2025-11-18T14:58:13.668903

Auction Design using Value Prediction with Hallucinations

Lobel, Moreira, Mouchtaki
We investigate a Bayesian mechanism design problem where a seller seeks to maximize revenue by selling an indivisible good to one of n buyers, incorporating potentially unreliable predictions (signals) of buyers' private values derived from a machine learning model. We propose a framework where these signals are sometimes reflective of buyers' true valuations but other times are hallucinations, which are uncorrelated with the buyers' true valuations. Our main contribution is a characterization of the optimal auction under this framework. Our characterization establishes a near-decomposition of how to treat types above and below the signal. For the one buyer case, the seller's optimal strategy is to post one of three fairly intuitive prices depending on the signal, which we call the "ignore", "follow" and "cap" actions.
academic

Auction Design using Value Prediction with Hallucinations

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2502.08792
  • Title: Auction Design using Value Prediction with Hallucinations
  • Authors: Ilan Lobel (NYU Stern), Humberto Moreira (FGV/EPGE), Omar Mouchtaki (NYU Stern)
  • Classification: cs.GT (Game Theory), cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence)
  • Publication Date: February 10, 2025 (original), October 6, 2025 (current version)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08792

Abstract

This paper investigates a Bayesian mechanism design problem where a seller seeks to maximize revenue by selling an indivisible good to one of n buyers, incorporating potentially unreliable predictions (signals) of buyers' private valuations derived from machine learning models. The authors propose a framework in which these signals sometimes reflect buyers' true valuations but sometimes are "hallucinations" unrelated to true valuations. The main contribution is a characterization of optimal auctions under this framework, establishing an approximate decomposition for handling types above and below the signal. For the single-buyer case, the seller's optimal strategy is to post one of three intuitive prices based on the signal, termed "ignore," "follow," and "cap" actions.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed in this paper is: how to design optimal auction mechanisms in the context where modern machine learning models (particularly large language models and deep neural networks) produce "hallucinations." These models sometimes generate outputs that appear high-quality but are actually completely unrelated to the true target quantity.

Significance

  1. Practical Application Value: In practical applications such as advertising auctions, sellers frequently use machine learning models to predict buyer valuations, but these predictions may be unreliable
  2. Theoretical Challenge: Classical Myerson (1981) auction theory cannot be directly applied when posterior distributions lack continuous densities
  3. Technology Development Trend: With the widespread application of LLMs and deep neural networks, the hallucination problem becomes increasingly important

Limitations of Existing Approaches

  1. Traditional Mechanism Design: Assumes sellers only have prior distribution information, without considering machine learning predictions
  2. Learning-Augmented Algorithms: Typically adopt adversarial error assumptions rather than stochastic errors
  3. Classical Signal Models: Assume signal errors are Gaussian noise, unable to capture the global characteristics of hallucinations

Core Contributions

  1. Novel Bayesian Framework: First incorporates machine learning model hallucinations into auction theory, establishing a binary model where signals are either accurate or completely random
  2. Complete Characterization of Optimal Auctions: Extends techniques from Monteiro and Svaiter (2010), providing closed-form solutions for optimal auctions when posterior distributions lack densities
  3. Approximate Decomposition Theorem: Proves that virtual value functions can be approximately decomposed near signal points, simplifying the complex ironing process
  4. Three-Interval Strategy: For the single-buyer case, provides an intuitive "ignore-follow-cap" strategy
  5. Comparative Analysis: Conducts in-depth comparison with the traditional "value-plus-noise" model, revealing how different error models affect optimal mechanism structure

Methodology Details

Task Definition

  • Input: n buyers, each buyer i has private value vi∼Fiv_i \sim F_i, seller observes signal sis_i
  • Signal Generation Process: With probability γi\gamma_i, sis_i is a hallucination (sampled independently from FiF_i); with probability 1−γi1-\gamma_i, si=vis_i = v_i (accurate signal)
  • Objective: Design revenue-maximizing auction mechanism (x,p)(x,p), where xx is the allocation function and pp is the payment function

Model Architecture

Bayesian Update

After observing signal sis_i, the seller's posterior belief about viv_i is: fγi,sii(v)=γi⋅fi(v)+(1−γi)⋅δsi(v)f^i_{\gamma_i,s_i}(v) = \gamma_i \cdot f_i(v) + (1-\gamma_i) \cdot \delta_{s_i}(v)

where δsi(⋅)\delta_{s_i}(\cdot) is the Dirac delta function at sis_i.

Virtual Value Function

For posterior distribution Fγ,sF_{\gamma,s}, the virtual value function is:

