ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Adaptive limited-supply online auctions
Full text PdfPdf (224 KB)
Source Electronic Commerce archive
Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce table of contents
New York, NY, USA
SESSION: Session 3 table of contents
Pages: 71 - 80  
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-711-0
Authors
Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Robert Kleinberg  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
David C. Parkes  Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGEcom: ACM Special Interest Group on Electronic Commerce
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 35,   Citation Count: 24
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/10.1145/988772.988784
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We study a limited-supply online auction problem, in which an auctioneer has k goods to sell and bidders arrive and depart dynamically. We suppose that agent valuations are drawn independently from some unknown distribution and construct an adaptive auction that is nevertheless value- andtime-strategy proof. For the k=1 problem we have a strategyproof variant on the classic secretary problem. We present a 4-competitive (e-competitive) strategyproof online algorithm with respect to offline Vickrey for revenue (efficiency). We also show (in a model that slightly generalizes the assumption of independent valuations) that no mechanism can be better than 3/2-competitive (2-competitive) for revenue (efficiency). Our general approach considers a learning phase followed by an accepting phase, and is careful to handle incentive issues for agents that span the two phases. We extend to the k›1 case, by deriving strategyproof mechanisms which are constant-competitive for revenue and efficiency. Finally, we present some strategyproof competitive algorithms for the case in which adversary uses a distribution known to the mechanism.


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
 
3
 
4
E. B. DYNKIN, The optimum choice of the instant for stopping a markov process, Sov. Math. Dokl., 4 (1963), pp. 627--629.
5
 
6
J. GALLIEN, Dynamic mechanism design for online commerce, tech. rep., Sloan School of Management, MIT, 2002.
 
7
J. P. GILBERT AND F. MOSTELLER, Recognizing the maximum of a sequence, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 61 (1966), pp. 35--73.
 
8
K. S. GLASSER, R. HOLZSAGER, AND A. BARRON, The d choice secretary problem, Comm. Statist. C--Sequential Anal., 2 (1983), pp. 177--199.
 
9
 
10
11
 
12
D. C. PARKES AND S. SINGH, An MDP-based approach to online mechanism design. In Proc. 17th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2003.
 
13
R. J. VANDERBEI, The optimal choice of a subset of a population, Math. Oper. Res., 5 (1980), pp. 481--486.
 
14
W. VICKREY, Counterspeculations, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders, Journal of Finance, 16 (1961), pp. 8--37.
 
15
J. G. WILSON, Optimal choice and assignment of the best m of n randomly arriving items, Stochastic Process. Appl., 39 (1991), pp. 325--343.

CITED BY  24

Collaborative Colleagues:
Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi: colleagues
Robert Kleinberg: colleagues
David C. Parkes: colleagues