Anonymous Auctions Maximizing Revenue

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10123)


Auctions like sponsored search often implicitly or explicitly require that bidders are treated fairly. This may be because large bidders have market power to negotiate equal treatment, because small bidders are difficult to identify, or for many other reasons. We study so-called anonymous auctions to understand the revenue tradeoffs and to develop simple anonymous auctions that are approximately optimal.

We begin with the canonical digital goods setting and show that the optimal anonymous, ex-post incentive compatible auction has an intuitive structure — imagine that bidders are randomly permuted before the auction, then infer a posterior belief about bidder i’s valuation from the values of other bidders and set a posted price that maximizes revenue given this posterior.

We prove that no anonymous mechanism can guarantee an approximation better than \(\varTheta (n)\) to the optimal revenue in the worst case (or \(\varTheta (\log n)\) for regular distributions) and that even posted price mechanisms match those guarantees. Understanding that the real power of anonymous mechanisms comes when the auctioneer can infer the bidder identities accurately, we show a tight \(\varTheta (k)\) approximation guarantee when each bidder can be confused with at most k “higher types”. Moreover, we introduce a simple mechanism based on n target prices that is asymptotically optimal. Finally, we return to our original motivation and build on this mechanism to extend our results to m-unit auctions and sponsored search.


Revenue maximization Auction design Anonymous mechanisms 


  1. 1.
    Alaei, S., Hartline, J.D., Niazadeh, R., Pountourakis, E., Yuan, Y.: Optimal auctions vs. anonymous pricing. In: Guruswami, V. (ed.) IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2015, Berkeley, CA, USA, 17–20 October 2015, pp. 1446–1463. IEEE Computer Society (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Archer, A., Tardos, É.: Truthful mechanisms for one-parameter agents. In: FOCS 2001: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, p. 482. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashlagi, I.: A characterization of anonymous truth-revealing position auctions. Harvard University, Discussion Paper, Harvard Business School (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azar, P.D., Daskalakis, C., Micali, S., Weinberg, S.M.: Optimal and efficient parametric auctions. In: SODA, pp. 596–604 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balcan, M.-F., Blum, A., Mansour, Y.: Item pricing for revenue maximization. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 50–59. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cremer, J., McLean, R.P.: Optimal selling strategies under uncertainty for a discriminating monopolist when demands are interdependent. Econometrica 53(2), 345–361 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, R., Pai, M.: Discrimination via symmetric auctions. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhangwatnotai, P., Roughgarden, T., Yan, Q.: Revenue maximization with a single sample. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2010, pp. 129–138. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, M., Fiat, A., Leonardi, S., Sankowski, P.: Revenue maximizing envy-free multi-unit auctions with budgets. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 532–549. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg, A.V., Hartline, J.D.: Envy-free auctions for digital goods. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 29–35. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guruswami, V., Hartline, J.D., Karlin, A.R., Kempe, D., Kenyon, C., McSherry, F.: On profit-maximizing envy-free pricing. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 1164–1173. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartline, J.D., Roughgarden, T.: Simple versus optimal mechanisms. SIGecom Exch. 8(1), 5:1–5:3 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Myerson, R.B.: Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6(1), 58–73 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ronen, A.: On approximating optimal auctions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 11–17. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roughgarden, T., Talgam-Cohen, I.: Optimal and near-optimal mechanism design with interdependent values. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2013, pp. 767–784. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Segal, I.: Optimal pricing mechanisms with unknown demand. Am. Econ. Rev. 93(3), 509–529 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Yahoo ResearchSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations