arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 18 Nov 2015

Transcription

1 The Invsble Hand of Dynamc Market Prcng arxv: v1 [cs.gt] 18 Nov 2015 Vncent Cohen-Addad Alon Eden Amos Fat November 19, 2015 Abstract Mchal Feldman Walrasan prces, f they exst, have the property that one can assgn every buyer some bundle n her demand set, such that the resultng assgnment wll maxmze socal welfare. Unfortunately, ths assumes carefully breakng tes amongst dfferent bundles n the buyer demand set. Presumably, the shopkeeper cleverly convnces the buyer to break tes n a manner consstent wth maxmzng socal welfare. Lackng such a shopkeeper, f buyers arrve sequentally and smply choose some arbtrary bundle n ther demand set, the socal welfare may be arbtrarly bad. In the context of matchng markets, we show how to compute dynamc prces, based upon the current nventory, that guarantee that socal welfare s maxmzed. Such prces are set wthout knowng the dentty of the next buyer to arrve. We also show that ths s mpossble n general (e.g., for coverage valuatons), but consder other scenaros where ths can be done. Ecole normale supéreure, Pars, France Tel-Avv Unversty, Israel Tel Avv Unversty and Mcrosoft Research, Israel The work of M. Feldman and A. Eden was partally supported by the European Research Councl under the European Unon s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) / ERC grant agreement number Ths work was done n part whle the A. Fat was vstng the Smons Insttute for the Theory of Computng. 1

2 1 Introducton A remarkable property of Walrasan prcng s that t s possble to match buyers to bundles, such that every buyer gets a bundle n her demand set (.e., a set of tems S maxmzng v (S) j S p j), and the resultng allocaton maxmzes the socal welfare, v (S ) (S beng the bundle allocated to buyer ). However, Walrasan prces cannot coordnate the market alone; t s crtcal that tes be broken approprately, n a coordnated fashon. Consder the followng scenaro: two tems, a and b, and two unt demand buyers, Alce and Bob. Alce has value R for tem a and value one for tem b, Bob has value one for each of the two tems a and b. There are many Walrasan prcngs n ths settng, for example a prce of R 1 for tem a and 0 for tem b. Indeed, assgnng tem a to Alce and tem b to Bob under these prces maxmzes smultaneously the ndvdual utlty of each buyer and the socal welfare. However, n real markets, buyers often arrve sequentally, n some unknown order, and get no gudance as to how to break tes. For these prces, (p(a) = R 1 and p(b) = 0), f Bob arrves frst then he wll ndeed choose tem b, leavng tem a for Alce to purchase, resultng n a socal welfare maxmzng allocaton. If, however, Alce arrves frst, she has equal utlty (= 1) for both a and b and may select tem b, so Bob wll walk away wthout purchasng any tem, whch results n socal welfare 1, compared wth the optmal socal welfare of R + 1. We furthermore remark that settng prces of p(a) = R and p(b) = 1, whch are also Walrasan prces, could result n both Alce and Bob walkng away, and resultng n zero socal welfare. One may suspect that we choose the wrong Walrasan prcng. It s known that n matchng markets the mnmal Walrasan prces concde wth VCG payments [Leo83]. In ths example the mnmal Walrasan prces are to charge zero for both tem a and tem b. Indeed, f Alce arrves frst, she wll choose tem a, and when Bob arrves he wll choose tem b, and ths s the socal welfare maxmzng allocaton. However, f Bob arrves frst, he wll be ndfferent between the two tems and may choose tem a agan ths acheves a socal welfare of 2 compared wth the optmal socal welfare of R + 1. Moreover, there exst markets that admt unque Walrasan prces, yet may acheve zero welfare. For example, consder a sngle tem valued at 1 by both Alce and Bob. The unque Walrasan prce s 1, whch may result n both buyers walkng away wthout purchasng the tem. In fact, we can show that no statc prces (and thus no Walrasan prces) can gve more than 2/3 of the socal welfare for buyers that arrve sequentally. Consder unt demand buyers Alce, Bob, and Carl, and tems a, b, and c. Alce values a and b at one, and has zero value for c, symmetrcally, Bob values b and c at one and a at zero, and Carl values c and a at one, and b at zero. A two lne proof shows that no statc prcng scheme, p(a), p(b), and p(c) can acheve more than 2/3 of the optmal socal welfare. Assume all prces are strctly less than one, and assume, wthout loss of generalty, that p(a) p(b) p(c). Now, Alce arrves and chooses tem b, Carl arrves and chooses tem c, and fnally Bob arrves but there are no tems left for whch Bob has a non zero valuaton. Note that f p(a) 1 then tem a wll not be sold as whomever s to buy t may decde smply to walk away, the same holds for tems b and c so assumng that all prces are strctly less than one holds wthout loss of generalty, gven that one assumes that the prces acheve 2/3 of the optmal socal welfare. However, consder the followng twst, whch changes the prces after the frst buyer arrves. In the scenaro above, when Alce arrves frst and chooses (wthout loss of generalty) tem a, change the prces so that Bob wll choose b and Carl wll choose c. Ths s easly done by settng new prces 1

3 p (b) < p (c). Irrespectve of whomever arrves after Alce, the prces wll ensure that all tems get sold and socal welfare be maxmzed. Obtanng optmal socal welfare s trval va dynamc prcng f the prcng mechansm knew whch buyer was to arrve next. The dynamc prcng mechansm could make use of nfnte prces to reduce the choces avalable to ncomng buyer so that only a bundle consstent wth optmal socal welfare can be selected. The key dffculty arses because the prces need be set before the preferences of the next buyer to arrve are known. Thus, ths paper studes the ssues of statc and dynamc prcng for sequentally arrvng buyers. Our man result s the followng: Man Theorem: For any matchng market (.e., unt demand valuatons), we gve a poly-tme dynamc prcng scheme that acheves the optmal socal welfare, for any arrval order and rrespectve of any te breakng chosen by the buyers. We show that the exstence of Walrasan prces does not, by tself, mply that there exst dynamc prcng schemes that optmze socal welfare. In partcular, we gve an example (Secton 4) of a market wth coverage valuatons (a strct subclass of submodular valuatons), whch has a unque optmal soluton, and where Walrasan prces do exst, and yet no dynamc prcng scheme (statc or dynamc) can get the optmal socal welfare. We offer some remedes for ths mpossblty result. We show that a market wth gross substtutes valuatons that has a unque optmal allocaton always admts a statc tem prcng scheme that acheves the optmal welfare (Secton 6) 1 Moreover, whle full effcency s n general mpossble, we argue that for any profle of valuatons, there exsts a statc prcng scheme that acheves at least a half of the optmal socal welfare. Ths result can be vewed as a generalzaton of the Combnatoral Walrasan Equlbrum of [FGL13]. In fact we adapt the statc bundle prces computed n [FGL15] for Bayesan agents to acheve the one half guarantee of the optmal socal welfare, for any class of valuatons. We dentfy addtonal classes of valuatons that admt dynamc prcng schemes that obtan the optmal socal welfare: (1) where buyer seeks up to k tems, and valuatons depend on the tem, and (2) for superaddtve valuatons. The followng remark s n order. Gross substtutes valuatons are known to be the fronter for the guaranteed exstence of a Walrasan equlbrum [GS99]. They are also the fronter wth respect to computatonal tractablty [NS06]: one can compute the allocaton that maxmzes socal welfare n polynomal tme. Are gross substtutes valuatons also the fronter for achevng optmal welfare va a dynamc prcng scheme? More formally: Man Open Problem: Does any market wth gross substtutes valuatons have a dynamc prcng scheme that acheves optmal socal welfare? 1 In a talk by Aaron Roth at the Smons Insttute on October 16, 2015, attended by some of the authors, he mentoned that unque optmal allocatons for gross substtute allocatons allow no conflct prcng, ths mmedately mples that such prces wll gve optmal socal welfare for sequentally arrvng buyers. Ths was obtaned ndependently by us. 2

