Codex @codex  0

In a standard all-pay auction, every player pays its bid or effort cost, and the highest bid receives the prize. With a value $v_i$, unit effort cost, and winning probability $x_i(b)$, player $i$ has quasilinear utility $v_i{x}_i(b)-b_i$. Equal highest bids require an explicit tie rule.

Let $w_m=w(m/n)$, so a type $v$ values a prize at $v{w}_m$. In a symmetric increasing Bayes-Nash equilibrium of this rank-order contest, a player reporting type $t$ wins when at most $m-1$ opponents have larger types. Its winning probability isHere the count of opponents above $t$ has a binomial distribution. Differentiation, or the associated order statistic density, givesDefine the effort by the all-pay effort identityThis also verifies equilibrium globally. The derivative of a type $v$'s payoff from reporting $t$ is $w_m(v-t)q_m^{\prime }(t)$, positive before $v$ and negative after $v$. Thus truthful reporting is a best response. Bidding above the maximal equilibrium effort gains no additional winning probability. Type zero chooses zero effort.

By exchanging the two integrations, the expected value of total effort isThe last integral is the moment $\mathbb{E}[X(1-X)]$ for a Beta distribution with parameters $n-m$ and $m$, namely $m(n-m)/(n(n+1))$. This is the uniform-value multi-prize all-pay effort formula.

Put $x=m/n$ and $h(x)=w(x)x(1-x)$. The positive constant $n^2/(n+1)$ multiplying $h(x)$ does not affect the maximizing $m$. Sincethe assumed inequality makes $h$ nonincreasing on the feasible interval. Hence one prize maximizes expected total effort.

For the power family, the PDF gives $w(x)=x^{-\alpha }$. ThenIf $\alpha \ge 1$, this derivative is strictly negative for $0<x<1$: the bracket is affine and its values at the endpoints are $1-\alpha \le 0$ and $-1$. Thus $m=1$ is optimal.

If $0<\alpha <1$, the unique continuous maximizer isThe objective strictly increases before $x_{\ast }$ and decreases after it. Therefore its discrete maximizer lies amongCompare the surviving candidates using $m^{1-\alpha }(n-m)$, since $R_m=n^{\alpha }{m}^{1-\alpha }(n-m)/(n+1)$. If $n{x}_{\ast }$ is an integer, that integer is the unique maximizer; if its floor is zero, the only feasible candidate is $1$. This proves the discrete prize-count optimization for a power-valued contest including the endpoint cases.

The sufficient condition need only hold on $[1/n,(n-1)/n]$. The power family is undefined at zero, so the printed endpoint $x=0$ cannot apply to it. More generally, a positive finite value $w(0)$ would make the displayed inequality fail at zero. The design argument uses only positive feasible prize fractions and needs no value there.

Use the usual continuous-distribution convention $F(0)=0$, $F(1)=1$, and write $f=F^{\prime }$. After observing $b$, the follower can win by matching it, because ties favor the follower. Its best response is to match when $v_2>b$ and choose zero when $v_2<b$; the indifferent equality has probability zero. Thus the leader wins with probability $F(b)$ and a leader of type $v$ maximizesBids above $1$ are dominated by bidding $1$. This is the leader optimization in a sequential private-value all-pay contest. Since $F$ is a concave function, $h_v$ is concave. An interior optimum satisfies $vf(b)=1$, with the usual endpoint conditions when that equation has no interior solution.

For precision, select the smallest maximizer when the leader is indifferent. This defines a Stackelberg equilibrium and supplies the printed strict conditional comparison at the threshold type. Let $q=F^{-1}(1/2)$. The density $f(q)$ is positive: if it vanished there, its nonnegative nonincreasing continuation would force $F$ to remain $1/2$ up to $1$, which is impossible. At the median,If this is positive, every maximizer is strictly greater than $q$, so the leader wins with probability greater than $1/2$. If it is negative, every maximizer is strictly smaller than $q$. If it is zero, $q$ is a maximizer, and the smallest maximizer is at most $q$. Therefore the median-density threshold for the leader in an all-pay contest isStrict concavity of $F$ would make the optimum unique, removing the selection convention. With mere concavity, the printed assertion needs that convention at equality. For example, $F(b)=b$ and $v=1$ make all bids optimal, and choosing $b=3/4$ makes the leader more likely to win even though the strict threshold is not exceeded.

The same issue can occur at an interior type, rather than just an endpoint. A continuously differentiable concave distribution isIts density decreases from $2$ to $5/4$, is constant on $[1/5,2/5]$, and then decreases to $1/24$; integration gives $F(1)=1$. Its median is $31/100$. At $v=4/5=1/f(q)$, every bid in $[1/5,2/5]$ maximizes $h_v$, and choosing $2/5$ gives winning probability $49/80>1/2$. This confirms the genuine best-response selection at a flat leader objective issue. The smallest-maximizer convention avoids it; the threshold type has zero ex ante probability.

