3.6. In a β-safe sequence of bd profles b 0,b 1,b 2,... for every t 0, DWb t ) β SWb t ). Proof. Consder an arbtrary tme step t. Snce the bd profle b t s β-safe we know that for the allocaton T 1,...,T n that corresponds to b t, u D b t ) = ) b t,j k bt k,j j T β u b) = β v T ) ) k bt k,j. j T 9

10 Rearrangng ths and usng that β 1 we obtan DWb t ) = b t,j β SWbt ) β 1) k bt k,j β SWbt ), j T j T and the clam follows. We are now ready to prove the theorem. Proof of Theorem 3.1. To prove the guarantee for tme step t n consder the bd sequence of length n + 1 from b t n to b t. At tme steps t n + 1 to t each bdder updates hs bd exactly once. By the vrtue of beng a subsequence of a β-safe bddng sequence the sequence b t n,...,b t s β-safe. Moreover each bd update s α-aggressve. Applyng frst Lemma 3.5 and then Lemma 3.4 wth b t takng the role of b n, b t n takng the role of b 0, and settng S 1,...,S n to the allocaton that mzes welfare we obtan 1+α+β) DWb t ) = α+1) DWb t )+α β α DWbt ) α+1) DWb t )+α DWb t n ) α OPTv). Now, by Lemma 3.6, DWb t ) β SWb t ). Combnng ths wth the prevous nequalty yelds as clamed. 3.2 Proof of Theorem α+β) β SWb t ) α OPTv), Wth the proof of the pontwse welfare guarantee at hand we have already done the bulk of the work for provng our guarantee regardng the average welfare. The basc dea s to sum the lower bound on the declared welfare at any gven tme step as provded by Lemma 3.4 over all tme steps to obtan a lower bound on the average declare welfare, and to turn ths nto a lower bound on the actual socal welfare usng Lemma 3.6. Proof of Theorem 3.2. We frst use Lemma 3.4 to relate the declared welfare at tme steps t and t n to the optmal socal welfare. Namely, for all t n, α+1) DWb t )+α DWb t n ) α OPTv). Next we take the sum over all tme steps t and use that DWb t ) 0 to obtan the followng lower bound on the average declared welfare 1 T T DWb t ) 1 T t=1 T t=n+1 α α+1 1 T DWb t ) T t=n+1 ) OPTv) DWb t n ) α α+1 T n OPTv) α T α+1 1 T T DWb t ). t=1 10

11 Solvng ths nequalty for 1 T T t=1 DWbt ) and usng Lemma 3.6 to lower bound SWb t ) by 1/β DWb t ) we obtan 1 T T t=1 whch proves the clam. SWb t ) 1 β 1 T T DWb t ) t=1 4 Lower Bound for Subaddtve CAs α 2α+1)β T n OPTv), T Next we show our second man result Theorem 4.1), whch shows that no best-response dynamcs n whch bdders do not overbd on the grand bundle can acheve a pont-wse welfare guarantee that s sgnfcantly better than 1/logm. The assumpton that bdders do not overbd on the grand bundle seems qute natural, and does allow overbddng on subsets of tems. It s satsfed by all dynamcs that we have descrbed n Secton 2 and more generally by all dynamcs that have been proposed n the lterature. Theorem 4.1. For every postve nteger k N >0 there exsts an nstance wth n = 2 players, m = 2 k 1 tems, and subaddtve valuatons v = v 1,v 2 ) such that n every best-response dynamcs n whch players do not overbd on the grand bundle there exst nfntely many tme steps t at whch SWb t ) Ω 1 logm loglogm ) OPTv). To prove ths theorem we show that whenever the second player has updated s bd socal welfare wll be low. Ths does not mply that the average welfare wll be low as well. However, f we restrct attenton to round-robn dynamcs, then we can extend the constructon by addng addtonal players after the second player that play a low-stakes game on separate tems forcng the average welfare to be low as well. 4.1 Proof of Theorem 4.1 Our proof of the lower bound s bult around the followng famly of hard nstances, wth n = 2 players and m = 2 k 1 tems. The valuatons of the frst player are based on an example that demonstrates the worst-case ntegralty gap for set cover lnear programs see, e.g, [27, Example 13.4]), and has been used n the context of combnatoral auctons