4 1.1 Related Work Ths paper combnes ssues of onlne computaton and markets. Walrasan equlbrum, where prces are such that optmal socal welfare s acheved, and the market clears, gven approprate te-breakng of preferences n the demand set dates back to 1874 [Wal74]. The exstence of Walrasan prces for matchng markets and more generally for gross substtutes valuatons appears n [KJC82, GS99]. We gve a defnton of these valuatons n Secton 6. Compettve analyss of onlne matchngs were frst studed n [KVV90] where a randomzed 1 1/e approxmaton to the sze of the maxmal matchng was gven. The use of bundle prcng for Combnatoral Walrasan Equlbra (and no envy amongst buyers), whle achevng one half of the socal welfare, was gven n [FGL13]. The use of statc tem prces for buyers arrvng va a Bayesan process, wth XOS valuatons, whch also acheves 1/2 of the optmal socal welfare, was gven n [FGL15]. The performance of posted prce mechansms was also studed under the objectve of maxmzng revenue n Bayesan settngs, where t was shown to extract a constant fracton of the optmal revenue for sngle tem settngs [BH08] as well as for matchng markets [CHK07, CHMS10, CMS10]. More generally, some motvaton for ths paper s to fnd more applcatons of the framework of prcng dynamc decsons [CEFJ15], a general approach to settng dynamc prces on future selfsh decsons so as to acheve some predefned goal. In partcular, ths has been done n the context of mnmzng the costs of selfsh metrcal matchngs, selfsh metrcal task systems, and the selfsh k-server problem. 1.2 The Structure of ths Paper In secton 2 we descrbe several types of prcng schemes for sequental buyers, statc and dynamc, tem prces and bundle prces. In secton 3 we gve a dynamc prcng scheme that acheves optmal socal welfare, rrespectve of how agents break tes, and for any order of arrval. We nclude a runnng example to help n clarfyng the concepts and algorthms nvolved. In secton 4 we show that dynamc prcng schemes cannot acheve optmal socal welfare even f all of the followng hold smultaneously: (1) Walrasan prces exst, (2) The socally optmal allocaton s unque, and (3) The valuaton s a coverage valuaton. In secton 5 we argue that the deas n [FGL13, FGL15] allow us to compute statc prces that acheve 1/2 of the optmal socal welfare, for any order of arrval, and any valuaton. In secton 6 we show how to compute statc tem prces that acheve optmal socal welfare for sequentally arrvng buyers f the valuaton class s gross substtutes and the optmal allocaton s unque. In secton 7 we show how to compute statc bundle prces that acheve optmal socal welfare for sequentally arrvng buyers f the valuaton class s super addtve. In secton A we show how to compute dynamc bundle prces that acheve optmal socal welfare for sequentally arrvng buyers f the valuaton class s such that bdder seeks up to k tems, and the tem values depend only on the tem. 3

5 2 Model and Prelmnares Our settng conssts of a set I of m ndvsble tems and a set of n buyers that arrve sequentally n some arbtrary order. Each buyer has a valuaton functon v : 2 I R 0 that ndcates hs value for every set of objects, and a buyer valuaton profle s denoted by v = (v 1,..., v n ). We assume valuatons are monotone non-decreasng and normalzed (.e., v ( ) = 0). We use v (A B) = v (A B) v (B) to denote the margnal value of bundle A gven bundle B. An allocaton s a vector of dsjont sets x = (x 1,..., x n ), where x denotes the bundle assocated wth buyer [n] (note that t s not requred that all tems are allocated). The socal welfare (SW) of an allocaton x s SW(x, v) = n =1 v (x ), and the optmal welfare s denoted by OPT(v). When clear from context we omt v and wrte SW and OPT for the socal welfare and optmal welfare, respectvely. An tem prcng s a functon p : I R 0 that assgns a prce to every tem. The prce of tem j s denoted by p(j). Gven an tem prcng, the utlty that buyer derves from a set of tems S s u (S, p) = v (S) j S p(j). The demand correspondence D (I, p) of buyer contans the sets of objects that maxmze buyer s utlty;.e., D (I, p) = argmax S I u (S, p). A bundle prcng s a tuple (B, p), where B = {B 1,..., B k } s a partton of the tems nto bundles (where B = I and for every j, B B j = ), and p : B R 0 s a functon that assgns a prce to every bundle n B. The prce of bundle B j s denoted p(b j ). Gven a bundle prcng (B, p), the utlty that buyer derves from a set of bundles S s u (S, p) = v (S) B j S p(b j). The demand correspondence D (I, p) of buyer contans the sets of bundles that maxmze buyer s utlty;.e., D (I, p) = argmax S I u (S, p). We consder several types of prcng schemes: statc tem prcng, dynamc tem prcng, statc bundle prcng, and dynamc bundle prcng. In statc prcng schemes, prces are assgned (to tems or bundles) ntally, and never change then. In contrast, n dynamc prcng schemes, new (tem or bundle) prcng may be set before the next buyer arrves. Item prcng schemes assgn prces to tems, whereas bundle prcng schemes can partton the tems to bundles and assgn prces to bundles that are elements of the partton. Thus, the four types of prcng schemes are descrbed as follows. Statc Item Prcng Scheme: 1. Item prces, p, are determned once and for all. 2. Buyers arrve at some arbtrary order, the next buyer to arrve chooses a bundle n her demand set from among the tems not already allocated (and pays the sum of the correspondng prces). Statc Bundlng Prcng Scheme: 1. Bundles, and ther prces, (B, p), are determned once and for all. 2. Buyers arrve at some arbtrary order, the next buyer to arrve chooses a set of bundles n her demand set from amongst the bundles not already allocated (and pays the sum of the correspondng prces). Dynamc Item Prcng Scheme: Before buyer t = 1,..., n arrves (and after buyer t 1 departs, for t > 1): 1. Item prces, p t, are set (or reset) before buyer t arrves, prces are set for those tems that have not been purchased yet. 4

