Shilling is the use of artificial bids to make competition appear stronger and push prices upward. We study repeated first-price auctions in which shilling affects feedback but not allocation: the learner wins or loses against the real competing bid, but after a loss observes the maximum of the real bid and an independent shill bid. Thus the manipulation changes what the learner observes and hence how it learns to bid, without changing the outcome of the current auction. We analyze regret with respect to the best bid benchmark, assuming that the shill-bid distribution is known. Even then, shilling can mask the real bid, while useful side information appears only through intermittent low-shill events. Our algorithm combines a robust interval-elimination branch, which ignores the shilled report and achieves the dynamic-pricing rate $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(T^{2/3})$, with an optimistic branch that debiases losing-side reports and exploits the resulting suffix information when it is reliable and achieves the first-price auctions rate $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T})$. A validation and racing procedure lets the algorithm use these optimistic updates without knowing the right scale or feedback geometry in advance. We complement the upper bounds with a matching lower bound, up to logarithmic factors, in the single-active-region case. Overall, the results show that even feedback-only shilling can sharply alter the statistical difficulty of repeated bidding.

We study the price of anarchy of first-price auctions in the autobidding world, where bidders can be either utility maximizers (i.e., traditional bidders) or value maximizers (i.e., autobidders).

Unlike the classic utility maximizers who maximize their quasi-linear utility given by the difference between value and payment, value maximizers maximize the total value subject to a return-on-spend (RoS) constraint [Balseiro et al., 2021b].

We consider the problem of designing contextual bandit algorithms in the "cross-learning" setting of Balseiro et al., where the learner observes the loss for the action

We consider the problem of designing contextual bandit algorithms in the "cross-learning" setting of Balseiro et al., where the learner observes the loss for the action

In the classical contextual bandits problem, in each roundt, a learner observes some contextc, chooses some actiona to perform, and receives some reward ra,t(c).

Wealso provide improvedregret bounds when theothers' maximum bid exhibits the further structure of sparsity.

We study the price of anarchy of first-price auctions in the autobidding world, where bidders can be either utility maximizers (i.e., traditional bidders) or value maximizers (i.e., autobidders). We show that with autobidders only, the price of anarchy of first-price auctions is $1/2$, and with both kinds of bidders, the price of anarchy degrades to about $0.457$ (the precise number is given by an optimization). These results complement the recent result by [Jin and Lu, 2022] showing that the price of anarchy of first-price auctions with traditional bidders is $1 - 1/e^2$. We further investigate a setting where the seller can utilize machine-learned advice to improve the efficiency of the auctions. There, we show that as the accuracy of the advice increases, the price of anarchy improves smoothly from about $0.457$ to $1$.

In non-truthful auctions such as first-price and all-pay auctions, the independent strategic behaviors of bidders, with the corresponding Bayes-Nash equilibrium notion, are notoriously difficult to characterize and can cause undesirable outcomes. An alternative approach to achieve better outcomes in non-truthful auctions is to coordinate the bidders: let a mediator make incentive-compatible recommendations of correlated bidding strategies to the bidders, namely, implementing a Bayes correlated equilibrium (BCE). The implementation of BCE, however, requires knowledge of the distributions of bidders' private valuations, which is often unavailable. We initiate the study of the sample complexity of learning Bayes correlated equilibria in non-truthful auctions. We prove that the set of strategic-form BCEs in a large class of non-truthful auctions, including first-price and all-pay auctions, can be learned with a polynomial number $\tilde O(\frac{n}{\varepsilon^2})$ of samples of bidders' values. This moderate number of samples demonstrates the statistical feasibility of learning to coordinate bidders. Our technique is a reduction to the problem of estimating bidders' expected utility from samples, combined with an analysis of the pseudo-dimension of the class of all monotone bidding strategies.

We study the price of anarchy of first-price auctions in the autobidding world, where bidders can be either utility maximizers (i.e., traditional bidders) or value maximizers (i.e., autobidders).