This paper studies equilibrium quality of semi-separable position auctions (known as the Ad Types setting [9]) with greedy or optimal allocation combined with generalized second-price (GSP) or Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) pricing. We make three contributions: first, we give upper and lower bounds on the Price of Anarchy (PoA) for auctions which use greedy allocation with GSP pricing, greedy allocation with VCG pricing, and optimal allocation with GSP pricing. Second, we give Bayes-Nash equilibrium characterizations for two-player, two-slot instances (for all auction formats) and show that there exists both a revenue hierarchy and revenue equivalence across some formats. Finally, we use no-regret learning algorithms and bidding data from a large online advertising platform to evaluate the performance of the mechanisms under semi-realistic conditions. We find that the VCG mechanism tends to obtain revenue and welfare comparable to or better than that of the other mechanisms. We also find that in practice, each of the mechanisms obtains significantly better welfare than our worst-case bounds might suggest.

In this paper we initiate the study of financial asset design with fairness as an explicit goal. We consider a variation on the classical problem of optimal portfolio design. In our setting, an individual consumer is specified by her risk tolerance, which corresponds to the variance in returns she is willing to accept in exchange for higher expected returns. We must design a (small) collection of portfolios and assign each consumer to a portfolio at lower or approximately equal risk than her tolerance. Fairness is imposed by demanding that the portfolios designed do not discriminate (in terms of expected returns) against less wealthy clients (or other specified protected groups).

We propose and analyze differentially private (DP) mechanisms for call auctions as an alternative to the complex and ad-hoc privacy efforts that are common in modern electronic markets. We prove that the number of shares cleared in the DP mechanisms compares favorably to the non-private optimal and provide a matching lower bound. We analyze the incentive properties of our mechanisms and their behavior under natural no-regret learning dynamics by market participants. We include simulation results and connections to the finance literature on market impact.

We study a game between two firms which each provide a service based on machine learning. The firms are presented with the opportunity to purchase a new corpus of data, which will allow them to potentially improve the quality of their products. The firms can decide whether or not they want to buy the data, as well as which learning model to build on that data. We demonstrate a reduction from this potentially complicated action space to a one-shot, two-action game in which each firm only decides whether or not to buy the data. The game admits several regimes which depend on the relative strength of the two firms at the outset and the price at which the data is being offered. We analyze the game's Nash equilibria in all parameter regimes and demonstrate that, in expectation, the outcome of the game is that the initially stronger firm's market position weakens whereas the initially weaker firm's market position becomes stronger. Finally, we consider the perspective of the users of the service and demonstrate that the expected outcome at equilibrium is not the one which maximizes the welfare of the consumers.