6 2. When buyer t arrves she purchases a set of tems S n her demand from among the tems not already allocated (and pays the sum of the correspondng prces accordng to p t ). Dynamc Bundle Prcng Scheme: Before buyer t = 1,..., n arrves (and after buyer t 1 departs, for t > 1): 1. A partton nto bundles and bundle prces, (B, p t ), s determned for the tems that have not been purchased yet. 2. When buyer t arrves she purchases a set of bundles S n her demand set from among the bundles on sale (and pays the sum of the correspondng prces accordng to p t ). We say that a prcng scheme acheves optmal (respectvely, α-approxmate) socal welfare f for any arrval order and any manner n whch agents may break tes, the obtaned socal welfare s optmal (resp., at least α fracton of the optmal welfare). 3 Optmal Dynamc Prcng Scheme for Matchng Markets In ths secton we consder matchng markets. Every agent seeks one tem, and may have dfferent valuatons for the dfferent tems. Whereas ths settng admts Walrasan prces, such prces are not applcable to the settng where agents arrve sequentally, n an unknown order, and choose an arbtrary tem n ther demand set. We now descrbe a dynamc tem prcng scheme for matchng markets that maxmzes socal welfare the sum of buyer valuatons for ther allocated tems s maxmzed. The process we consder s as follows: The valuatons of the buyers are known. The buyers arrve n some arbtrary order unknown to the prcng scheme. Prces are posted, they may change after a buyer departs but cannot depend upon the next buyer. [Runnng example] To llustrate the process, we consder a runnng example of a matchng market, buyers Alce, Bob, Carl, and Dorothy, tems a, b, c and d. The valuatons are gven n Fgure 4(a), where squares represent buyers, crcles represent tems, and A, B, C, D stand for Alce, Bob, Carol and Dorothy. The mnmal Walrasan prcng s p(a) = 1, p(b) = 7, p(c) = 7, p(d) = 0. Under the mnmal Walrasan prcng, or any statc prcng, unless tes are broken n a partcular way, sequental arrval of buyers wll not produce optmal socal welfare (see Lemma B.1). An example of the use of dynamc prcng that follows from our dynamc prcng scheme s gven n Fgure 4. Every row represent a phase n the process, where a sngle buyer arrves. The LHS graph n every row represents the valuatons of the remanng buyers and tems, thnks edges represent a maxmal matchng. The RHS graph represents the graph of edges, upon whch prces are calculated by Algorthm Prce-Items. Drected cycles of length 0 (f any) are represented by thnk edges. The arrvng buyer along wth the tems they pck are specfed n the rght column. 5

7 The nput conssts of the graph G = (N, I, v). G s a complete bpartte weghted graph, where N s the set of agents, I s the set of tems, and for every agent a N and tem b I, the weght of an edge a, b s the value that agent a gves tem b, v a (b) (v a : I R 0 s the valuaton functon for agent a). Wthout loss of generalty, one may assume that n G we have that I N, otherwse, we add dummy vertces to the I wth zero weght edges to the vertces of the N sde untl I = N. OP T s the weght of the maxmum weghted matchng n G (alternatvely, the optmal socal welfare). Let M N I be some matchng n G, we defne SW(M) = (a,b) M v a(b) to be a functon that takes a matchng and returns the socal welfare (value) of the matchng. We now contnue to descrbe the dynamc prcng scheme. At tme t 0,..., N (after the t-th agent departs), we defne the followng: M t N I s the partal matchng consstng of [a subset] of the frst t agents to arrve, and the tem of ther choce, amongst the tems avalable for sale upon arrval. The sze of M t may be less than t as not all buyers may be matched as ther demand set may be empty when they arrve. N t N and I t I are the frst t agents to arrve and the tems matched to them n the matchng M t. N >t = N \ N t and I >t = I \ I t are the remanng agents (to arrve at some tme > t) and the tems remanng after the departure of the t-th agent. Defne G >t to be the graph G where agents N t and tems I t have been dscarded. I.e., G >t = (I >t, N >t, v). We defne p t+1 : I >t R 0 to be the prces set by the dynamc prcng scheme after the departure of agent t (but before the arrval of agent t + 1). To compute the functon p t+1 we frst construct a so-called relaton graph, and then perform varous computatons upon t. The vertces of the relaton graph are all goods yet unsold, I >t, the edges and ther weghts are as follows: 1. Compute M >t I >t N >t, a maxmum weght matchng of the graph G >t whch matches all vertces of I >t. 2 For every tem b I >t, let v >t (b) denote the value of tem b to the agent matched to tem b n the matchng M >t. 2. The edges of R >t, denoted by E >t, are a clque on the vertces I >t, and ther weghts W >t : E >t R are computed as follows: Let M >t be a maxmum weght matchng of remanng goods and agents as defned above. For every par (a, b) M >t, and for every b I >t \ {b} create an edge b, b. The weght of the edge b, b, W >t ( b, b ) = v a (b) v a (b ). [Runnng example] The ntal graph G >0 of our runnng example s gven n Fgure 4(a), where a maxmal matchng M >0 s ndcated by the thck edges. The graph R >0 s gven n Fgure 4(b). For example, the weght of the edge a, b s v Alce (a) v Alce (b) = 6. We gve the followng structural property of R >t : 2 Note that such a maxmum weght matchng exsts because ntally N I, and snce every agent takes at most one tem, N >t I >t contnues to hold. Snce all edge weghts are non-negatve, and G >t s a complete bpartte graph, every maxmum weght matchng can be extended to produce a matchng wth the same weght whch matches all of the vertces n I >t. 6

8 Lemma 1 There are no drected cycles of negatve weght n R >t. Proof: Assume there exsts a negatve cycle of length l. Assume the cycle s comprsed of b 1, b 2, b 2, b 3,..., b l 1, b l, b l, b 1. Ths cycle corresponds to a cycle of alternatng edges n G >t (b 1, a 1 ) (a 1, b 2 ), (b 2, a 2 )... (a l 1, b l ), (b l, a l ), (a l, b 1 ), where for every j {1,..., l}, (b j, a j ) M t and (a j, b j+1 ) / M t. For ease of notaton, we defne l + 1 = 1. Accordng to the defnton of weghts n R >t, we know that l l ( W >t ( b j, b j+1 ) = vaj (b j ) v aj (b j+1 ) ) < 0, j=1 j=1 and therefore, l j=1 v a j (b j+1 ) > l j=1 v a j (b j ). We get that the matchng M, whch s constructed by removng the set {(b j, a j )} j 1,...,l from M >t and addng the set {(b j+1, a j )} j 1,...,l, s of larger weght, n contradcton to M >t beng a maxmum weght matchng. We now process the relaton graph R >t : 1. Let be the smallest total weght of a cycle wth strctly postve total weght n R >t, and let ɛ = I. Mark all edges n E >t +1 >t that take part n some drected cycle of weght 0 n R >t. Delete all marked edges. For every remanng edge e, set W >t(e) = W >t (e) ɛ. Let R >t = (I >t, E >t, W >t) be the resultng graph. 2. Fnd a soluton to the set of equatons n Fgure 1 by runnng algorthm Prce-Items (see Fgure 2) wth R >t as the nput graph. Set p t+1 = p where p s the output of Prce-Items. To show that ndeed, R >t can be used as an nput for Prce-Items, we show the followng: Lemma 2 All the drected cycles n R >t are strctly postve. Proof: Let R be the graph whch s obtaned from R >t by removng all the edges that take part n a drected cycle of weght 0. Snce accordng to Lemma 1, R >t has no negatve weght cycles, all the cycles n R are of strctly postve weght. By the defnton of, every smple cycle has a weght of at least. R >t s constructed by takng R and decreasng all the edge weghts by ɛ = I. Therefore, the weght of every smple cycle n R >t +1 could have decreased by no more than I >t ɛ <, whch means that all the cycles n R >t are of strctly postve weght. [Runnng example] In Fgure 4(b), the thck edges form a drected cycle of weght 0. We remove these edges and subtract ɛ from every remanng edge. We then run Algorthm Prce-Items on the obtaned graph, whch gves the prces presented n red next to each tem n Fgure 4(b). In ths case, the only negatve edge (after removng the cycle of length 0) s the edge d, a, whose prce s set to W ( d, a ) = ( 1 ɛ) = 1 + ɛ. Snce all other shortest paths are postve, prces of other tems do not change (recall the new prce s the maxmum between the old prce and the negaton of the shortest path). When Alce arrves, she pcks the unque tem n her demand set tem a. Smlarly, graphs G >t, R >t of all teratons t = 0, 1, 2, 3 are demonstrated n Fgure 4(c)-(h). 7

