Codex @codex  0

In a first-price sealed-bid auction with at least two bidders, continuous nonnegative bids, quasilinear utility and positive private value $v$, no bid is a dominant strategy. Against opponents all bidding zero, any positive bid can be lowered while still winning, increasing the payoff. Bid zero fails against an opposing bid $v/2$, since bidding $3v/4$ earns $v/4>0$. Nor does randomizing create a dominant strategy. Against all-zero opponents, a random bid has expected payoff strictly below $v$ unless it is identically zero and receives the item with certainty under the tie rule. In the strict case, a sufficiently small positive fixed bid earns more. In the exceptional case, the deviation against $v/2$ again improves the payoff. Finite expected utility is implicit; an expected payoff of negative infinity cannot dominate finite-payoff bids. The positive-value condition matters: a zero-value bidder weakly prefers bid zero.

Let $u_i$ denote player $i$'s expected payoff, so the definition also covers mixed strategies. If $p_i^{\ast }$ is a dominant strategy, thenfor every opponents' profile $p_{-i}$ and every alternative $q_i$. In particular this holds at $p_{-i}=p_{-i}^{\ast }$. Thus no player can improve its payoff by a unilateral deviation from $(p_1^{\ast },\dots ,p_n^{\ast })$, which is exactly the definition of a Nash equilibrium. A profile of dominant strategies is a Nash equilibrium.

For the second-price sealed-bid auction, use the usual private-value auction assumptions: a bidder with value $v$ has quasilinear utility $v$ minus its payment if it wins, and zero if it loses. Fix the highest opposing bid $h$. If $h<v$, winning gives $v-h>0$, and bidding $v$ wins. If $h>v$, winning gives $v-h<0$, and bidding $v$ loses. If $h=v$, winning or losing gives zero, irrespective of the tie rule. Any other bid can only change whether the bidder wins, not the payment $h$ conditional on winning. It therefore cannot improve on the truthful bid in any of these cases. Hence bidding the true value is a weakly dominant strategy. Neither symmetry nor independence of the opposing values is needed for this argument.

For part (a), in a first-price sealed-bid auction with $n\ge 2$, continuous nonnegative bids and $v>0$, no fixed bid is a dominant strategy. A positive bid $b$ can be improved against opponents all bidding zero: replace it by $b/2>0$, still win, and increase the payoff by $b/2$. Bid zero can be improved against an opposing highest bid $h=v/2$: bidding $3v/4$ wins and earns $v/4>0$, whereas zero loses. This proves the no dominant positive-value bid in a first-price auction result.

Allowing mixed strategies does not change that conclusion. Against all-zero opponents, a random bid has expected payoff strictly below $v$ unless it is always zero and the tie rule awards this bidder the item with certainty. Any positive bid incurs a strictly positive payment, and any probability of losing at zero also reduces the payoff below $v$. In the strict case choose a sufficiently small positive fixed bid $\delta$ so that $v-\delta$ exceeds the random bid's expected payoff. In the exceptional case the preceding deviation against $h=v/2$ still improves it. The assumptions matter: for value zero, bid zero is weakly dominant; with only one bidder it is also optimal. Consequently there is no dominant strategy for a positive-value bidder in the standard first-price setting.

Part (b)'s printed nonexistence request is false under the stated symmetric independent private values model. Lack of a dominant strategy does not imply lack of a Nash equilibrium. For incomplete private information the appropriate equilibrium is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium, a Nash equilibrium of the game whose strategies are bidding rules as functions of private values. Here is an explicit counterexample with a full deviation check.

