| Auction in dynamic environments: incorporating the cost caused by re-allocation |
| Full text |
Pdf
(389 KB)
|
| Source
|
International Conference on Autonomous Agents
archive
Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
table of contents
The Netherlands
SESSION: Papers: auctions and mechanism design
table of contents
Pages: 643 - 649
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-59593-093-0
|
|
Author
|
|
Shigeo Matsubara
|
NTT Corporation, Seika-cho, "Keihanna Science City", Kyoto, Japan
|
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 2, Downloads (12 Months): 16, Citation Count: 0
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
This paper proposes an auction protocol for solving a resource allocation problem in dynamic environments. In such environments, the valuation of resources has uncertainty for each bidder, i.e., this valuation depends on the situation not only at the point when the auction is held but also at the point when the allocated resources are actually used. For example a bidder's valuation in fine weather may be different from that in rainy weather. A solution for dealing with this problem is to execute auctions whenever an event occurs and then to re-allocate resources. Re-allocating resources, however, may cause disutility. Moreover, it does not always provide an equilibrium strategy because it can be viewed as a sequential auction, which means that we cannot accurately predict what outcome will be obtained. To solve this problem, we propose an auction protocol that allows bidders to declare the cost due to re-allocation and then decides an allocation based on this cost of re-allocation as well as the surplus obtained from the allocated resources themselves in the realized situation. We prove that a bidder's truth telling is in equilibrium and that a socially efficient allocation is obtained in the proposed protocol.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
R. K. Dash, N. R. Jennings, and D. C. Parkes. Computational-mechanism design: a call to arms. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(6):40--47, 2003.
|
| |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
P. A. Haile. Auctions with private uncertainty and resale opportunities. Journal of Economic Theory, 108(1):72--110, 2003.
|
| |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
D. N. Kinny and M. P. Georgeff. Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 82--88, 1991.
|
| |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
A. Mas-Colell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, 1995.
|
| |
8
|
P. Milgrom. Putting Auction Theorey to Work. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
|
| |
9
|
R. Porter, A. Ronen, Y. Shoham, and M. Tennenholtz. Mechanism design with execution uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-02), 2002.
|
| |
10
|
E. Rasmusen. Games and Information: an introduction to game theory. Blackwell Publishers, 3rd edition, 2001.
|
| |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
T. W. Sandholm and V. R. Lesser. Advantages of a leveled commitment contracting protocol. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), pages 126--133, 1996.
|
| |
14
|
M. Yokoo, Y. Sakurai, and S. Matsubara. The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: New fraud in internet auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(1):174--188, 2004.
|
|