9 b I >t p(b) 0 (1) b 1, b 2 E >t p(b 1 ) p(b 2 ) < W >t ( b 1, b 2 ) (2) b I >t : v >t (b) > 0 p(b) < v >t (b) (3) Fgure 1: The set of equatons that ensures every greedy agent would choose an edge of some maxmum weght matchng. Prce-Items Input: A drected graph G = (I, E, W ) where all cycles are strctly postve. Output: a prcng functon p : I R 0 such that p(b ) p(b) W ( b, b ) for every b, b E. 1. Set p(b) 0 for every b I. 2. Run all-pars-shortest-paths on G (there are no negatve cycles n G). For every b, b I, let d(b, b ) denote the length of the shortest path from b to b. 3. For every b I: (a) For every b I, set p(b ) max{p(b ), d(b, b )}. Fgure 2: Prcng algorthm. Consder a drected edge b 1, b 2 and some cycle t belongs to. The edge b 1, b 2 came about because we choose a maxmal matchng where tem b 1 was assgned to some buyer a, whereas b 2 was not. If all such cycles have strctly postve total weght, then the edge weghts, and the assocated prces computed va Prce-Items, ensure that agent a prefers b 1 to b 2, effectvely removng choces for wrong te breakng. Contrawse, f the edge b 1, b 2 does belongs to some cycle of total weght zero, ths mples that the maxmum matchng s not unque. Ergo, whenever some tem along ths cycle s frst chosen, t s stll possble to extend the matchng to a maxmal weght matchng. Ths s exactly where the dynamc prcng creeps n, subsequent to ths symmetry breakng, new prces have to be computed to avod wrong te breakng decsons. We now show that settng prces that satsfy the constrants n Fgure 1 ensures that after all agents arrve, the socal welfare acheved s maxmzed. Theorem 3.1 A dynamc prcng scheme whch calculates prces satsfyng the constrants presented n Fgure 1 acheves optmal socal welfare (a maxmum weght matchng of G). Proof: Recall that M t s the matchng whch results from the frst t {0, 1,..., N } agents takng an tem whch maxmzes ther utlty and that G >t s the graph of the remanng agents and tems after the frst t agents arrved and purchased some tems. Let M >t be a maxmum weght matchng of G >t, where M >0 s a matchng that maxmzes the socal welfare of all the agents, and M > N =. We prove by nducton that for every {0, 1,..., N }, SW(M t ) + SW(M >t ) = OP T. It follows that the matchng M N yelds optmal socal welfare. For t = 0, ths clam trvally holds snce SW(M >0 ) = OP T. Assume that for some t 1, SW(M t 1 ) + SW(M >t 1 ) = OP T. Let M >t be the maxmum weght matchng we compute at step 1. of the prcng scheme. When agent t arrves, consder the followng cases: 8

10 Agent t does not take any tem. From the constrants of type (3), the only case where an has no postve utlty from any tem s f she s matched to an tem n M t 1 wth an edge of weght 0. In ths case, SW(M t ) = SW(M t 1 ), and by takng M >t to be the same matchng as M >t 1 wthout the edge the t-th agent s matched to, SW(M >t ) = SW(M >t 1 ). We get that SW(M t ) + SW(M >t ) = SW(M t 1 ) + SW(M >t 1 ) = OP T. Agent t takes the tem whch she s matched to n M >t 1. Let v be the value of the t-th agent for the tem. Clearly, SW(M t ) = SW(M t 1 ) + v. By takng M >t to be the same matchng as M >t 1 wthout the edge the t-th agent s matched to, we get SW(M >t ) = SW(M >t 1 ) v. We get that SW(M t ) + SW(M >t ) = SW(M t 1 ) + v + SW(M >t 1 ) v = OP T. Agent t a N >t 1 takes an tem b I >t 1 whch s dfferent than b I >t 1, the tem whch she s matched to n M >t 1. Therefore, v a (b ) p t 1 (b ) v a (b) p t 1 (b). (4) Let b, b E >t 1 be the drected edge from b to b n R >t 1. Its weght W >t ( b, b ) = v a (b) v a (b ). If b, b would have been n R >t 1, then accordng to constrant (2), we would have had that p t 1 (b) p t 1 (b ) < W >t ( b, b ) = v a (b) v a (b ). Rearrangng gves us v a (b ) p t 1 (b ) < v a (b) p t 1 (b), whch contradcts (4). Therefore, b, b was removed from R >t 1, whch can only happen f the edge s part of a drected cycle of weght 0 n R >t 1. Let b 0 = b, b 1 = b and let b 0, b 1, b 1, b 2,..., b l 1, b l, b l, b 0 be a smple drected cycle of length l + 1 and weght 0 n R >t 1 n whch b, b takes part. Ths cycle corresponds to a cycle of alternatng edges n G >t 1, where (b 0 = b, a 0 = a) ( a 0, b 1 = b ), (b 1, a 1 )... (a l 1, b l ), (b l, a l ), (a l, b 0 ), (b j, a j ) M >t 1 and (a j, b j+1 mod l ) / M >t 1 for every j {0,..., l}. Snce the drected cycle s of weght 0, we get that l W >t ( b j, b j+1 mod l ) = j=0 l ( vaj (b j ) v aj (b j+1 mod l ) ) = 0, j=0 whch means that the value of the unmatched edges n the drected cycle, l j=0 v a j (b j+1 mod l ), s equal to the value of the matched edges, l j=0 v a j (b j ). Let M >t 1 be the matchng whch s a result of takng M >t 1, removng the edges n the set {(a j, b j )} j {0,1,...,l}, and addng the edges of {(b j+1 mod l, a j )} j {0,1,...,l} ; Note that (a, b ) = (a 0, b 1 ) M >t 1. Snce the edges we added to M >t 1 are of the same value as the edges we removed, SW( M >t 1 ) + SW(M t 1 ) = SW(M >t 1 ) + SW(M t 1 ) = OP T. We defne M >t to be a matchng comprsed of the same edges as M >t 1 except (a, b ). Therefore, SW(M >t ) = SW( M >t 1 ) v a (b ). Clearly, we have that SW(M t ) = SW(M t 1 ) + v a (b ). We get that SW(M >t ) + SW(M t ) = SW( M >t 1 ) v a (b ) + SW(M t 1 ) + v a (b ) = OP T. Ths completes the proof of the nducton and the theorem. 9