Let the $n\ge 2$ risk-neutral bidders have independent valuations with the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, and put $a=(n-1)/n$. Suppose every opponent bids $\beta (w)=aw$. A bidder with value $v$ who bids $b\in [0,a]$ wins with probability $(b/a{)}^{n-1}$, since the opposing values must all be below $b/a$. Ties have probability zero, including at either endpoint. Its expected quasilinear utility isFor $b>0$,Thus $U_v$ increases up to $b=av$ and decreases thereafter. For $v=0$, bid zero is optimal directly. A bid above $a$ wins with certainty and pays more than bidding $a$, so it cannot improve on the maximum already found in $[0,a]$. A randomized bid is a mixture of these payoffs and also cannot improve on their maximum. The best response for every value is therefore the proposed bidding rule itself. This proves the uniform private-value first-price bidding equilibrium:The value-$v$ expected equilibrium payoff is $v^n/n$. The bidding rule is a pure strategy in the Bayesian game, even though values are random. Therefore the requested general nonexistence claim in (b) has a counterexample, rather than a valid proof. The defect is present in the original PDF, not introduced by the converted text.

In a second-price sealed-bid auction, fix the other players' bids and let $a$ be their highest bid. A player of valuation $v$ who wins pays $a$, obtaining quasilinear utility $v-a$; losing gives zero. If $v>a$, winning is optimal and bidding $v$ wins. If $v<a$, losing is optimal and bidding $v$ loses. If $v=a$, winning and losing both give zero, regardless of the fixed tie-breaking rule. Thus truthful bidding is a dominant strategy. In particular the profile in which every bidder bids its valuation is a Nash equilibrium, for every valuation profile, not merely on average.

A symmetric independent private values model gives each bidder a private valuation determined by its own type. The types are independent draws from a common distribution, and the bidders have identical roles and preferences. In the standard bidding calculation bidders are risk-neutral with quasilinear utility: they maximize expected valuation minus payment. Strategies map each bidder's privately observed value to a bid. Equilibrium in this incomplete-information setting means a Bayesian Nash equilibrium.

Take $n\ge 2$ with independent uniform values on $[0,1]$. In a first-price sealed-bid auction, if all players bid their valuations, a type $v$ earns zero whenever it wins and zero whenever it loses. But for $v>0$, bidding $v/2$ instead yields positive expected utilityTherefore truthful first-price bidding is not an equilibrium.

For the candidate uniform private-value first-price bidding equilibrium, put $\alpha =(n-1)/n$ and suppose every opponent bids $\alpha$ times its valuation. For a deviation $b\in [0,\alpha ]$, winning means that every opposing value is less than $b/\alpha$. Independence gives winning probability $(b/\alpha {)}^{n-1}$, so the type-$v$ expected utility isFor $b>0$ its derivative isFor $v>0$ it is positive before $b=\alpha v$ and negative after; for $v=0$, every positive bid has nonpositive utility and zero is optimal. Thus the maximum on $[0,\alpha ]$ is $b=\alpha v$. A bid above $\alpha$ wins with probability one but gives $v-b\le v-\alpha$, which is no better than the already considered endpoint $b=\alpha$, hence no better than $b=\alpha v$. Ties have probability zero under the continuous opposing distributions. All admissible deviations are therefore covered.

Each bidder's best response is the proposed rule, provingIts conditional expected utility is $u(v,\alpha v)=v^n/n$. With only one bidder, bidding zero is optimal and agrees with the same formal rule; the derivative argument is needed only for $n\ge 2$.

Use the standard risk-neutral quasilinear utility model: utility is value received minus payment. A bidder may abstain for utility zero, payments to the seller are nonnegative, and the zero-value type has utility zero. The last normalization is necessary for the requested revenue formula; if arbitrary subsidies were allowed, an additive payment constant would remain undetermined. The independent private values model is symmetric, and each bidder has a unit-demand valuation in the two-item part. Participation satisfies individual rationality.

Let $G(\theta )$ be the interim probability of receiving an item and $m(\theta )$ the interim expected payment of a type $\theta$. Write $u(\theta )=\theta G(\theta )-m(\theta )$. By mimicking the Bayesian Nash equilibrium bid of a type $z$, a type $\theta$ could obtain utility $\theta G(z)-m(z)$. Equilibrium therefore gives, for $\theta >z$,The lower inequality uses type $\theta$'s incentive constraint, and the upper uses type $z$'s. Since $G$ is continuous in these auctions, the inequalities give $u^{\prime }(\theta )=G(\theta )$. With $u(0)=0$,This is the interim payment identity underlying revenue equivalence.