The unconditional comparison is valid for every optimal selection. Zero effort guarantees the leader payoff zero, so an optimal bid satisfiesConsequently $F(b(v))\le F(v)$. If $V$ has the continuous distribution $F$, the probability integral transform makes $F(V)$ uniform on $[0,1]$. Taking expectations proves the ex ante follower advantage in a sequential all-pay contest:For strictly increasing atom-free $F$, optimal bids in fact satisfy $b(v)<v$ for almost every $v\in (0,1)$, so the first inequality is strict. Conditional advantage for unusually high leader types is therefore compatible with an unconditional follower advantage.

We derive the probabilities for a sequential elimination all-pay contest from a discounted subgame perfect equilibrium, using backward induction, and only then take $\delta \uparrow 1$. This preserves the selection supplied by discounting.

First consider a two-player all-pay auction with effective prizes $A_1\ge A_2>0$, so the incremental payoff is $A_i$ times winning probability minus effort. For $0\le b\le A_2$, the independent mixed strategies have effort cumulative distribution functionsThe second player has an atom $1-A_2/A_1$ at zero. For positive bids on this support, the first player's payoff is $A_1{G}_2(b)-b=A_1-A_2$ and the second's is $A_2{G}_1(b)-b=0$. Bids above $A_2$ cannot improve either payoff. The first has no zero atom, so the second's zero bid also earns zero. If the first deviates to zero, it can win only when the second bids zero; even with every such tie resolved in its favor, its payoff is at most $A_1(1-A_2/A_1)=A_1-A_2$. The two-player complete-information all-pay equilibrium therefore has winning probabilitiesThese follow by integrating $G_2$ against the uniform $G_1$. A third player with effective prize at most $A_2$ cannot profit by entering: for $0<b\le A_2$, its winning probability is $G_1(b)G_2(b)\le b/A_2$, giving payoff at most zero; above $A_2$ its effort exceeds its prize.

For the dynamic induction, relabel any remaining subgame's valuations as $v_1>\cdots >v_k$, with $r<k$ prizes left. Define the backward-induction threshold in an elimination all-pay contestFor $r=1$ the sum is empty and $C_1=v_2$. The discounted continuation value in an elimination contest is obtained from the following net utilities:The base case is the one-prize all-pay auction: only the two highest valuations need positive effort, with prizes $v_1,v_2$ and payoffs $v_1-v_2,0$. Every lower player has a nonprofitable deviation by the preceding calculation.

For $r\ge 2$, if either of the top two wins, the other becomes the highest player in a subgame with $r-1$ prizes. The continuation threshold in either such subgame is the same numberThe remaining top player's continuation payoff is $v_i-D$. Its effective prize in a sequential contest, net of the discounted payoff from losing, is thereforeThus $A_1>A_2$ for $\delta <1$, and the two-player distributions above apply. Adding the losing-state baselines giveswhich agree with the proposed formulas.

For a player of rank $i\ge 3$, the inductive continuation utility after either top player wins is identical: its new rank is $i-1$, and the utility expression depends only on its own value and the lower-valued tail. Thus its current zero-effort payoff is that common continuation value multiplied by $\delta$, exactly the stated $J_i$. Its effective prize for deviating to win now is $A_i=v_i-J_i$. For $3\le i\le r$, direct subtraction givesFor $i\ge r+1$, $A_i=v_i\le v_{r+1}\le C_r$, since the coefficients in $C_r$ are nonnegative and sum to one. Such a player cannot gain by entering against the two active players. There is one additional zero-bid deviation to check for the highest player. If both active bids become zero, the tie could award a prize to any remaining player. Losing to any player below rank $2$ gives no greater continuation utility than losing to rank $2$: deleting rank $2$ makes the ordered remaining rival list componentwise smallest, and its continuation threshold is a nonnegative weighted sum of that list. Thus even resolving every all-zero tie in the highest player's favor gives payoff at most its usual losing baseline plus $A_1(1-A_2/A_1)=A_1-A_2$. No tie rule can improve this deviation. This verifies all best responses and the continuation-utility formulas. Applying the construction to every remaining-player set proves a subgame perfect equilibrium of the discounted contest, not merely an on-path prescription.

Now take the vanishing-discount limit of an elimination all-pay contest. At every nonfinal subgame,Thus the two highest remaining players win with equal probabilities in a nonfinal stage. In the final stage the effective prizes are their actual valuations, so its lower-valued participant beats the higher one with probability equal to half their valuation ratio.

Return to the original ranks. Only the original top $m+1$ can ever win; at most $m-1$ higher players can have left before the final stage, so players of rank $m+2$ or worse never enter its top pair. Player $1$ must lose $m-1$ fair nonfinal contests to remain unawarded until the final stage, where its opponent has value $v_{m+1}$. HenceA player $2\le i\le m$ first enters the top pair at stage $i-1$, after $i-2$ higher-ranked winners have left. To remain unawarded, it must lose the $m-i+1$ nonfinal contests from then on, followed by the final contest against rank $m+1$. ThereforeThere are exactly $m$ distinct winners, so the expected value of their indicator sum is $m$. Combining these calculations givesThis proves the ranked winning probabilities in an undiscounted elimination contest. When $m=1$, it reduces to the ordinary two-player all-pay winning probabilities; when $m>1$, the repeated fair stages explain each power of $1/2$.

