ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Online ascending auctions for gradually expiring items
Full text PdfPdf (1.10 MB)
Source Symposium on Discrete Algorithms archive
Proceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms table of contents
Vancouver, British Columbia
SESSION: Session 12C table of contents
Pages: 1146 - 1155  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:0-89871-585-7
Authors
Ron Lavi  SISL/IST, California Institute of Technology
Noam Nisan  The Hebrew University
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
: SIAM Activity Group on Discrete Mathematics
Publisher
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics  Philadelphia, PA, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 41,   Citation Count: 18
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

In this paper we consider online auction mechanisms for the allocation of M items that are identical to each other except for the fact that they have different expiration times, and each item must be allocated before it expires. Players arrive at different times, and wish to buy one item before their deadline. The main difficulty is that players act "selfishly" and may mis-report their values, deadlines, or arrival times. We begin by showing that the usual notion of truthfulness (where players follow a single dominant strategy) cannot be used in this case, since any (deterministic) truthful auction cannot obtain better than an M-approximation of the social welfare. Therefore, instead of designing auctions in which players should follow a single strategy, we design two auctions that perform well under a wide class of selfish, "semi-myopic", strategies. For every combination of such strategies, the auction is associated with a different algorithm, and so we have a family of "semi-myopic" algorithms. We show that any algorithm in this family obtains a 3-approximation, and by this conclude that our auctions will perform well under any choice of such semi-myopic behaviors. We next turn to provide a game-theoretic justification for acting in such a semi-myopic way. We suggest a new notion of "Set-Nash" equilibrium, where we cannot pin-point a single best-response strategy, but rather only a set of possible best-response strategies. We show that our auctions have a Set-Nash equilibrium which is all semi-myopic, hence guarantees a 3-approximation. We believe that this notion is of independent interest.


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
Y. Bartal, F. Y. L. Chin, M. Chrobak, S. P. Y. Fung, W. Jawor, R. Lavi, J. Sgall, and T. Tichy. Online competitive algorithms for maximizing weighted through-put of unit jobs. In Proc. of the 21st Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, 2004.
5
 
6
Y. Bartal and R. Lavi. Analysis of the ß-opt algorithm, 2002. Unpublished manuscript.
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
G. Demange, D. Gale, and M. Sotomayor. Multi-item auctions. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4):863--872, 1986.
 
11
12
13
 
14
F. Gul and E. Stacchetti. The english auction with differentiated commodities. Journal of Economic Theory, 92:66--95, 2000.
 
15
B. Hajek. On the competitiveness of on-line scheduling of unit-length packets with hard deadlines in slotted time. In Proc. of the 2001 Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, 2001.
16
 
17
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
R. Lavi and N. Nisan. Online ascending auctions for gradually expiring items, 2004. http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~tron/papers/online-ascending.ps.
22
23
 
24
A. Mas-Colell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford university press, 1995.
 
25
N. Nisan and A. Ronen. Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 35:166--196, 2001.
26
 
27
M. P. Wellman, W. E. Walsh, P. R. Wurman, and J. K. MacKie-Mason. Auction protocols for decentralized scheduling. Games and Economic Behavior, 35:271--303, 2001.

CITED BY  18