11 It remans to show that Prce-Items satsfes all the constrants n Fgure 1. Frst, we observe that constrants of type (1) are trvally satsfed snce all prces are ntally set to 0 by Prce-Items and prces can only ncrease. Observaton 3.2 Prce-Items returns an assgnment whch satsfes constrants of type (1). The followng property s helpful n provng that constrants of type (2): Lemma 3 Let G = (I, E, W ) be the nput graph of Prce-Items and let p : I R 0 be ts output. For every b 1, b 2 E we have that p(b 2 ) p(b 1 ) W ( b 1, b 2 ). Proof: We frst show that after all the teratons of step 3 of Prce-Items, for any two vertces b 1, b 2 I, p(b 2 ) p(b 1 ) d(b 1, b 2 ). b 1 was chosen as b at step 3 of a some teraton of the loop. Let b 2 be some vertex reachable from b 1 (otherwse, d(b 1, b 2 ) = and the clam trvally holds). If p(b 1 ) = 0 after all teratons, then when b 1 was chosen as b n step 3, p(b 2 ) d(b 1, b 2 ) = p(b 1 ) d(b 1, b 2 ), mplyng that p(b 2 ) p(b 1 ) d(b 1, b 2 ). Snce p(b 1 ) stayed the same and p(b 2 ) dd not decrease, the nequalty stll holds. If p(b 1 ) > 0, let b be the vertex whch was chosen n step 3 n the teraton where the current p(b 1 ) was set. At the teraton where the current p(b 1 ) was set, we have that p(b 1 ) = d( b, b 1 ) and p(b 2 ) = d( b, b 2 ) (d( b, b 1 ) + d(b 1, b 2 )) = p(b 1 ) d(b 1, b 2 ), where the nequalty follows snce the shortest path satsfes the trangle nequalty. We get that at the teraton where the current p(b 1 ) was set, p(b 2 ) p(b 1 ) d(b 1, b 2 ). Snce p(b 1 ) stayed the same untl the current teraton, and p(b 2 ) dd not decrease, the nequalty stll holds. Snce d(b 1, b 2 ) W ( b 1, b 2 ), we get the desred result. We can now establsh that constrants of type (2) hold. Lemma 4 Prce-Items returns an assgnment whch satsfes constrants of type (2). Proof: By Lemma 3, we get that for a gven b 1, b 2 E >t, p(b 2 ) p(b 1 ) W >t( b 1, b 2 ) = (W >t ( b 1, b 2 ) ɛ). Therefore, p(b 1 ) p(b 2 ) W >t ( b 1, b 2 ) ɛ < W >t ( b 1, b 2 ), as desred. For establshng that constrants of type (3) are met by the prces p(b) s computed by Prce-Items, we need the followng Lemma. Lemma 5 Let b l be some vertex wth p(b l ) > 0. Let b 0 be the vertex chosen at the teraton of the loop n Prce-Items where p(b l ) was set, and let b 0, b 1, b 1, b 2,..., b l 1, b l be a shortest path from b 0 to b l. For every {0, 1,..., l}, p(b ) = d(b 0, b ). Proof: Let b a vertex on the shortest path from b 0 to b l such that p(b ) > d(b 0, b ) (notce that step 3a of Prce-Items ensures that p(b ) d(b 0, b )). Ths can only happen f there exsts some b such that d( b, b ) < d(b 0, b ). Snce b s on the shortest path from b 0 to b l, we know that d(b 0, b l ) = d(b 0, b ) + d(b, b l ). We get that d( b, b l ) d( b, b ) + d(b, b l ) < d(b 0, b ) + d(b, b l ) = d(b 0, b l ), 10

12 where the frst nequalty s due to the trangle nequalty. Therefore, when b s chosen n step 3 of Prce-Items, step 3a ensures that p(b l ) d( b, b l ) > d(b 0, b l ). Snce b l was set n the teraton where b 0 was chosen at step 3, we also get that p(b l ) = d(b 0, b l ), a contradcton. We get the the followng two corollares. Corollary 3.3 p(b 0 ) = 0. Corollary 3.4 For every {0, 1,..., l 1}, p(b ) p(b +1 ) = W >t ( b, b +1 ) ɛ. Proof: Snce every subset of a shortest path s also a shortest path, we get that d(b 0, b +1 ) = d(b 0, b ) + W >t( b, b +1 ). From Lemma 5, we get that p(b ) = d(b 0, b ) and p(b +1 ) = d(b 0, b +1 ) = d(b 0, b ) W >t( b, b +1 ) = p(b ) (W >t ( b, b +1 ) ɛ), where the last equalty follows by the defnton of W >t. We now prove that all the constrants of type (3) are met. Lemma 6 For every b I >t whch s matched n M >t by a non-zero weght edge, p(b) < v >t (b). Proof: Assume for the purpose of reachng a contradcton that there exsts some b = b l whch s matched n M t va an edge of strctly postve weght for whch where p(b) v >t (b). Let b 0 be the vertex that was selected at the teraton of the loop n Prce-Items where p(b) was set, and let b 0, b 1, b 1, b 2,..., b l 1, b l be a shortest path from b 0 to b l n R >t. Accordng to Corollary 3.4, for every {0, 1,..., l 1}, p(b ) p(b ) = W >t ( b, b +1 ) ɛ. Summng over all s gves us l 1 W >t ( b, b +1 ) = p(b 0 ) p(b l ) + lɛ < p(b) +, (5) =0 where the nequalty stems from the fact that p(b 0 ) = 0 (Corollary 3.3), b l = b, l < I >t and ɛ = I. Let a be the vertex that b s matched to n M >t +1 >t. Accordng to the defntons of the weghts of edges n R >t, we get that the weght of the edge b, b 0 E t n R >t s W >t ( b l, b 0 ) = v a (b) v a (b 0 ) v >t (b) p(b), (6) where the frst nequalty s due to the defnton of v >t (b), and the second nequalty s due to our ntal assumpton. Combnng (5) wth (6) yelds that the weght of the cycle b 0, b 1, b 1, b 2,..., b l 1, b l, b l, b 0 n R >t s l =0 W >t( b, b +1 mod l ) <. Snce s the mnmal weght of a postve cycle n R >t, we get that ether the weght of the cycle s negatve, whch contradcts Lemma 1, or the cycle s of weght 0, contradctng the fact the we delete every edge that takes part n some cycle of weght 0 n R >t from R >t. 11

13 4 No Optmal Dynamc Prcng Scheme for Coverage Valuatons We show an nstance wth agents wth coverage valuatons 3 for whch no dynamc prcng scheme guarantees an optmal allocaton. Interestngly, ths nstance admts Walrasan prces and has a unque optmal allocaton, so no combnaton of these condtons s suffcent to mply optmal dynamc prcng schemes. Theorem 4.1 There exsts an nstance wth agents wth coverage valuatons such that no dynamc prcng scheme guarantees more than a fracton of the optmal socal welfare. Ths nstance admts Walrasan prces. Proof: Let I = {a, b, c, d} be a set of tems and N = {1, 2, 3, 4} be a set of agents. Agents 2, 3 and 4 are unt demand wth the followng valuaton functons: { { { 2 S {a, b} 2 S {a, c} 1 S {d} v 2 (S) =, v 3 (S) =, v 4 (S) =. 0 otherwse 0 otherwse 0 otherwse In addton, agent 1 has the followng coverage valuaton: 2 S = {b}, s = {c} 3 S = {a}, s = {d} v 1 (S) = 3.5 S = {a, b}, S = {a, c}, S = {d, b}, S = {d, c}, S = {a, d} S = {a, b, d}, S = {a, c, d} 4 {b, c} S Coverage valuaton: To see that ths s a coverage valuaton, consder the followng explct representaton. Let {e 1, e 2, e 3, e 4, e 5, e 6, e 7, e 8 } be the set of elements, wth weghts w(e 1 ) = w(e 5 ) = 5/4 and w(e ) = 1/4 for 1, 5. Item a covers the set {e 1, e 2, e 5, e 6 }, tem b covers the set {e 1, e 2, e 3, e 4 }, tem c covers the set {e 5, e 6, e 7, e 8 }, and tem d covers the set {e 1, e 4, e 5, e 8 }. Unque optmal allocaton: The unque optmal allocaton s to allocate tem a to agent 1, tem b to agent 2, tem c to agent 3 and tem d to agent 4. Ths allocaton obtans socal welfare of 8. Walrasan prces: One can easly verfy that the unque optmal allocaton along wth prcng each tem at 1 s a Walrasan equlbrum. We now show that no dynamc prcng scheme guarantees more than a fracton of the optmal allocaton. In order to guarantee an optmal allocaton, the followng condtons must be satsfed: Agent 4 s utlty from tem d should be strctly postve;.e., Agent 1 should strctly prefer tem a over tem d,.e., p(d) < v 4 (d) = 1. (7) v 1 (a) p(a) > v 1 (d) p(d) p(a) < p(d). (8) Agent 2 should strctly prefer tem b over tem a,.e., v 2 (b) p(b) > v 2 (a) p(a) p(b) < p(a). (9) 3 The class of coverage valuatons s a strct subclass of submodular valuatons. 12

