Core-competitive Auctions

One of the major drawbacks of the celebrated VCG auction is its low (or zero) revenue even when the agents have high value for the goods and a competitive outcome would have generated a significant revenue. A competitive outcome is one for which it is impossible for the seller and a subset of buyers to 'block' the auction by defecting and negotiating an outcome with higher payoffs for themselves. This corresponds to the well-known concept of core in cooperative game theory. In particular, VCG revenue is known to be not competitive when the goods being sold have complementarities. Complementary goods are present in many application domains including spectrum, procurement, and ad auctions. The absence of good revenue from VCG auction poses a real hurdle when trying to design auctions for these settings. Given the importance of these application domains, researchers have looked for alternate auction designs. One important research direction that has come from this line of thinking is that of the design of core-selecting auctions (See Ausubel and Milgrom, Day and Milgrom, Day and Cramton, Ausubel and Baranov). Core-selecting auctions are combinatorial auctions whose outcome implements competitive prices even when the goods are complements. While these auction designs have been implemented in practice in various scenarios and are known for having good revenue properties, they lack the desired incentive-compatibility property of the VCG auction. A bottleneck here is an impossibility result showing that there is no auction that simultaneously achieves competitive prices (a core outcome) and incentive-compatibility. In this paper we try to overcome the above impossibility result by asking the following natural question: is it possible to design an incentive-compatible auction whose revenue is comparable (even if less) to a competitive outcome? Towards this, we define a notion of core-competitive auctions. We say that an incentive-compatible auction is α-core-competitive if its revenue is at least 1/α fraction of the minimum revenue of a core-outcome. We study one of the most commonly occurring setting in Internet advertisement with complementary goods, namely that of the Text-and-Image setting. In this setting, there is an ad slot which can be filled with either a single image ad or k text ads. We design an O(ln ln k) core-competitive randomized auction and an O(√ln k) competitive deterministic auction for the Text-and-Image setting. We also show that both factors are tight.

[1]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  The Lovely but Lonely Vickrey Auction , 2004 .

[2]  Robert W. Day,et al.  Quadratic Core-Selecting Payment Rules for Combinatorial Auctions , 2012, Oper. Res..

[3]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  On profit-maximizing envy-free pricing , 2005, SODA '05.

[4]  Silvio Micali,et al.  Collusion-Resilient Revenue In Combinatorial Auctions , 2007 .

[5]  Laurent Lamy,et al.  Core-selecting package auctions: a comment on revenue-monotonicity , 2010, Int. J. Game Theory.

[6]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Derandomization of auctions , 2005, STOC '05.

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

[8]  Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.  Competitiveness via consensus , 2003, SODA '03.

[9]  Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.  Competitive auctions and digital goods , 2001, SODA '01.

[10]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  First-Price Procurement Auctions , 2010 .

[11]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Core-selecting package auctions , 2008, Int. J. Game Theory.

[12]  Jason D. Hartline Mechanism Design and Approximation , 2014 .

[13]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Frugality ratios and improved truthful mechanisms for vertex cover , 2006, EC '07.

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

[15]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Competitive generalized auctions , 2002, STOC '02.

[16]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  Prior-free auctions for budgeted agents , 2012, EC '13.

[17]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Optimal Lower Bounds for Anonymous Scheduling Mechanisms , 2012, Math. Oper. Res..

[18]  Jason D. Hartline,et al.  Knapsack auctions , 2006, SODA '06.

[19]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Prior-free auctions with ordered bidders , 2012, STOC '12.

[20]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Near-optimal multi-unit auctions with ordered bidders , 2012, EC '13.

[21]  Aytek Erdil,et al.  A New Payment Rule for Core-Selecting Package Auctions , 2009 .

[22]  J. Goeree,et al.  On the Impossibility of Core-Selecting Auctions , 2009 .

[23]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding , 2002 .

[24]  Ning Chen,et al.  Frugal Mechanism Design via Spectral Techniques , 2009, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[25]  Jason D. Hartline,et al.  Envy, truth, and profit , 2011, EC '11.

[26]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  Frugal and Truthful Auctions for Vertex Covers, Flows and Cuts , 2009, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[27]  Jason D. Hartline,et al.  Mechanism Design via Consensus Estimates, Cross Checking, and Profit Extraction , 2011, TEAC.

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