English

Static Pricing for Single Sample Multi-unit Prophet Inequalities

Computer Science and Game Theory 2026-03-25 v3 Data Structures and Algorithms

Abstract

In this paper, we study kk-unit single sample prophet inequalities. A seller has kk identical, indivisible items to sell. A sequence of buyers arrive one-by-one, with each buyer's private value for the item, XiX_i, revealed to the seller when they arrive. While the seller is unaware of the distribution from which XiX_i is drawn, they have access to a single sample, YiY_i drawn from the same distribution as XiX_i. What strategies can the seller adopt for selling items so as to maximize social welfare? Previous work has demonstrated that when k=1k = 1, if the seller sets a price equal to the maximum of the samples, they can achieve a competitive ratio of 12\frac{1}{2} of the social welfare, and recently Pashkovich and Sayutina established an analogous result for k=2k = 2. In this paper, we prove that for k3k \geq 3, setting a (static) price equal to the kthk^{\text{th}} largest sample also obtains a competitive ratio of 12\frac{1}{2}, resolving a conjecture Pashkovich and Sayutina pose. We also consider the situation where kk is large. We demonstrate that setting a price equal to the (k2klogk)th(k-\sqrt{2k\log k})^{\text{th}} largest sample obtains a competitive ratio of 12logkko(logkk)1 - \sqrt{\frac{2\log k}{k}} - o\left(\sqrt{\frac{\log k}{k}}\right), and that this is the optimal possible ratio achievable with a static pricing scheme with access to a single sample. This should be compared against a competitive ratio 1logkko(logkk)1 - \sqrt{\frac{\log k}{k}} - o\left(\sqrt{\frac{\log k}{k}}\right), which is the optimal possible ratio achievable with a static pricing scheme with knowledge of the distributions of the values.

Cite

@article{arxiv.2409.07719,
  title  = {Static Pricing for Single Sample Multi-unit Prophet Inequalities},
  author = {Pranav Nuti and Peter Westbrook},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07719},
  year   = {2026}
}

Comments

Minor error in proof of Lemma 2 corrected

R2 v1 2026-06-28T18:41:58.417Z