IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2506.09291.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition Complexity in Multi-Item Auctions: Beyond VCG and Regularity

Author

Listed:
  • Hedyeh Beyhaghi
  • Linda Cai
  • Yiding Feng
  • Yingkai Li
  • S. Matthew Weinberg

Abstract

We quantify the value of the monopoly's bargaining power in terms of competition complexity--that is, the number of additional bidders the monopoly must attract in simple auctions to match the expected revenue of the optimal mechanisms (c.f., Bulow and Klemperer, 1996, Eden et al., 2017)--within the setting of multi-item auctions. We show that for simple auctions that sell items separately, the competition complexity is $\Theta(\frac{n}{\alpha})$ in an environment with $n$ original bidders under the slightly stronger assumption of $\alpha$-strong regularity, in contrast to the standard regularity assumption in the literature, which requires $\Omega(n \cdot \ln \frac{m}{n})$ additional bidders (Feldman et al., 2018). This significantly reduces the value of learning the distribution to design the optimal mechanisms, especially in large markets with many items for sale. For simple auctions that sell items as a grand bundle, we establish a constant competition complexity bound in a single-bidder environment when the number of items is small or when the value distribution has a monotone hazard rate. Some of our competition complexity results also hold when we compete against the first best benchmark (i.e., optimal social welfare).

Suggested Citation

  • Hedyeh Beyhaghi & Linda Cai & Yiding Feng & Yingkai Li & S. Matthew Weinberg, 2025. "Competition Complexity in Multi-Item Auctions: Beyond VCG and Regularity," Papers 2506.09291, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2506.09291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.09291
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hart, Sergiu & Nisan, Noam, 2017. "Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 313-347.
    2. Constantinos Daskalakis & Alan Deckelbaum & Christos Tzamos, 2017. "Strong Duality for a Multiple‐Good Monopolist," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 735-767, May.
    3. Nima Haghpanah & Jason Hartline, 2021. "When Is Pure Bundling Optimal? [Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(3), pages 1127-1156.
    4. Thirumulanathan, D. & Sundaresan, Rajesh & Narahari, Y., 2019. "Optimal mechanisms for selling two items to a single buyer having uniformly distributed valuations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-30.
    5. Bulow, Jeremy & Klemperer, Paul, 1996. "Auctions versus Negotiations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 180-194, March.
    6. Bulow, Jeremy & Roberts, John, 1989. "The Simple Economics of Optimal Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1060-1090, October.
    7. Soheil Ghili, 2023. "A Characterization for Optimal Bundling of Products with Nonadditive Values," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 311-326, September.
    8. Manelli, Alejandro M. & Vincent, Daniel R., 2006. "Bundling as an optimal selling mechanism for a multiple-good monopolist," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 1-35, March.
    9. Schweizer, Nikolaus & Szech, Nora, 2019. "Performance bounds for optimal sales mechanisms beyond the monotone hazard rate condition," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 202-213.
    10. , & , J., 2015. "Maximal revenue with multiple goods: nonmonotonicity and other observations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(3), September.
    11. Dhangwatnotai, Peerapong & Roughgarden, Tim & Yan, Qiqi, 2015. "Revenue maximization with a single sample," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 318-333.
    12. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    13. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John, 1988. "Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 335-354, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Mishra, Debasis, 2022. "Selling two identical objects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Hart, Sergiu & Nisan, Noam, 2019. "Selling multiple correlated goods: Revenue maximization and menu-size complexity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 991-1029.
    3. Yeon-Koo Che & Weijie Zhong, 2021. "Robustly Optimal Mechanisms for Selling Multiple Goods," Papers 2105.02828, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    4. Tim Roughgarden & Inbal Talgam-Cohen & Qiqi Yan, 2019. "Robust Auctions for Revenue via Enhanced Competition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 1074-1094, July.
    5. Devanur, Nikhil R. & Haghpanah, Nima & Psomas, Alexandros, 2020. "Optimal multi-unit mechanisms with private demands," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 482-505.
    6. Zhiming Feng, 2025. "Optimal Bundling and Dominance," Papers 2502.07863, arXiv.org.
    7. Sergiu Hart & Noam Nisan, 2013. "Selling Multiple Correlated Goods: Revenue Maximization and Menu-Size Complexity (old title: "The Menu-Size Complexity of Auctions")," Papers 1304.6116, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    8. Hart, Sergiu & Nisan, Noam, 2017. "Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 313-347.
    9. Babaioff, Moshe & Gonczarowski, Yannai A. & Nisan, Noam, 2022. "The menu-size complexity of revenue approximation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 281-307.
    10. Moshe Babaioff & Michal Feldman & Yannai A. Gonczarowski & Brendan Lucier & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2020. "Escaping Cannibalization? Correlation-Robust Pricing for a Unit-Demand Buyer," Papers 2003.05913, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    11. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Strategy-proof multi-object mechanism design: Ex-post revenue maximization with non-quasilinear preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Ran Ben-Moshe & Sergiu Hart & Noam Nisan, 2022. "Monotonic Mechanisms for Selling Multiple Goods," Papers 2210.17150, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    13. Tim Roughgarden & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2018. "Approximately Optimal Mechanism Design," Papers 1812.11896, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    14. Patrick Lahr & Axel Niemeyer, 2024. "Extreme Points in Multi-Dimensional Screening," Papers 2412.00649, arXiv.org.
    15. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Mishra, Debasis, 2024. "Rank-preserving multidimensional mechanisms: An equivalence between identical-object and heterogeneous-object models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    16. Komal Malik & Kolagani Paramahamsa, 2020. "Selling two complementary goods," Papers 2011.05840, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    17. Alexander V. Kolesnikov & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Aleh Tsyvinski & Alexander P. Zimin, 2022. "Beckmann's approach to multi-item multi-bidder auctions," Papers 2203.06837, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    18. Chen, Bo & Ni, Debing, 2017. "Optimal bundle pricing under correlated valuations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 248-281.
    19. Briest, Patrick & Chawla, Shuchi & Kleinberg, Robert & Weinberg, S. Matthew, 2015. "Pricing lotteries," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 144-174.
    20. Menicucci, Domenico & Hurkens, Sjaak & Jeon, Doh-Shin, 2015. "On the optimality of pure bundling for a monopolist," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 33-42.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2506.09291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.