v - \frac{1/\gamma - F(v)}{f(v)}, & \text{for } v < s \\ v - \frac{1-F(v)}{f(v)}, & \text{for } v > s \end{cases}$$ #### Main Theorem **Theorem 1**: Assuming $F_i$ satisfies regularity conditions, there exists a revenue-maximizing direct mechanism with virtual value function: $$\bar{\phi}^i_{\gamma_i,s_i}(v) = \begin{cases} \text{IRON}_{[0,s_i]}[\gamma_i F_i](v), & \text{if } a \leq v < s_i \\ \phi_{F_i}(T_i), & \text{if } s_i \leq v < T_i \\ \phi_{F_i}(v), & \text{if } T_i \leq v \leq b \end{cases}$$ ### Technical Innovations 1. **Truncated Ironing Operator**: Introduces a truncated version of the Myerson ironing process, allowing ironing over sub-intervals 2. **Generalized Convex Hull Method**: Uses Monteiro-Svaiter techniques to handle virtual values for distributions without densities 3. **Approximate Decomposition Structure**: Proves that ironing before and after the signal can be approximately performed independently ## Experimental Setup ### Theoretical Verification The paper primarily validates results through theoretical analysis and numerical examples: 1. **Uniform Distribution Case**: $F$ is uniform on $[0,1]$ 2. **Exponential Distribution Case**: Verifies that even for distributions with monotone hazard rates, the distribution before the signal may require ironing 3. **Counterexample Construction**: Demonstrates the necessity of regularity conditions ### Comparison Methods Compares with the "value-plus-noise" model where signal $s = v + \epsilon$, $\epsilon \sim N(0,\sigma^2)$ ## Experimental Results ### Main Results #### Single-Buyer Optimal Strategy (Proposition 1) There exist thresholds $L_\gamma$ and $U_\gamma$ such that the optimal price is: $$p^* = \begin{cases} p_{\text{ignore}} & \text{if } s < L_\gamma \\ s & \text{if } L_\gamma \leq s < U_\gamma \\ p_{\text{cap}} & \text{if } s \geq U_\gamma \end{cases}$$ where: - $p_{\text{ignore}}$: monopoly price ignoring the signal - $p_{\text{cap}}$: cap price satisfying $p_{\text{cap}} - \frac{1/\gamma - F(p_{\text{cap}})}{f(p_{\text{cap}})} = 0$ #### Comparison with Noise Model Figure 5 shows structural differences in optimal pricing between the two models: - **Hallucination Model**: Exhibits three-segment structure (ignore-follow-cap) - **Noise Model**: Smooth price adjustment, increasing prices for low signals and decreasing for high signals ### Case Studies #### Uniform Distribution Case For $F = \text{Uniform}[0,1]$, $\gamma = 0.75$: - Low signal interval: completely ignore signal, use prior optimal price 0.5 - Medium signal interval: fully trust signal, price equals signal value - High signal interval: use cap price approximately 0.66 #### Exponential Distribution Case Even for exponential distribution with monotone hazard rate, the virtual value before the signal still requires ironing treatment. ## Related Work ### Mechanism Design Theory - **Myerson (1981)**: Foundation of classical revenue-maximizing auction theory - **Monteiro & Svaiter (2010)**: Ironing techniques for arbitrary distributions ### Learning-Augmented Algorithms - **Consistency vs. Robustness**: Traditional approaches focus on performance when predictions are perfect (consistency) and when predictions are adversarial (robustness) - **This Paper's Distinction**: Adopts Bayesian framework, assuming errors are stochastic rather than adversarial ### Data-Driven Mechanisms - **Sample Complexity**: Designing mechanisms using finite samples - **This Paper's Contribution**: Considers cases where signals may be hallucinations, rather than only considering sample contamination ## Conclusions and Discussion ### Main Conclusions 1. **Tractability of Hallucination Model**: Despite posterior distributions lacking continuous densities, closed-form optimal solutions can be obtained 2. **Intuitiveness of Three-Segment Strategy**: The optimal strategy in the single-buyer case has clear economic intuition 3. **Importance of Error Model**: Different prediction error assumptions lead to fundamentally different optimal mechanism structures ### Limitations 1. **Signal Disclosure Assumption**: Assumes the seller publicly discloses signals, which may not be optimal in practice 2. **Known Hallucination Probability**: Assumes $\gamma_i$ is known, while actual applications may require estimation 3. **Binary Error Model**: Real ML errors may be a combination of hallucinations and Gaussian noise ### Future Directions 1. **Non-Direct Mechanisms**: Analyze optimal mechanisms when the seller does not disclose signals 2. **Unknown Hallucination Probability**: Study robust mechanism design when $\gamma_i$ is unknown 3. **Hybrid Error Model**: Incorporate more realistic models combining hallucinations and traditional noise ## In-Depth Evaluation ### Strengths 1. **Problem Importance**: Captures the core challenge facing mechanism design in the AI era 2. **Theoretical Rigor**: Provides complete mathematical characterization and proofs 3. **Intuitive Insights**: Three-segment strategy provides clear economic intuition 4. **Technical Innovation**: Successfully extends classical auction theory to new settings ### Weaknesses 1. **Model Simplification**: Binary error model may oversimplify real-world situations 2. **Insufficient Empirical Validation**: Lacks experimental validation on real data 3. **Computational Complexity**: Computational complexity in multi-buyer cases not sufficiently discussed 4. **Signal Disclosure Assumption**: May not align with practical application requirements ### Impact 1. **Theoretical Contribution**: Provides new theoretical foundation for mechanism design in the AI era 2. **Practical Value**: Offers design guidance for applications such as advertising auctions 3. **Cross-Disciplinary Impact**: Connects mechanism design, machine learning, and information economics ### Applicable Scenarios 1. **Online Advertising Auctions**: Scenarios using ML models to predict user valuations 2. **E-commerce Platforms**: Dynamic pricing based on user behavior prediction 3. **Cloud Computing Resource Allocation**: Resource auctions based on load prediction ## References 1. Myerson, R. B. (1981). Optimal auction design. Mathematics of operations research, 6(1), 58-73. 2. Monteiro, P. K., & Svaiter, B. F. (2010). Optimal auction with a general distribution: Virtual valuation without densities. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 46(1), 21-31. 3. Crémer, J., & McLean, R. P. (1988). Full extraction of the surplus in bayesian and dominant strategy auctions. Econometrica, 1247-1257. --- This paper makes important contributions to the field of theoretical mechanism design, successfully incorporating the hallucination problem of modern AI systems into the classical auction theory framework, providing valuable theoretical guidance for practical applications. While there remains room for improvement in model assumptions and empirical validation, its theoretical innovations and practical value make it an important work in the field.