arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.38698

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

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yang Cai, Vineet Gupta, Yanchen Jiang, Christopher Liaw, Aranyak Mehta, Grigoris Velegkas, Di Wang. 2026-09-30. Efficiency of Generalized Proportional First-Price Auctions Under Auto-bidding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38698

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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↗

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↗

Simultaneous Envy and Equitability Guarantees

Recent work in fair division has focused on either simultaneously satisfying closely related fairness notions or achieving a single notion across the ex-ante and ex-post worlds. We study the compatibility of two fundamentally different fairness notions: envy-freeness and equitability. For indivisible goods-only and chores-only settings, we study the existence and complexity of simultaneously satisfying their relaxations, revealing sharp contrasts between the two settings. For normalized binary goods, we give a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an EF1+EQ1 allocation with at most seven agents, but also construct a normalized instance with a larger number of agents for which no such allocation exists. In sharp contrast, binary chores admit the stronger EFX+EQX guarantee for any number of agents, even without normalization. We further initiate the study of cross-notion ex-ante and ex-post guarantees, asking whether randomized allocations can provide ex-ante guarantees for one notion while preserving ex-post guarantees for another.

cs.GT↗