wth tem bddng before [2]. The crux of our constructon s n the desgn of the second player s valuaton functon, and ts nterplay wth the valuaton functon of the frst player. Defnton 4.2. For every postve nteger k N >0 the hard nstance I k conssts of n = 2 bdders and m = 2 k 1 tems and the followng subaddtve valuatons: 1. Frst bdder: Number the tems from 1 to m and let be a k-bt bnary vector representng the nteger. Interpret as a k-dmensonal vector over F 2. Wrte j as the dot product of the two vectors. Let S = {j j = 1}. Note that each such set contans m+1)/2 tems, and each tem s contaned n m+1)/2 such sets. For each set of tems T M let v 1 T) be the mnmum number of sets S requred to cover the tems n T. 11

12 2. Second bdder: Set ρ = 4 k m and d = k log 2k. Let D denote the set of all d-dmensonal subspaces of F k 2 excludng the zero vector. Then for any set of tems T let v 2 T) = ρ w DT), where D D 0 for T = 0 D w D T) = 2 for 0 < T D < D D else. Note that, n the nstances just descrbed, the frst player has a valuaton of v 1 M) k = log 2 m+1)forthegrandbundle, whlethesecondplayer hasamumvaluaton of T v 2 T) = ρ D = ρ 2 d 1) ρ 2 d = 4 for any set of tems. To prove the theorem we frst use lnear algebra to derve a symmetry property of D, whch together wth weak no-overbddng of the frst player on the grand bundle mples the exstence of a subset of tems D D wth low prces Lemma 4.3). Intutvely, ths s because the sets of tems that the second player s nterested n are rather small of sze about m/log 2 m), and there are suffcently many of these sets. We then show that every demand set of the second player under these prces ncludes some set of tems D D Lemma 4.4). In the fnal step, we show that f the second player buys any such set D, then the frst player s valuaton for the remanng tems M \D and hence the overall socal welfare s at most Ologlogm) Lemma 4.5). Lemma 4.3. Let k N >0. Consder the hard nstance I k. For every vector of bds b such that the frst player does not overbd on the grand bundle there s a d-dmensonal subspace D D such that j D b 1,j < ρ D 2. Proof. Snce the frst player does not overbd on the grand bundlewe have j M b 1,j v 1 M) = k, so the average bds are bounded by 1 m j M b 1,j k m. Observe that the number of d-dmensonal subspaces of F k 2 that contan a vector 0 x Fk 2 s gven as k 1 ) d 1, where )2 refers to the q-bnomal coeffcent see, e.g., [22]). So, n partcular, q ths number s ndependent of x. Therefore, nstead of takng the average over all tems M, we can 1 take the average over all sets D D and take the average wthn such a set,.e., j M b 1,j = 1 D D D 1 D j D b 1,j. 1 In combnaton, there has to be a D such that D the clam follows. k m < ρ 2 = 2 k m j D b 1,j 1 m j M b 1,j k m. Snce Lemma 4.4. Let k N >0. Consder the hard nstance I k. If the prces p as seen by the second player are such that j D p j < ρ D /2 for some D D, then each demand set of the second player under these prces ncludes some D D. Proof. By our assumpton on the sum of the prces of the tems n D, ud) = v 2 D) j D p j = ρ w D D) j D p j > ρ D 2. Now, let S M be a demand set under v 2. If S D < D for all D D, then we have us) = v 2 S) j S p j v 2 S) = ρ D Dw D S) ρ D D D 2 < ud). Ths means, S can only be a demand set f S D = D for some D D. Lemma 4.5. Let k N >0. Consder the hard nstance I k. Then for D D we have v 1 M \D ) k d. m 12