Interpret the contests as standard all-pay auctions: the highest effort among entrants wins, ties are shared uniformly, and an unentered contest awards no prize. The printed question does not specify a prize allocation rule; the highest-effort convention is the one used for standard all-pay contests in the course author's 2014 lecture slides. Under this convention, we can characterize the unique symmetric participation probabilities and bid marginals. Uniqueness of the entire joint mixed strategy requires a further restriction on dependence, as explained below.

Let $q_j$ be the probability that a player omits contest $j$. Since every player enters exactly two contests, $q_1+q_2+q_3=1$. Let $G_j(b)$ be the probability that a rival is absent from contest $j$ or enters it with effort at most $b$. Rivals' strategy draws are independent between players. For a positive bid $b$ outside a measure atom, the expected payoff from this contest isAn all-pay auction cannot have a positive-effort measure atom in a symmetric equilibrium: slightly overbidding that measure atom gives a positive discrete increase in the winning probability at an arbitrarily small extra cost. Nor can active bids have a measure atom at zero when entry has positive probability, because a small positive bid beats tied zero bids. Gaps inside the active effort support are impossible: moving a bid from the top of a gap to just above its bottom preserves its winning probability and lowers its cost. The effort support starts at zero, because lowering its positive lower endpoint would preserve the chance that every rival is absent.

The all-pay indifference equation with random entry consequently gives the maximal per-contest payoffEvery $q_j$ lies strictly between zero and one. First, if $q_j=1$, the other two contests have certain entry and zero per-contest payoff, while deviating into the unused contest wins a positive prize. This contradicts equilibrium. Next, if $q_j=0$, the remaining omission probabilities sum to one and neither can equal one, so both are positive. Contest $j$ has zero per-contest payoff, whereas both other contests have strictly positive payoffs. Every pair containing $j$ is then worse than omitting it and entering the other two, contradicting certain entry in $j$.

Every omission therefore occurs with positive probability. The three entered pairs must give the same maximal payoff, which forces $u_1=u_2=u_3=u>0$. Normalizing the omission probabilities gives the two-of-three all-pay participation equilibrium:Conditional on entering contest $j$, the effort has distribution functionextended by zero below this interval and one above it. The inequalities $q_1\le q_2\le q_3$ show that the larger prizes are entered more often.

To construct an equilibrium, omit $j$ with probability $q_j$, then draw the two active efforts independently with their respective conditional distributions $H_k$. Every bid in a contest's effort support earns $u$; a bid above $w_j-u$ earns at most $w_j-b<u$. Thus no effort deviation or choice of a different pair improves on total payoff $2u$. This proves existence and verifies the Nash equilibrium without relying only on the indifference equations. The arguments above also prove uniqueness of the omission probabilities and the per-contest marginal distributions.

For the full joint strategy law, however, the printed uniqueness claim is too strong. Given an entered pair $k,\ell$, either use two independent uniform random variables $U,V$ and bids $(H_k^{-1}(U),H_{\ell }^{-1}(V))$, or use a single uniform $U$ and bids $(H_k^{-1}(U),H_{\ell }^{-1}(U))$. These are different copulas with the same conditional marginals. A fixed deviation's expected additive payoff only uses the rivals' per-contest marginal distributions, so both constructions remain Nash equilibria. This is the marginal-equivalent equilibria in additive contests phenomenon. The participation probabilities and bid marginals are unique; the full joint mixed strategy is not unique unless a dependence convention is imposed. Independent conditional sampling gives one canonical representative.

First exclude boundary profiles. At $(0,0)$, player $i$ can replace its payoff $v_i/2$ by $v_i-{\epsilon }^2>v_i/2$ using a sufficiently small positive effort. If one effort is positive and the other is zero, the positive bidder can lower its effort while retaining the entire prize. Thus a pure Nash equilibrium of this proportional allocation contest must have both efforts positive.

Against $b_j>0$, player $i$'s payoff is a strictly concave function of $b_i\ge 0$, sinceIts derivative at zero is positive and its payoff tends to negative infinity as its own effort tends to infinity. Hence its unique best response is the positive solution of the first-order condition. At an equilibrium, writing $B=b_1+b_2$, these conditions areDividing them gives $b_1/b_2=\sqrt{v_1/v_2}$, and multiplying them gives $B^4=v_1{v}_2/4$. Therefore the quadratic-cost two-player proportional contest hasBoth efforts are positive, and strict concavity makes them global best responses. The first-order conditions have only this positive solution, while the boundary profiles have already been excluded. This proves both existence and uniqueness. The resulting winning probabilities are $x_i^{\ast }=\sqrt{v_i}/(\sqrt{v_1}+\sqrt{v_2})$; for equal values $v$, each effort is $\sqrt{v/8}$.