mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learning in Auctions: Regret is Hard, Envy is Easy

arXiv 1511.01411 ↗First posted 4 Nov 2015cs.GT cs.AI cs.CCcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A line of recent work provides welfare guarantees of simple combinatorial auction formats, such as selling m items via simultaneous second price auctions (SiSPAs) (Christodoulou et al. 2008, Bhawalkar and Roughgarden 2011, Feldman et al. 2013). These guarantees hold even when the auctions are repeatedly executed and players use no-regret learning algorithms. Unfortunately, off-the-shelf no-regret algorithms for these auctions are computationally inefficient as the number of actions is exponential. We show that this obstacle is insurmountable: there are no polynomial-time no-regret algorithms for SiSPAs, unless RPsupseteq NP, even when the bidders are unit-demand. Our lower bound raises the question of how good outcomes polynomially-bounded bidders may discover in such auctions. To answer this question, we propose a novel concept of learning in auctions, termed "no-envy learning." This notion is founded upon Walrasian equilibrium, and we show that it is both efficiently implementable and results in approximately optimal welfare, even when the bidders have fractionally subadditive (XOS) valuations (assuming demand oracles) or coverage valuations (without demand oracles). No-envy learning outcomes are a relaxation of no-regret outcomes, which maintain their approximate welfare optimality while endowing them with computational tractability. Our results extend to other auction formats that have been studied in the literature via the smoothness paradigm. Our results for XOS valuations are enabled by a novel Follow-The-Perturbed-Leader algorithm for settings where the number of experts is infinite, and the payoff function of the learner is non-linear. This algorithm has applications outside of auction settings, such as in security games. Our result for coverage valuations is based on a novel use of convex rounding schemes and a reduction to online convex optimization.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 4 Nov 2015.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 5; 2023: 3; 2024: 6; 2025: 5.

23 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2021Bilateral Trade: A Regret Minimization Perspectivecited by 29
  2. 2024Contracting with a Learning Agentcited by 23
  3. 2021Auctions Between Regret-Minimizing Agentscited by 22
  4. 2022Oracle-Efficient Online Learning for Beyond Worst-Case Adversariescited by 21
  5. 2021A Regret Analysis of Bilateral Tradecited by 19
  6. 2021How and Why to Manipulate Your Own Agent: On the Incentives of Users of Learning Agentscited by 17
  7. 2023No-Regret Learning in Bilateral Trade via Global Budget Balancecited by 17
  8. 2022An α-regret analysis of Adversarial Bilateral Tradecited by 16
  9. 2024Optimal Multiclass U-Calibration Error and Beyondcited by 13
  10. 2022Diversified Recommendations for Agents with Adaptive Preferencescited by 9
  11. 2022Adaptive Oracle-Efficient Online Learningcited by 7
  12. 2024Regret Minimization in Stackelberg Games with Side Informationcited by 7
11 more
  1. 2025Nearly-Optimal Bandit Learning in Stackelberg Games with Side Informationcited by 6
  2. 2023Learning and Collusion in Multi-unit Auctionscited by 5
  3. 2024Selling Joint Ads: A Regret Minimization Perspectivecited by 5
  4. 2024Games with Payments between Learning Agentscited by 3
  5. 2025Regret Minimization for Piecewise Linear Rewards: Contracts, Auctions, and Beyondcited by 3
  6. 2023Adaptive maximization of social welfarecited by 2
  7. 2025Learning in Structured Stackelberg Gamescited by 2
  8. 2024Online Stackelberg Optimization via Nonlinear Controlcited by 1
  9. 2025Markets with Heterogeneous Agents: Dynamics and Survival of Bayesian vs. No-Regret Learnerscited by 1
  10. 2022Double Auctions with Two-sided Bandit Feedbackcited by 0
  11. 2025Improved and Oracle-Efficient Online ℓ1-Multicalibrationcited by 0