13 Proof. Toshowtheboundonv 1, weusethatd {0}sasubspaceofF k 2 ofdmensond. Thats, any bass x 1,...,x d of D {0} can be extended by x d+1,...,x k to a bass of F k 2. Let X = x 1,...,x k ). Ths way, X 1 s the matrx that expresses j F k 2 as a lnear combnaton of x 1,...,x k. As x 1,...,x d s a bass of D {0}, we know that for every j D {0} the vector X 1 j cannot be zero n all components d+1,...,k. Ths mples that the set M \D can be covered by sets S for beng the rows d+1,...,k of X 1. Therefore v 1 M \D ) k d. Proof of Theorem 4.1. Any best-response dynamcs has to ask every bdder nfntely often. We clam that the socal welfare s Ologlogm) rght after each update of the second player. Snce the optmal socal welfare s Ωlog m) ths shows the clam. Let b t be a bd vector after the second player has made a move. Usng Lemma 4.3, we know that there s a set D D wth j D bt 1 1,j < ρ D 2. By Lemma 4.4, the second player then buys a superset of some D D. Therefore, rght after the second player has updated hs bd the frst player s allocated a subset of the tems M \D. Lemma 4.5 mples that the socal welfare for ths allocaton s no hgher than k d+ρ2 d = Ologlogm). 5 Beyond Round-Robn Actvaton Our postve results make use of the fact that bdders are actvated to update ther bd n roundrobn fashon. That s, between two actvatons of a bdder, each other bdder s actvated exactly once. In ths secton, we nvestgate alternatve actvaton protocols. 5.1 Randomzed Actvaton We frst show that our postve results extend to the case where at each step a random player gets to update hs bd. Theorem 5.1. Consder a β-safe sequence of bds that s generated by choosng at each tme step a player unformly at random and lettng ths player update hs bd to an α-aggressve bd. Then for any tme step T n, E [ SWb T ) ] α 21+4α)β OPTv). The key dfference to the prevous postve results s as follows. In the case of round-robn actvaton, we could bound the prce that a bdder has to pay for an tem j at any tme by the sum of the mum bd before the frst and after the n-th step. As now, n the case of random actvaton, a bdder can potentally be actvated multple tmes durng the frst n steps, ths s not true anymore. Instead, we can show the followng lemma. Lemma 5.2. Consder a sequence of bds that s generated by choosng at each tme step a player unformly at random and lettng ths player update hs bd. Then, for all tems j M and all lengths of the sequence T 0, we have [ E b t,j t T ] 1 n) 1 T [ E b T,j The proof can be found n Appendx D. The overall dea s to bound the probablty that a bdder who causes a hgh bd s actvated agan. Usng ths lemma, we can follow a smlar pattern as when provng Theorem 3.1. Proof of Theorem 5.1. Snce all of our arguments apply startng from any vector of bds, we can wthoutlossofgeneralty assumethatt sthefnalofasequenceofnbdupdates,andsot = n. Let ]. 13

14 N be the set of players that are selected to bd at least once durng ths sequence of bd updates. Denote by S1,...,S n the allocaton that mzes socal welfare. By a varant of Lemma 3.4, whch does not make use of round-robn actvaton and s gven as Lemma D.1 n Appendx D, we have DWb T )+α j M b t,j α v S). t T N Note that DWb T ), t T b t,j, and N are now random varables. Takng expectatons of both sdes, we get [ E DWb T )+α j M ] [ b t,j E α ] v S ). t T N By lnearty of expectaton, ths mples E [ DWb T ) ] +α j ME [ b t,j t T ] α Pr [ N ] v S). N The probablty of each player to be selected at least once s Pr[ N ] = 1 1 n) 1 T. Lemma 5.2 ] shows that E[ j M t T b t,j 1 n) 1 T [ E DWb T ) ]. We obtan 1+α 1 1 ) T ) E [ DWb T ) ] α ) T ) v S n n ), and therefore E [ DWb T ) ] n α 1+α 1 1 ) T v S ). n N Fnally, we use Lemma 3.6 to relate the declared socal welfare to the actual socal welfare and the fact that T = n 2 to lower bound 1 1 1/n) n 1/2 and upper bound 1 1/n) n 4. Ths yelds, E [ SWb T ) ] α 21+4α)β OPTv). 