1: \begin{abstract}
2: We study a setting where agents use no-regret learning algorithms to participate in repeated auctions. \citet{kolumbus2022auctions} showed, rather surprisingly, that when bidders participate in second-price auctions using no-regret bidding algorithms, no matter how large the number of interactions $T$ is, the runner-up bidder may not converge to bidding truthfully. Our first result shows that this holds for \emph{general deterministic} truthful auctions. We also show that the ratio of the learning rates of the bidders can \emph{qualitatively} affect the convergence of the bidders.
3: Next, we consider the problem of revenue maximization in this environment. In the setting with fully rational bidders, \citet{myerson1981optimal} showed
4: that revenue can be maximized by using a second-price auction with reserves.
5: We show that, in stark contrast, in our setting with learning bidders, \emph{randomized} auctions
6: can have strictly better revenue guarantees than second-price
7: auctions with reserves, when $T$ is large enough.
8: %To do this, we provide a black-box transformation from any truthful
9: %auction $A$ to an auction $A'$ such that: i) all mean-based no-regret learners
10: %that participate in $A'$ converge to bidding truthfully, ii)
11: %the distance between the allocation rule and the payment
12: %rule between $A,A'$ is negligible.
13: Finally, we study revenue maximization in the non-asymptotic regime.
14: We define a notion of {\em auctioneer regret} comparing the revenue generated to the revenue of a second price auction with truthful bids. When the auctioneer has to use
15: the same auction throughout the interaction,
16: we show an (almost) tight regret bound
17: of $\smash{\widetilde \Theta(T^{3/4})}.$ If the auctioneer can change auctions during
18: the interaction, but in a way that is oblivious
19: to the bids, we show an (almost) tight
20: bound of $\smash{\widetilde \Theta(\sqrt{T})}.$
21:
22: \end{abstract}
23: