Tight Inapproximability for Welfare-Maximizing Autobidding Equilibria

We examine the complexity of computing welfare- and revenue-maximizing equilibria in autobidding second-price auctions subject to return-on-spend (RoS) constraints. We show that computing an autobidding equilibrium that approximates the welfare-optimal one within a factor of $2 - \epsilon$ is NP-hard for any constant $\epsilon > 0$. Moreover, deciding whether there exists an autobidding equilibrium that attains a $1/2 + \epsilon$ fraction of the optimal welfare -- unfettered by equilibrium constraints -- is NP-hard for any constant $\epsilon > 0$. This hardness result is tight in view of the fact that the price of anarchy (PoA) is at most $2$, and shows that deciding whether a non-trivial autobidding equilibrium exists -- one that is even marginally better than the worst-case guarantee -- is intractable. For revenue, we establish a stronger logarithmic inapproximability, while under the projection games conjecture, our reduction rules out even a polynomial approximation factor. These results significantly strengthen the APX-hardness of Li and Tang (AAAI '24). Furthermore, we refine our reduction in the presence of ML advice concerning the buyers' valuations, revealing again a close connection between the inapproximability threshold and PoA bounds. Finally, we examine relaxed notions of equilibrium attained by simple learning algorithms, establishing constant inapproximability for both revenue and welfare.