5.2 Adversaral Actvaton We conclude by showng that our postve results that show quck convergence to states of hgh welfare no longer apply f an adversary chooses the order n whch players get to update ther bds. Our result concerns XOS valuatons, and 1-safe bddng sequences n whch each bd update s to a 1-aggressve best response. It apples even f players update ther bds as n the Potental Procedure of [7]. That s, unless the actvated player already plays a best response, he chooses an arbtrary demand set and bds hs supportng addtve valuaton on the respectve set and zero on all other tems. Theorem 5.3. For every ǫ > 0, n, and k, there s an nstance wth n agents wth XOS valuatons and n 1) k+1) tems, an ntal bd vector b 0, and an actvaton sequence such that, even f each actvated agent updates hs bd as n the Potental Procedure, untl each agent has been actvated Ω2 k ) tmes the welfare has never exceeded a 1+ǫ n 1 fracton of the optmum. ) T N 14

15 At the core of our proof n Appendx E) s the followng proposton that apples even f players have unt-demand valuatons,.e., a player s valuaton for a set of tems s the mum value for any tem n the set. It shows the exstence of a cyclc actvaton pattern n whch each player gets to update hs bd, but the dynamc remans n states of low welfare. The constructon assumes that players also update ther bd f ths does not strctly mprove ther utlty, and that tes among multple best responses are broken n our favor. Proposton 5.4. For every ǫ > 0 and n, there s an nstance of n agents wth unt-demand valuatons for n 1 tems, an ntal bd vector b 0, and a cyclc actvaton pattern n whch every agent s actvated at least once and bd updates are as n the Potental Procedure except that updates need not be strct mprovements and tes among multple best responses are broken n our favor, but the socal welfare s always at most a 1+ǫ n 1 fracton of the optmal welfare. Proof. There are n bdders and n 1 tems. Player s valuaton for a set S M s gven as v S) = j S v,j. For bdder 1, we let v 1,1 =...,v 1,n 1 = 1 + ǫ. For bdder > 1, defne v, 1 = 1 and v,j = 0 for j 1. The socal optmum assgns tem j to bdder j +1 and has welfare n 1. In the ntal bd vector b 0 all players bd zero. The actvaton scheme s as follows: In every odd step bdder 1 makes a move, whle n even steps bdders > 1 are actvated n a round-robn way. That s, the actvaton works repeatedly as 1,2,1,3,1,4,...,1,n 1,1,n. Wth ths actvaton order, t s possble that bdder 1 bds 1+ǫ on tem t the t-th tme he s actvated, whle bdders > 1, when actvated, see a bd of 1+ǫ on the tem they are nterested n, and therefore bd 0 on all tems. Ths way the socal welfare at any tme step t 1 s 1+ǫ. Our proof n the appendx combnes ths constructon wth several copes of the exponental lower-bound constructon of Theorem 3.4 n [7], and thus ensures that each update s a strct mprovement and unque. 6 Concludng Remarks and Outlook In our analyss we focused on fractonally subaddtve and subaddtve valuatons, whch do not exhbt complements. A natural queston s whether smlar results can be obtaned for classes of valuatons that exhbt complements. In Appendx F, we dscuss an example wth MPH-k valuatons [17] that hghlghts the dffcultes that arse. Another nterestng follow-up queston s whether there s a general result that translates a Prce of Anarchy guarantee for a gven mechansm that s provable va smoothness nto a result that shows that best-response sequences reach states of good socal welfare quckly. The example wth MPH-k valuatons n Appendx F already lmts the potental scope of such a result. It would stll be nterestng to dentfy natural suffcent condtons. One such condton could be that the mechansm admts some knd of potental functon as the procedure for XOS valuatons), but our results already show that ths condton s certanly not necessary. References [1] H. Ackermann, H. Rögln, and B. Vöckng. On the mpact of combnatoral structure on congeston games. Journal of the ACM, 556),