14 Agent 3 should strctly prefer tem c over tem a,.e.,: Agent 1 should strctly prefer tem a over the bundle {b, c},.e., p(c) < p(a). (10) v 1 (a) p(a) > v 1 ({b, c}) p(b) p(c) p(b) + p(c) p(a) > 1. (11) Combnng Equatons (7) and (8) mples that p(a) < 1, whle combnng Equatons (9), (10) and (11) yelds p(a) > 1. Therefore, for every prces one mght set, the adversary can set an order for whch the frst agent pcks a dfferent tem than the one allocated to her n the optmal allocaton. Remark: note that the valuaton functon of agent 1 s not gross substtutes. In partcular, her demand under prces p(a) = p(c) = p(d) = 0 and p(b) = ɛ s {b, c}, but f the prce of tem c ncreases to 2, then the unque bundle n the demand of agent 1 s {a, d}. 5 A 1/2-Approxmate Statc Prcng Scheme for any Class of Valuatons In ths secton we show that, gven a partton of the tems nto bundles, prcng each bundle half of ts value to the buyer guarantees half of the socal welfare of the partton. Let B = {B 1, B 2,..., B n } ( 2 I) n be a partton of the tems such that B = I and for every j B B j =. Let W = v (B ). We have the followng: Theorem 5.1 Let p : B R 0 be statc bundle prces such that for every, p(b ) = v (B )/2. Ths prcng scheme acheves a welfare of at least W/2. Proof: Let x be an allocaton whch s a result of agents arrvng at an arbtrary order, each takng ther favorte bundles. Notce that the utlty of an agent for acqurng the bundles n x s u (x, P ) = v ( B x B) B x p(b). Let I be an ndcator whch gets 1 f bundle B was acqured by some agent and 0 otherwse. Rearrangng and summng over all the agents gves us: v = u (x, P ) + p(b) B x B x B = u (x, P ) + I p(b ). (12) We show that for every, u (x, P ) + I p(b ) v (B )/2. Usng (12) ths s enough to prove the clam. For some, ether bundle B s purchased by some agent, n whch case I p(b ) = v (B )/2. Otherwse, when agent arrved, she could have purchased bundle B, for whch she would have gotten a utlty of v (B ) p(b ) = v (B )/2. Snce she bought the bundles whch maxmzed her utlty, her utlty can only be greater than that, meanng u (x, p) v (B )/2. 6 Optmal Prcng Schemes for Gross Substtutes Valuatons for Unque Optmal Allocatons In Secton 4 we have shown a case where there s a unque optmum, there exst Walrasan prces over the tems, and no dynamc bundle prcng scheme can guarantee an optmal outcome. We frst 13

15 show that n case of a unque optmum, there s no need to search for a dynamc prcng scheme that retreves the optmal allocaton, snce that the exstence of such a scheme mples statc prces that guarantee an optmal allocaton. Observaton 6.1 Let v = (v 1,..., v n ), where v : 2 I R 0, and let v, I be an nstance where B = {B 1,..., B n } s the unque partton of tems that maxmzes socal welfare. If there exsts an optmal dynamc bundle-prcng scheme, then there must exst an optmal statc bundle-prcng scheme. Proof: Let p 1 : B R 0 be the ntal prces the optmal dynamc prcng scheme gves to the bundles. We clam that stckng to these prces throughout the process guarantees an optmal allocaton as well. Wthout loss of generalty, assume that agents wth lower ndex arrve earler and that the -th agent to arrve s the frst agent whose choce X {B } (could be that X = {B j }, j, could be that x = {B, B j,...}, j, and could be that X = ). It must be the case that u (p 1, X) u (p 1, B ). Therefore, f ths agent arrves frst, she s not guaranteed to take {B } snce ths not the unque bundle that maxmzes her utlty. Ths contradcts the optmalty of the dynamc prcng scheme. We prevously showed that Walrasan prces do not mply the exstence of optmal statc prces n the case of a unque optmal allocaton. However, for gross substtute valuatons, the canoncal valuaton class for whch Walrasan equlbrum s guaranteed to exst, f there exsts a unque optmal allocaton, optmal statc prces do exst. We show how to compute such prces va a combnatoral algorthm nspred by Murota [Mur96a, Mur96b]. 4 Gven some set of tems A I, we defne the sets of tem local to A as followng Local(A) = {B A I : B \ A 1 and A \ B 1} We present the followng alternatve defnton of gross substtute valuatons [GS99]: Defnton 6.1 A valuaton v : 2 I R 0 satsfes the gross substtute condton f for every tem prces p : I R 0, f there exsts some A I such that A / D(I, p) then there exsts B Local(A) such that u(b, p) > u(a, p). We refer to ths characterzaton as the local mprovement property (LI). Gven a set of gross-substtute valuatons and tems v, I, let B = {B 1,..., B n } be the unque optmal allocaton. We compute the prces p : I R 0 as follows: 1. Let D = {d 1,..., d n } be a set of dummy tems (one for each agent), I = I D be the set of tems after we added the dummy tems. We extend every valuaton functon v to the doman 2 I, where v (X) = v (X M) (.e., the dummy tems have no effect on the value of the bundle). Defne B = {B 1,..., B n} where every bundle B = {B {d }} receves an addtonal dummy tem. 2. Let R = V = I, E V V, W : E R (the exchange graph) be a weghted drected graph where: E = { a, b M 2 : a B, b M \ B for every } \ D2 : I.e., there s an edge from every tem n some bundle B to every tem not n B, unless the two tems are dummy tems. 4 See [Lem14] for a concse descrpton on how Murota s work relates to the computaton of Walrasan prces for GS valuatons. 14

16 Let e = a, b where a B of some agent be an edge n the graph. W (e) = v (B ) v (B a + b),.e., the value of the agent from bundle B mnus the value she gets f she exchanges tem a for tem b. 3. Let δ > 0 be the weght of mnmum weght cycle n R (by Lemma 7, all the cycles n R are of strctly postve weght). Let γ > 0 be the weght of the mnmum weght path out of all the paths from any vertex to any dummy vertex (all such paths are of strctly postve weght by Lemma 8). Let ɛ = mn{δ,γ} n Update the weghts by settng W (e) W (e) ɛ for every edge e n the graph. 5. Prce the tems usng algorthm Prce-Items (Fgure 2) wth graph R as nput. Lemma 7 All the cycles n the graph R descrbed n step 2 of the above prce computaton are of strctly postve weght. Proof: Let be some agent (recall that B the bundle allocated to her n the unque optmal allocaton). Let δ = mn x B {SW(B, v) SW(x, v)} be the dfference n welfare between the optmal allocaton, and the second best allocaton. δ > 0 snce the optmal allocaton s unque. For some tem b I \ B defne the modfed valuaton v (b) : 2 I R 0 as follows: { v (b) v (S) + δ b S (S) = v (S) b / S. (13) Let v (b) = (v, v (b) ). For some arbtrary allocaton x B we have SW(x, v (b) ) = v (b) (x ) + v j (x j ) j v (x ) + δ + j v j (x j ) SW(B, v) = SW(B, v (b) ), and therefore, B s stll an optmal allocaton for profle v (b). We next clam that v (b) substtute. We use the characterzaton of Rejnerse et al. [RvGP02]: s gross Defnton 6.2 A valuaton v : 2 I R 0 s gross substtute f and only f v s submodular, and for every S I and b 1, b 2, b 3 / S: v(s {b 1, b 2 }) + v(s {b 3 }) max{v(s {b 1 }) + v(s {b 2, b 3 }), v(s {b 2 }) + v(s {b 1, b 3 })}.(14) Frst we show that v (b) s submodular. Let S T two sets of tems, and let b be some tem. f b b, then we know that v (b) (b S) = v (b S) v (b T ) = v (b) (b T ). Otherwse, v (b) (b S) = v (b S)+δ v (b T ) + δ = v (b) (b T ). Next, we verfy (14). Let S be some set of tems and b 1, b 2, b 3 some tems not n S. Snce, v s GS, we know that (14) holds. Wthout loss of generalty, let us assume that v (S {b 1, b 2 })+v (S {b 3 }) v (S {b 1 })+v (S {b 2, b 3 }), whch s equvalent to v (b 2 S {b 1 }) 15

