arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.37366

Sharp Second-Best Welfare in Bilateral and Matching Markets

Zhengyang Liu·Ying Qin·Zihe Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How much social welfare must a market lose because values are private? We determine the sharp ratio of second-best to first-best welfare under independent nonnegative types, Bayesian incentive compatibility, interim individual rationality, and no expected budget deficit. The ratio is approximately $0.8882516903$ for arbitrary priors and $0.9113893681$ when buyers have monotone hazard rates and sellers are unrestricted. The arbitrary-prior guarantee holds for every downward-closed family of feasible matchings; the MHR guarantee holds when every matching of a compatibility graph is feasible. Both constants are \revise{attained}{sharp} already in bilateral trade. The proof keeps the sellers' initial endowment inside the budget Lagrangian. For arbitrary priors, a common threshold decomposition reduces the problem to three-parameter power-law distributions. For monotone hazards, common transformations of buyer and seller scores reduce it to shifted capped exponential buyers; a typewise allocation certificate and an explicit worst-case seller satisfy the same boundary equation. The bilateral-to-matching framework, with a welfare endowment charge and an MHR-preserving packing argument, transfers these affine inequalities without loss. We give exact variational characterizations of both constants and reproducible interval certificates for their numerical evaluation. Unrestricted signed transfers also permit pointwise strong budget balance.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhengyang Liu, Ying Qin, Zihe Wang. 2026-09-29. Sharp Second-Best Welfare in Bilateral and Matching Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37366

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Throttling Equilibria in Auction Markets

Throttling is a popular method of budget management for online ad auctions in which the platform modulates the participation probability of an advertiser in order to smoothly spend her budget across many auctions. In this work, we investigate the setting in which all of the advertisers simultaneously employ throttling to manage their budgets, and we do so for both first-price and second-price auctions. We analyze the structural and computational properties of the resulting equilibria. For first-price auctions, we show that a unique equilibrium always exists, is well-behaved and can be computed efficiently via tatonnement-style decentralized dynamics. In contrast, for second-price auctions, we prove that even though an equilibrium always exists, the problem of finding even an approximate equilibrium is PPAD-complete, there can be multiple equilibria, and it is NP-hard to find the revenue maximizing one. We also compare the equilibrium outcomes of throttling to those of multiplicative pacing, which is the other most popular and well-studied method of budget management. Finally, we characterize the Price of Anarchy of these equilibria for liquid welfare by showing that it is at most 2 for both first-price and second-price auctions, and demonstrating that our bound is tight.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Efficiency of Generalized Proportional First-Price Auctions Under Auto-bidding

Auto-bidding is now widely adopted in online advertising platforms, allowing advertisers to specify high-level campaign objectives--such as maximizing total value subject to a return-on-spend (ROS) constraint--rather than manual per-query bids. A central question in algorithmic mechanism design is characterizing the worst-case efficiency loss, or Price of Anarchy (PoA), across auction formats in this prior-free setting. While randomized auctions are known to strictly improve efficiency over deterministic mechanisms for two bidders, two fundamental questions have remained open: (1) what is the optimal PoA for two bidders, and (2) can any mechanism beat the barrier of 2 for general $n \ge 3$ bidders? We resolve both questions using the family of $r$-proportional first-price auctions ($\text{pFPA}_r$), in which each bidder wins with probability proportional to their bid raised to an exponent $r > 0$ and pays their bid upon winning. First, for two bidders, we prove that the standard proportional first-price auction ($r = 1$) achieves a tight $\text{PoA} \le 1.5$, complemented by a matching lower bound showing that no anonymous, monotone mechanism can do better. Second, for general $n \ge 2$ bidders, setting $r = 2n$ achieves $\text{PoA} \le 2 - \frac{1}{4n+1} = 2 - Ω(1/n)$ across all undominated bid profiles, breaking the deterministic barrier of 2 for every finite $n$ and asymptotically matching the known $2 - Θ(1/n)$ lower bound.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Honest Reporting in Scored Oversight: True-KL0 Property via the Prekopa Principle

We prove the True-KL$_0$ property for a parametric family of heterogeneous scoring rules arising in scored elicitation mechanisms (AI oversight, forecasting, expert surveys). An agent with private type $M>1$, scored through a $d$-dimensional outcome interface, reports to a principal who evaluates via a power-$p$ pseudospherical scoring rule, $p \in (d,d+1)$; $M$ captures the agent's information quality relative to a reference. Honest reporting is dominant-strategy optimal for every $d$ and every $p>1$, without a prior over the agent's type: a consequence of strict properness and identifiability, with a quadratic misreport-loss rate. True-KL$_0$, the property $R(M,p,d)<1$ for all $M>1$, $d \in \{2,3,4\}$, $p \in (d,d+1)$, is the quantitative core: $R$ is the Rayleigh quotient of the radial misreport channel of an annular oversight model, and True-KL$_0$ certifies a uniform curvature-domination margin for that channel: $1-R \ge 0.26$ ($R \le 0.7324$, semi-rigorous numerical certificate). Two structural tools drive the proof: (i) a substitution $y=(x+1)/(x-1)$ rewrites the loss integral $I_L$ as $\int_1^M F(y)(M^2-y^2)^{d/2} dy$ with $M$-independent weight $F(y)>0$; (ii) log-concavity of $I_L$ in $M$: algebraic for $d=2$ up to a small certified compact verification, via Prekopa's theorem plus semi-rigorous certificates for $d \in \{3,4\}$. True-KL$_0$ then follows from elementary tail bounds plus a certified bound on $M \in [1.001, 20]$. We also characterise the dimensional boundary: True-KL$_0$ holds for all $p \in (d,d+1)$ when $d \le 4$; $d=5$ is the unique transition, with $p_{crit}(5) \in [5.5718, 5.5750]$ (mpmath, not interval-certified); for $d=6,7$ (and conjecturally all $d \ge 6$) no threshold exists: the bound fails at every sampled $p \in (d,d+1)$.

cs.GT↗