16 [2] K. Bhawalkar and T. Roughgarden. Welfare guarantees for combnatoral auctons wth tem bddng. In Proceedngs of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, SODA 11, pages , [3] V. Blò, A. Fanell, M. Flammn, and L. Moscardell. Performance of one-round walks n lnear congeston games. Theory of Computng Systems, 491):24 45, [4] M. Braverman, J. Mao, and S. M. Wenberg. Interpolatng between truthful and non-truthful mechansms for combnatoral auctons. In Proceedngs of the 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, SODA 16, pages , [5] Y. Ca and C. H. Papadmtrou. Smultaneous bayesan auctons and computatonal complexty. In Proceedngs of the 15th ACM Conference on Economcs and Computaton, EC 14, pages , [6] G. Chrstodoulou, V. S. Mrrokn, and A. Sdropoulos. Convergence and approxmaton n potental games. Theoretcal Computer Scence, 438:13 27, [7] G. Chrstodoulou, A. Kovács, and M. Schapra. Bayesan combnatoral auctons. Journal of the ACM, 632):11, [8] C. Daskalaks and V. Syrgkans. Learnng n auctons: Regret s hard, envy s easy. In Proceedngs of the 57th IEEE Symposum on Foundatons of Computer Scence, pages , [9] N. R. Devanur, J. Morgenstern, V. Syrgkans, and S. M. Wenberg. Smple auctons wth smple strateges. In Proceedngs of the 16th ACM Conference on Economcs and Computaton, EC 16, pages , [10] S. Dobznsk. Breakng the logarthmc barrer for truthful combnatoral auctons wth submodular bdders. In Proceedngs of the 48th Annual ACM Symposum on Theory of Computng, STOC 16, pages , [11] S. Dobznsk and M. Schapra. An mproved approxmaton algorthm for combnatoral auctons wth submodular bdders. In Proceedngs of the Seventeenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, SODA 06, pages , [12] S. Dobznsk and J. Vondrák. Impossblty results for truthful combnatoral auctons wth submodular valuatons. Journal of the ACM, 631):5, [13] S. Dobznsk, H. Fu, and R. D. Klenberg. On the complexty of computng an equlbrum n combnatoral auctons. In Proceedngs of the 26th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, SODA 15, pages , [14] P. Düttng, M. Henznger, and M. Starnberger. Valuaton compressons n VCG-based combnatoral auctons. In Proceedngs of the 9th Conference on Web and Internet Economcs, WINE 13, pages , [15] B. Farzad, N. Olver, and A. Vetta. A prorty-based model of routng. Chcago Journal of Theoretcal Computer Scence, 2008, [16] U. Fege. On mzng welfare when utlty functons are subaddtve. In Proceedngs of the 38th Annual ACM Symposum on Theory of Computng, STOC 06, pages 41 50,

17 [17] U. Fege, M. Feldman, N. Immorlca, R. Izsak, B. Lucer, and V. Syrgkans. A unfyng herarchy of valuatons wth complements and substtutes. In Proceedngs of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artfcal Intellgence, AAAI 15, pages , [18] M. Feldman, H. Fu, N. Gravn, and B. Lucer. Smultaneous auctons are almost) effcent. In Proceedngs of the 45th ACM Symposum on Theory of Computng Conference, STOC 13, pages , [19] M. X. Goemans, V. S. Mrrokn, and A. Vetta. Snk equlbra and convergence. In Proceedngs of the 46th IEEE Symposum on Foundatons of Computer Scence, FOCS 05, pages , [20] A. Hassdm, H. Kaplan, Y. Mansour, and N. Nsan. Non-prce equlbra n markets of dscrete goods. In Proceedngs of the 12th ACM Conference on Electronc Commerce, EC 11, pages , [21] D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley. Potental games. Games and Economc Behavor, 141): , [22] A. Prasad. Countng subspaces of a fnte vector space 1. Resonance, 1511): , [23] R. W. Rosenthal. A class of games possessng pure-strategy nash equlbra. Internatonal Journal of Game Theory, 21):65 67, [24] T. Roughgarden. Barrers to near-optmal equlbra. In 55th IEEE Annual Symposum on Foundatons of Computer Scence, FOCS 14, pages 71 80, [25] T. Roughgarden. Intrnsc robustness of the prce of anarchy. Journal of the ACM, 625):32, [26] V. Syrgkans and É. Tardos. Composable and effcent mechansms. In