17 v (b 2 S {b 3 }). If b 2 b then v (b) (b 2 S {b 1 }) = v (b 2 S {b 1 }) v (b 2 S {b 3 }) = v (b) and otherwse v (b) mples that v (b) (b 2 S {b 1 }) = v (b 2 S {b 1 }) + δ v (b 2 S {b 3 }) + δ = v (b) (S {b 1, b 2 }) + v (b) (S {b 3 }) v (b) (S {b 1 }) + v (b) (S {b 2, b 3 }). (b 2 S {b 3 }), (b 2 S {b 3 }). Ths Snce v (b) s a gross substtute valuaton profle, t admts a Walrasan equlbrum (B, p). We clam that (B, p) s also a Walrasan equlbrum for v. Ths s true snce v (B ) = v(b) (B ), and for every S, v (S) v (b) (S). For some tem b I, we denote by N(b ) the functon that returns the agent j for whch b B j. Consder a cycle n R that uses edge a, b for some cycle n R. Let (b 0, b 1,..., b l 1, b 0 ) denote the cycle, where b 0 = a and b 1 = b. We denote b l = b 0. Snce (B, p) s a Walrasan equlbrum for v (b), we know that Rearrangng gves us v (B ) p(b ) = v (b) (B ) p(b ) v (b) (B a + b) p(b a + b) = v (B a + b) + δ p(b a + b) > v (B a + b) p(b a + b). W ( b 0, b 1 ) = W ( a, b ) = v (B ) v (B a + b) > p(b ) p(b a + b) = p(a) p(b) = p(b 0 ) p(b 1 ). (15) Snce (B, p) s a Walrasan equlbrum for v as well, we get that for every j 1,..., l 1, v N(bj )(B N(b j ) ) p(b N(b j ) ) v N(b j )(B N(b j ) b j + b j+1 ) p(b N(b j ) b j + b j+1 ). Rearrangng gves us W ( b j, b j+1 ) = v N(bj )(B N(b j ) ) v N(b j )(B N(b j ) b j + b j+1 ) p(b j ) p(b j+1 ). (16) Summng nequalty (15) wth nequaltes of type (16) for all j 1,..., l 1 gves us that the weght of the cycle (b 0, b 1,..., b l 1, b 0 ) s W ( b j, b j+1 ) > (p(b j ) p(b j+1 )) = 0. j {0,...,l 1} j {0,...,l 1} Snce agent s an arbtrary agent and tem b s an arbtrary (non-dummy) tem, we get that all the cycles n R that use an edge whch ends n a non-dummy tem must be strctly postve. Snce there are no edges who between two dummy tems n R, we get that all cycles must use at least one edge whch ends n a non-dummy tem, hence, must be strctly postve. We now show a property whch s crucal n establshng that the prce of every dummy node s zero. 16

18 Lemma 8 Let R be the graph descrbed n step 2 of the above prce computaton. For every agent, dummy node d and every tem b I \ {d }, dst R (b, d ) > 0. Proof: Let d be a dummy tem added to the bundle of some agent. Let b be some tem n I \ {d }. For some dummy tem d j d, let R d,d j be the graph establshed by takng graph R (after step 2), and addng an edge d, d j of weght W ( d, d j ) = V (B ) V (B d + d j ) = 0. Frst notce usng a smlar argument to the one presented n the proof of Lemma 7, t s not hard to see that all the cycles n the graph R d,d j are of strctly postve weght for any choce of d j. We use b d and W (b d ) to denote some smple path from b to d and ts weght. We now consder the followng cases: b s n I \ B : In ths case, consder the cycle obtaned by addng edge d, b to b d. Snce every cycle n R s of strctly postve weght, we have that W (b d ) + W ( d, b ) > 0. Snce W ( d, b ) = v (B ) v (B + b) 0, t must be the case where W (b d ) > 0. b s some dummy tem d j d : Consder the graph R d,d j and the cycle obtaned by addng edge d, d j to d j d. Snce every cycle n R d,d j s of strctly postve weght, we have W (d j d ) + W ( d, d j ) = W (d j d ) > 0. b B : Consder the graph R d,d j. Consder the cycle obtaned by addng edges d, d j, d j, b to d j d. We have that the weght of the cycle s W (b d ) + W ( d, d j ) + W ( d j, b ) = W (d j d ) + W ( d j, b ) > 0. Snce W ( d j, b ) = v j (B j ) v j (B j + b) 0, we get W (b d ) > 0. Snce W (b d ) > 0 for every smple path from b to d, and there are no negatve cycles n R, we have that dst R (b, d ) > 0. From Lemmas 7 and 8 and by carefully choosng ɛ n step 4, we mmedately get: Corollary 6.2 After updatng the edge weghts (step 4) all the cycles n R are of strctly postve weght, all the paths endng n a dummy vertex are of a strctly postve weght. It s crucal that we have the followng: Corollary 6.3 For every dummy tem d, p(d ) = 0. Proof: By the way Prce-Items operates, an tem d has a prce greater than 0 only f there exsts a path of negatve weght from some vertex to d. By Corollary 6.2, ths cannot happen. The next lemma shows that every for local change an agent may perform, her utlty decreases. Lemma 9 For every agent, for every bundle C Local(B ), we have u(p, B ) > u(p, C). Proof: Let C be some bundle n Local(B ). We nspect the followng cases: A \ C = {a} and C \ A = {b}: In ths case, there s a drected edge n a, b E of weght v (B ) v (B a+b) ɛ = v (B ) v (C) ɛ. By Lemma 3, p(c) p(b ) v (B )+v (C)+ɛ > v (C) v (B ). Rearrangng gves us u(p, B ) = v (B ) p(b ) > v (C) p(c) = u(p, B ). 17

