arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.12204

Protecting Losers Undermines Auction Credibility

Yuta Nakamura·Noriaki Okamoto
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A second-price auction must determine its price but need not learn how far losing values lie below it. We show that protecting this information from the seller conflicts with auction credibility. In deterministic protocols with private communication, lower-tail privacy forces the first informative question to reveal whether a bidder has the highest possible value. The seller can then manipulate the winner's payment without any bidder detecting the deviation, increasing revenue at some valuation profiles and never reducing it. A descending protocol conceals losing values below the price but permits manipulation; with mandatory sale, a credible ascending protocol reveals them.

Explore related subjects

econ.TH

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yuta Nakamura, Noriaki Okamoto. 2026-10-08. Protecting Losers Undermines Auction Credibility. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12204

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning about informativeness

We study whether individuals can learn the informativeness of their information technology through social learning. As in the classic sequential social learning model, rational agents arrive in order and make decisions based on the past actions of others and their private signals. There is uncertainty regarding the informativeness of the common signal-generating process. We show that in this setting asymptotic learning about informativeness is not guaranteed and depends crucially on the relative tail distributions of private beliefs induced by uninformative and informative signals. We identify the phenomenon of perpetual disagreement as the cause of learning and characterize learning in the canonical Gaussian environment.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

Justifiable Priority Violations

Making Deferred Acceptance more efficient requires priority violations, but which ones are justifiable? We argue that a priority can be justifiably violated if the affected student either (i) directly benefits from the improvement that caused said violation, or (ii) is unimprovable under any assignment that Pareto-dominates DA. We construct a ``just-below-cutoffs'' mechanism that always finds a justifiable DA-improvement whenever DA's outcome is inefficient, and build on it to construct an algorithm that expands justifiable improvements iteratively, converging to a matching that cannot be Pareto-improved by any justifiable outcome. Finally, we prove that both justifiability and consent frameworks have important limitations in reaching Pareto-efficient outcomes, and use data and simulations to quantify how binding these constraints are in practice.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

The Empirical Content of Reputation Effects

I revisit the classic reputation model in which a long-lived player, either normal or committed, faces short-lived players who may misspecify the commitment-type signal process. I show that the long-lived player's patience makes reputation powerful but leaves its value sensitive both to short-lived players' subjective commitment-type signal process and to discounting. Every subjective process is arbitrarily close over any fixed horizon to processes eliminating his reputation gains and also to processes preserving them. Moreover, generically, all equilibria yield substantial gains along some discount-factor sequences approaching one, while even the best equilibrium yields no positive gain in the limit along others.

econ.TH↗