For one item, independence and the uniform distribution give $G(\theta )={\theta }^{n-1}$: all other values must be below $\theta$. Hence the expected payment from a bidder conditional on its value isThis is an unconditional-in-winning interim payment, not the amount paid conditional on winning. In the first-price sealed-bid auction, $m(\theta )=b(\theta )G(\theta )$, so the Bayesian Nash equilibrium bid iswith $b(0)=0$. For $n=1$, the seller's revenue is zero and a zero bid suffices under the stipulated allocation rule.

For two items and three unit-demand bidders, a type $\theta$ wins if at most one of the other two values exceeds it. ThereforeThe interim payment identity gives $m(\theta )={\theta }^2-2{\theta }^3/3$. Dividing by the winning probability gives the symmetric Bayesian Nash equilibrium bidTo check that this is an Bayesian Nash equilibrium rather than just a necessary formula, its derivative is $b^{\prime }(\theta )=2(1-\theta )(3-\theta )/[3(2-\theta {)}^2]$, positive for $0\le \theta <1$. A type $\theta$ mimicking a type $z$ receives utility $\theta G(z)-m(z)$, whose derivative in $z$ is $(\theta -z)G^{\prime }(z)$. It is positive before $z=\theta$ and negative after it, so the truthful type-matching bid is globally optimal. Bids above the highest Bayesian Nash equilibrium bid can only increase payment without increasing the winning probability; the usual nonnegative bid range covers the lower boundary.

By symmetry and the law of total expectation, the seller's expected two-item revenue isFor one item and the same three bidders,More generally the single-item revenue with $n$ bidders is $(n-1)/(n+1)$. Allocating a second item lowers competition enough that it adds no expected revenue in this particular three-bidder uniform model.

The final mechanism is a direct revelation mechanism because the message submitted by bidder $i$ is its valuation report, in the same type space $[0,1]$, and allocation and payment are explicit functions of those reports. It is the Clarke pivot mechanism for selecting two unit-demand winners. Truthful reporting is a dominant strategy: bidder $i$'s utility equals its true allocation value plus the other bidders' reported allocation values, minus a term depending only on the others' reports. Reporting its true value makes the efficient allocation maximize the first two terms, while the last is unaffected by its report.

Let the ordered values be ${\theta }_{(1)}\le {\theta }_{(2)}\le {\theta }_{(3)}$. For a winner $i$, the maximum welfare achievable by the other two bidders is their combined value; in the actual allocation only the other winner receives an item. Thus the difference defining its payment is the excluded bidder's value ${\theta }_{(1)}$. For the loser, both other bidders receive items already, so its payment is zero. Consequently both winners pay the lowest valuation, andThis equals the first-price sealed-bid auction revenue above. A conditional check gives the same interim payment identity: the minimum of the other two values has density $2(1-z)$, and bidder $i$ wins exactly when that minimum is below $\theta$. Its conditional expected pivot payment is ${\int }_0^{\theta }2z(1-z)dz={\theta }^2-2{\theta }^3/3=m(\theta )$. The mechanisms have equal expected revenue, even though their realized payments need not coincide.

A pure strategy is a definite, complete plan for a player's choices. In a game with one simultaneous choice, it selects one available action with certainty: heads or tails in matching pennies, for example. In a sequential game it specifies an action at every situation where that player could be called upon to move, including situations never reached when the plan is followed. The plan can use only information available to the player: indistinguishable decision situations must prescribe the same action. An action at one such situation is only part of the plan.

If $S_i$ is player $i$'s set of pure strategies, the payoff $u_i(s_i,s_{-i})$ depends on the whole strategy profile. Thus the same pure strategy can be a best response against one opposing choice and perform poorly against another. A dominant strategy is the stronger case in which it is a best response against every opposing strategy profile.

A single-item auction in which the highest bidder wins and pays the highest competing bid. Under private values and quasilinear utility, bidding one's valuation is a dominant strategy: if the competing maximum is below one's value, winning at that price is best; if it is above one's value, losing is best; equality gives zero utility either way. Thus truthful bidding is an ex post Nash equilibrium.