Proceedngs of the 45th ACM Symposum on Theory of Computng Conference, STOC 13, pages , [27] V. V. Vazran. Approxmaton Algorthms. Sprnger-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA, ISBN A Non-Exstence of Weak No-Overbddng Pure Nash Equlbra for Subaddtve Valuatons We can also leverage our novel nsghts regardng hard nstances Defnton 4.2) for subaddtve valuatons to show that there need not be a pure Nash equlbrum, even f players are only requred to use weakly no-overbddng strateges. Theorem A.1. Let k N >0. Consder the hard nstance I k wth n = 2 players and m = 2 k 1 tems. There s no pure Nash equlbrum n weakly no-overbddng strateges f k 8. Ths remans true f we defne a bd profle to be at equlbrum f no player has a benefcal devaton to a weakly no-overbddng strategy. 17

18 Proof. Assume that b s a weakly no-overbddng pure Nash equlbrum. Suppose the second player wns the set of tems W M n b, then the frst player wns the set of tems M \ W. By weak no-overbddng, we have b 1,j v 1 M \W) and b 2,j v 2 W). j W j M\W The frst player does not wn the tems n W, whch means that b 1,j b 2,j for all tems j W. Consequently, we have b 1,j v 1 M \W)+v 2 W) j M v 1 M)+v 2 M) = k +ρ 2 d = k +4 k m 2k log 2 k = k +4. By the same argument as n Lemma 4.3, each tem j M s ncluded n the same number of sets D D. Therefore, 1 D D D 1 D b 1,j = 1 m j D Ths mples that there s a set D D such that 1 D j D j M b 1,j k+4 m. Snce k 8 by assumpton, m > 2k +8, and therefore j D b 1,j k+4 m D < D 2 b 1,j k +4 m. By Lemma 4.4 and because the second player plays a best response, we have W D for some D D. In the remander, we wll show that ths mples that the frst player has a benefcal weakly no-overbddng devaton b 1. Let b 1,j = b 2,j + 1 m for j W and b 1,j = b 1,j for j M \W. Observe that n b 1,b 2) the frst player wns all tems M. Ths bd fulflls the weak no-overbddng property because b 1,j = j M j W b 2,j + 1 m. ) + j M\W v 2 W)+1+v 1 M \W) v 2 D )+1+v 1 M \D ) ρ2 d +1+k d = 4+1+log 2 k k = v 1 M), b 1,j 18

19 where the frst nequalty uses that b s weakly no-overbddng, the second nequalty explots the defnton of v 2, the thrd nequalty holds by Lemma 4.5, and the fnal nequalty holds because we have assumed k 8. The devaton by the frst player s benefcal because u 1 b 1,b 2 ) = v 1 M) j M = k d j M\W b 2,j u 1 b)+d v 2 W) b 2,j +d j W u 1 b)+d 4 > u 1 b), where the frst nequalty uses Lemma 4.5, the second nequalty uses that v 2 W) v 2 D ) = 4, and the fnal nequalty follows from the defnton of d = k log 2 k and the assumpton that k 8 and so d > 4. B Mssng Proofs from Secton 2 In ths appendx we prove the propostons that establsh the exstence of aggressve and safe bddng dynamcs for XOS and subaddtve valatons. B.1 Suffcency of Strong No-Overbddng We frst show that n order to have a 1-safe dynamc t suffces that ntal bds and the subsequent updates fulfll no-overbddng n the strong sense. A bd vector b satsfes strong no-overbddng f j S b,j v S) for every bdder and every set of tems S. A best response b by bdder aganst bds b satsfes strong no-overbddng f j S b,j v S). Lemma B.1. If the ntal bd vector b 0 satsfes strong no-overbddng and at each tme step t 1 some bdder gets to update hs bd to a best response, whch satsfes strong no-overbddng, then the resultng best-response dynamc s 1-safe. Proof. Snce the ntal bd vector and each update satsfy strong no-overbddng we have j Sbt,j v S) for all bdders, tme steps t 0, and sets of tems S. Subtractng j S k b t k,j from both sdes shows the clam. B.2 Proof of Proposton 2.1 Consder an arbtrary bdder and hs update to bd b t. The bd bt satsfes strong no-overbddng by defnton. Hence Lemma B.1 shows that the bd sequence s 1-safe. It remans to show that b t s a 1-aggressve best response. We frst show that the bd b t s a best response to bt. Let S denote the set of tems that bdder wns wth bd b t aganst bds bt and let D be the demand set on the bass of whch bt s b 2,j 19

