Worst-case efficiency ratio in false-name-proof combinatorial auction mechanisms

This paper analyzes the worst-case efficiency ratio of false-name-proof combinatorial auction mechanisms. False-name-proofness generalizes strategy-proofness by assuming that a bidder can submit multiple bids under fictitious identifiers. Even the well-known Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism is not false-name-proof. It has previously been shown that there is no false-name-proof mechanism that always achieves a Pareto efficient allocation. Consequently, if false-name bids are possible, we need to sacrifice efficiency to some extent. This leaves the natural question of how much surplus must be sacrificed. To answer this question, this paper focuses on worst-case analysis. Specifically, we consider the fraction of the Pareto efficient surplus that we obtain and try to maximize this fraction in the worst-case, under the constraint of false-name-proofness. As far as we are aware, this is the first attempt to examine the worst-case efficiency of false-name-proof mechanisms. We show that the worst-case efficiency ratio of any false-name-proof mechanism that satisfies some apparently minor assumptions is at most 2/(m + 1) for auctions with m different goods. We also observe that the worst-case efficiency ratio of existing false-name-proof mechanisms is generally 1/m or 0. Finally, we propose a novel mechanism, called the adaptive reserve price mechanism that is false-name-proof when all bidders are single-minded. The worst-case efficiency ratio is 2/(m + 1), i.e., optimal.

[1]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[2]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Robust Combinatorial Auction Protocol against False-Name Bids , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Towards a characterization of truthful combinatorial auctions , 2003, 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[4]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .

[5]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[6]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2002, JACM.

[7]  H. Moulin E ffi cient , strategy-proof and almost budget-balanced assignment , 2007 .

[8]  Michel Gendreau,et al.  Combinatorial auctions , 2007, Ann. Oper. Res..

[9]  John O. Ledyard,et al.  Optimal combinatoric auctions with single-minded bidders , 2007, EC '07.

[10]  Anna R. Karlin,et al.  Beyond VCG: frugality of truthful mechanisms , 2005, 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'05).

[11]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[12]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Worst-case optimal redistribution of VCG payments in multi-unit auctions , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[13]  Kenneth Steiglitz,et al.  Frugality in path auctions , 2004, SODA '04.

[14]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Frugal path mechanisms , 2002, SODA '02.

[15]  Artur Czumaj,et al.  On the expected payment of mechanisms for task allocation , 2004, PODC '04.

[16]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: new fraud in internet auctions , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..