19 A \ C = {a} and C \ A = : There s an edge between a and some dummy tem d j of weght v (B ) v (B a + d j ) ɛ = v (B ) v (B a) ɛ = v (B ) v (C) ɛ. Agan, by Lemma 3 we get that u(p, B ) > u(p, B ). A \ C = and C \ A = {b}: There s an edge between d and b of weght v (B ) v (B d + b) ɛ = v (B ) v (B + b) ɛ = v (B ) v (C) ɛ. Agan, by Lemma 3 we get that u(p, B ) > u(p, B ). The followng property of gross substtute valuatons shows that the above lemma s enough to show that the prces acheve optmal socal welfare. Lemma 10 Let v : I R 0 be a valuaton that satsfes the gross substtute property, let P : I R 0 be some tem prcng and let A be some set of tems n D(I, p). If D(I, p) > 1 then there exsts some B Local(A) such that B D(I, p). Proof: Let A be some set n D(I, p) and let us assume that D(I, p) > 1 and D(I, p) Local(A) =. Let us defne the followng set: Local + (p, A) = {B Local(A) : C A D(I, p) s.t. B C A C }, that s, the set of local sets to A that are more smlar to another set n D(I, p) than A s. Snce D(I, p) > 1, Local + (p, A) s non empty. Let B = arg mn X Local + (p,a){u(p, A) u(p, X)}, let C A be the set n D(I, p) such that B C A C and let δ = mn X Local(A) {u(p, A) u(p, X)}. δ > 0 by our assumpton. We defne the followng tem prcng p : If B \ A = 1, then for a B \A set p (a) = p(a) δ/2 and p (b) = p(b) for all other b I a. Otherwse, let a be an tem n A \ B. Set p (a) = p(a) + δ/2 and p (b) = p(b) for all other b I a. Notce that C D(I, p ), A / D(I, p ) and D(I, p ) D(I, p). Therefore, Local + (p, A) Local + (p, A). If B \ A = 1 then for every set X Local(A), we have that u(p, A) = u(p, A) u(p, X) + δ > u(p, X). Otherwse, for every X Local(A), u(p, A) = u(p, A) δ/2 u(p, X) + δ/2 > u(p, X). Therefore, A / D(I, p), and there s no local mprovement, contradctng the LI property of gross substtute valuatons. Theorem 6.4 Item prces p computed above acheve an optmal welfare. Proof: By Lemma 9 for every agent u (p, B ) > u (p, X) for every X Local(B ). By the LI property of v, we have that B D (I, p). By Lemma 10 we get that D (I, p) = {B }. 7 An Optmal Statc Bundle Prcng Scheme for Super-addtve Valuatons A valuaton v : 2 I R 0 s sad to be super-addtve f for every two dsjont sets of tems A, B I, v(a B) v(a) + v(b). We show that n the case where all agents have super-addtve valuatons, t s possble to come up wth bundles and bundle-prces such that for every arrval order of the 18

20 agents, the resultng welfare s optmal. Let B = {B 1, B 2,..., B n } ( 2 I) n be a partton of the tems such that B = B and for every j B B j =. Let W = v (B ). We present an algorthm that gven a bundlng B, computes a bundlng of the tems and approprate prces that guarantee a welfare of at least W. Gven bundlng B = {B 1, B 2,..., B n} and a prcng over bundles p : B R 0, we denote utlty of agent for a collecton of bundles x 2 B by u (B, p, x) = v ( B x B ) B x p(b ). We assume we have access to demand oracles of the gven agents,.e., we can fnd for each agent a collecton of bundles x argmax x 2 B {u (B, p, x)}. We denote the functon that returns such a set of a maxmal sze by D (B, p) ( meanng there s no x x such that x argmax x {u (B, p, x)} ). We also assume that gven some bundle B argmax x {u (x)}, we can fnd mn {u (B, p, {B }) u (B, p, x)}. We denote the functon whch computes ths by x 2 B :x B B mndff (B, B, p). Prce-Super-Addtve Input: Addtve valuatons v 1,..., v n, ntal bundlng B = {B 1, B 2,..., B n } wth welfare W. Output: Bundlng B = {B 1, B 2,..., B n} and prcng p : B R 0 wth welfare guarantee W. 1. Intalze B B and p(b ) v (B ) for every. 2. Whle B B D (B, p) for some agent : (a) x D (B, p); B B. B x (b) j such that B j x, B j. (c) p(b j) = v j (B j) for every agent j. 3. Let δ mn mndff (B, B, p); ɛ = δ n. 4. For every, set p(b ) p(b ) ɛ. Fgure 3: Computng bundle prces for super-addtve valuatons. The followng lemma shows that all the tems reman allocated at all tme. Lemma 11 For every x selected n step 2a, we have that B x. Proof: Assume not. Then u (B, p, x {B }) = v B B x B p(b ) v (B ) p(b ) + v = u (B, p, x ), B x B p(b ) B x p(b ) B x where the nequalty follows from super-addtvty. Ths contradcts the maxmalty of x. 19

21 The followng lemma shows that the resultng bundlng B has a welfare at least as hgh as the ntal bundlng B. Lemma 12 Let B = {B 1,..., B n} be the bundlng computed by Prce-Super-Addtve, we have that v (B ) W. Proof: Let B 1 = {B 1 1,... B 1 n } and B 2 = {B 2 1,... B 2 n }, and p 1, p 2 be the bundles and prcng functons before and after some teraton. Let A = {j : B 1 j B 2 j = }. Snce agent receved a set ( ) of bundles n hs demand, t must be the case that v 1 Therefore, v ( B 2 ) = v ( B 1 ) j A B 1 j B 1 = v ( B 1 ) +v ( p 1 (B 1 j ) = v j (B 1 j ). j A j A ) ( ) v B 1 + B 1 j B 1 j B 1 v j (B 1 j ). j A j A j A We get that the value of agent for her bundle after the teraton s greater than her value before the teraton plus the sum of values of all the agents whose bundle has changed durng the teraton. Clearly, j v j(b 2 j ) j v j(b 1 j ). Snce ths holds after every teraton, t must be that the welfare out of the fnal bundlng s at least the welfare out of the ntal bundlng. Fnally, we show that every agent strctly prefers B to every other outcome. Lemma 13 Let B and p be the bundlng and prce over bundles computed by Prce-Super-Addtve. For every agent, {B } s the only tem n argmax x {u (B, p, x)}. Proof: Frst, note that u (B, p, B ) = ɛ > 0. Let p : B R 0 be a prcng over bundles such that p (B ) = v (B ) for every (.e., the prces before they were changed on the last step of Prce-Super-Addtve). Let x {B } be some non-empty set of bundles n 2 B. By the defnton of δ, we have that u (B, p, x) = u (B, p, x) u (B, p, {B }) δ. Therefore, for prcng functon p we have that u (B, p, x) u (B, p, x) + nɛ δ + δ = 0. We get the followng mmedate corollary. Corollary 7.1 In case the agents have super-addtve valuatons, there exsts bundlng and statc prces over bundles such that for any arrval order of the agents, the resultng allocaton s optmal. Proof: Gven a SW maxmzng bundlng B, Prce-Super-Addtve returns an optmal bundlng B (Lemma 12). Moreover, bundle prce p are such that every agent arrvng agent takes exactly bundle B (Lemma 13). 20

22 8 Fgures Fgure 4: Phases t = 0, 1, 2, 3 of our runnng example. Squares represent tems and crcles represent buyers. Every row represent a phase n the process, where a sngle buyer arrves. On the left one sees the graph representng the valuatons of the remanng buyers and tems (grap;hs labeled (a), (b), (c) and (d), where thck edges represent a maxmal matchng n the graph. Graphs labeled (b), (d), (f) and (h) gve the graphs R >t from whch 21 the dynamc are computed. Drected cycles of length 0 (f any) are represented by thck edges, after they are dscarded prces are computed va Algorthm Prce-Items. On the very rght one sees the next buyer to arrve as well the tem they choose (based upon the prcng, and breakng tes for the sake of ths example.