20 defned. Then, u b t ) = v S ) j S k bt k,j j S b t,j k bt k,j ) j Db t,j k bt k,j ) = v D) k bt k,j j D v S) S k j S bt k,j ), where the frst nequalty uses that v s XOS, the second uses that k b t k,j = bt,j for j D\S and k b t k,j bt,j for j S \ D, the followng equalty explots the defnton of b t, and the fnal nequalty uses that D s a demand set. To show that b t s 1-aggressve t suffces to show that bdder s declared and actual utlty at tme step t concde. Snce the rght-hand sde n the precedng chan of nequaltes s at least v S ) j S k b t k,j all nequaltes n the chan of nequaltes must be equaltes. Ths mples that u b t ) = v S ) j S k bt k,j = j S b t,j k bt k,j ) = ud b t ). B.3 Proof of Proposton 2.2 Consder an arbtrary bdder and hs update to bd b t. We frst argue that bt s a best response. We clam that ũ S,b t ) > 0 for all S D unless D =. To see ths assume by contradcton that there exst a S D such that ũ T,b t ) 0. Then, by subaddtvty of v, ũ D,b ) v D \T) ũ D \T,b t ), j D\T ) b k,j + v T) ) k k j S b k,j whch contradcts the defnton of D. Because of ths the addtve approxmaton a has a,j > 0 for all j D. It follows that b t,j > k b t k,j for all j D, and so bdder wns all tems j D, and for the tems j D that he wns k b t k,j = 0. To see that b t s 1/lnm-aggressve observe the followng. Let S denote the set of tems that bdder wns wth bd b t. Then, consderng the bd bt defned on the bass of demand set D, we have u D bt ) = ) b t,j k bt k,j j S ) b t,j k bt k,j j D = j D a,j 1 lnm ũ D,b t ), where the frst nequalty uses that b t,j = k b t k,j for j D \ S and b t,j k b t k,j for j S \D, and the second nequalty uses property a) of bd b t. 20

21 That the bd sequence s 1-safe follows from the startng condton and Lemma B.1 by observng that bdder s update satsfes strong no-overbddng. Namely, for every S D, b t,j =,j + k j Sa bt k,j ) ũ S,b t )+ k bt k,j = v S), j S j S where the nequalty follows from property b) of bd b t. B.4 Proof of Proposton 2.3 The argument that the bd b t chosen by bdder s a best response and 1-aggressve s dentcal to the respectve argument n the proof of Proposton 2.2, except that ths tme we collect a factor of 1 nstead of 1/lnm when we apply property a) of bd b t. To see that the bd sequence s lnm-safe, consder a pont n tme t t after bdder s update. In the vector b t, bdder gets a set S M that s possbly dfferent from D. Note that for j S\D, b t,j = 0 by our defnton. Furthermore, for j S D, k b t k,j k b t k,j because bd updates are only non-zero f an tem changes ts owner. Therefore, because bdder wns tem j, all new bds have to be zero. In combnaton, we have u D bt ) = ) ã,j + j S D k bt k,j k bt k,j lnm ũ S D,b t )+ = lnm u b t ), j S D k bt k,j ) ) k bt k,j because the sum of ã,j terms s bounded by lnm ũ S D,b t ) by defnton and the sum of the remanng terms s non-negatve. C Tghtness of the Pont-Wse Welfare Guarantee for XOS Valuatons The followng proposton shows that the pont-wse welfare guarantee of 1/3 for the round-robn best-response dynamcs for fractonally subaddtve valuatons descrbed n Secton 2 s tght, even f the valuatons are unt demand. Proposton C.1. Consder the dynamcs descrbed n Secton 2.1. There s an nput wth n = 3 players, m = 3 tems, and unt-demand valuatons and an ntal bd vector such that when started from ths bd vector the socal welfare obtaned by the dynamcs after a sngle round of bd updates s 1/3 OPTv). Proof. The valuatons of all three bdders are unt demand,.e., for all players and sets of tems S, v S) = j S v,j. The tem valuatons v,j for 1,j 3 are gven by the followng table: tem 1 tem 2 tem 3 player player 2 1+ǫ 1+2ǫ 1+3ǫ player