ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Truth revelation in approximately efficient combinatorial auctions
Full text PdfPdf (177 KB)
Source Journal of the ACM (JACM) archive
Volume 49 ,  Issue 5  (September 2002) table of contents
Pages: 577 - 602  
Year of Publication: 2002
ISSN:0004-5411
Authors
Daniel Lehmann  Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Liadan Ita Oćallaghan  Stanford University, Stanford, California
Yoav Shoham  Stanford University, Stanford, California
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 28,   Downloads (12 Months): 244,   Citation Count: 78
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/585265.585266
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Some important classical mechanisms considered in Microeconomics and Game Theory require the solution of a difficult optimization problem. This is true of mechanisms for combinatorial auctions, which have in recent years assumed practical importance, and in particular of the gold standard for combinatorial auctions, the Generalized Vickrey Auction (GVA). Traditional analysis of these mechanisms---in particular, their truth revelation properties---assumes that the optimization problems are solved precisely. In reality, these optimization problems can usually be solved only in an approximate fashion. We investigate the impact on such mechanisms of replacing exact solutions by approximate ones. Specifically, we look at a particular greedy optimization method. We show that the GVA payment scheme does not provide for a truth revealing mechanism. We introduce another scheme that does guarantee truthfulness for a restricted class of players. We demonstrate the latter property by identifying natural properties for combinatorial auctions and showing that, for our restricted class of players, they imply that truthful strategies are dominant. Those properties have applicability beyond the specific auction studied.


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
 
2
Bartal, Y., Gonen, R., and Nisan, N. 2002. Incentive compatible multi unit combinatorial auctions. Tech. Rep. TR-2002-36, Leibniz Center for Research in Computer Science, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. June. (Presented at Dagstuhl workshop on Electronic Market Design.)
 
3
Boutilier, C., and Hoos, H. H. 2001. Bidding languages for combinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of IJCAI'01 (Seattle, Wash.). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, Calif.
 
4
Clarke, E. H. 1971. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11, 17--33.
 
5
Cramton, P. C. 1997. The FCC spectrum auction: An early assessment. J. Econ. Manage. Strat. 6, 3, 431--495.
 
6
DeMartini, C., Kwasnica, A. M., Ledyard, J. O., and Porter, D. 1999. A new and improved design for multi-object iterative auctions. Social Science Working Paper 1054, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.
 
7
8
 
9
Groves, T. 1973. Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41, 617--631.
 
10
Halldórsson, M. M. 1999. Approximation of weighted independent set and hereditary subset problems. In Proceedings of COCOON'99. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1627. Springer-Verlag, New York.
 
11
Halldórsson, M. M. 2000. Approximation of weighted independent set and hereditary subset problems. J. Graph Algori. Appl. 4, 1, 1--16.
 
12
Håstad, J. 1999. Clique is hard to approximate within n1−ε. Acta Math. 182, 105--142.
13
 
14
Karp, R. M. 1972. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In Complexity of Computer Computations, R. E. Miller and J. W. Thatcher, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 85--103.
 
15
Krishna, V., and Perry, M. 1998. Efficient mechanism design. Available at http://www.ma.huji.ac. il/∼motty.
16
 
17
18
 
19
MacKie-Mason, J. K., and Varian, H. R. 1994. Generalized Vickrey auctions. Working paper, Univ. Michigan. July.
 
20
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., and Green, J. R. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
 
21
McMillan, J. 1994. Selling spectrum rights. J. Econ. Pers. 68, 145--162.
 
22
Milgrom, P. 2000. Putting auction theory to work: The simultaneous ascending auction. Journal of Political Economy 108, 2, 245--272.
 
23
Monderer, D., Kfir-Dahav, N. E., and Tennenholtz, M. 2000. Mechanism design for resource bounded agents. In Proceedings of ICMAS-2000.
 
24
Monderer, D., and Tennenholtz, M. 2000. Asymptotically optimal multi-object auctions for risk-averse agents. Available at http://ie.technion.ac.il/dov.phtml.
 
25
 
26
Myerson, R. B. 1981. Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6, 58--73.
 
27
Nisan, N. 1999. Algorithms for selfish agents. In Symposium on Theoretical Aspects in Computer Science (Trier, Germany), 1--15.
28
29
30
 
31
Rothkopf, M. H. 1983. Bidding theory: the phenomena to be modeled. In Auctions, Bidding and Contracting: Uses and Theory, R. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, M. Shubik, and R. Stark, Eds. New York University Press, New York, pp. 105--120.
 
32
33
 
34
35
 
36
 
37
Varian, H. R. 1995. Economic mechanism design for computerized agents. In Proceedings of the 1st Usenix Conference on Electronic Commerce. New York.
 
38
Vickrey, W. S. 1961. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance 16, 8--37.

CITED BY  78

Collaborative Colleagues:
Daniel Lehmann: colleagues
Liadan Ita Oćallaghan: colleagues
Yoav Shoham: colleagues