Efficiency with linear prices: a theoretical and experimental analysis of the combinatorial clock auction.

Combinatorial auctions have been suggested as a mean to raise efficiency in multi-item negotiations with complementarities as they can be found in procurement, in energy markets, in transportation, and for the sale of spectrum auctions. Anonymous linear ask prices are desirable and sometimes even essential for many of these applications. The Combinatorial Clock (CC) auction [4] has become very popular in these markets for its simplicity and as it "produces highly usable price discovery, because of the item prices (linear pricing)" [1]. Unfortunately, the CC auction fails to lead always to efficient outcomes, and there is no theory on equilibrium bidding strategies in such auctions. Given the importance of the CC auction in the field, it is desirable to better understand this auction format. In our paper, we show that the worst-case efficiency in the CC auction can actually be as low as 0%, if bidders follow the straightforward strategy. We identify demand-masking valuations, i.e., the characteristics of valuation functions, which can cause such low efficiencies. As an alternative we evaluate a powerset strategy, which also leads to 0% efficiency in the worst case. Knowing which situations cause inefficiencies the key question is, if there is any way to make the CC auction fully efficient and incentive compatible. We show what is necessary to achieve these properties and that this is actually possible, which is not obvious given the negative results on linear competitive equilibrium prices in the literature. We introduce an extension of the CC auction, the CC+ auction, with a simple, modified price update rule and a VCG payment rule. We show that powerset bidding in the CC+ auction leads to efficient outcomes and an ex-post Nash equilibrium for general valuations, while maintaining linear ask prices. Efficient iterative combinatorial auctions have already been proposed in the literature [2, 3], but all these auctions use nonlinear and personalized prices. Additionally they need a strong assumption on the coalitional value function to achieve an ex-post Nash equilibrium in straightforward bidding. The assumptions on the CC+ auction are also strong to achieve the desired properties. For example the powerset strategy is restrictive and might only be possible in very small scenarios. In computational experiments we relax the strong assumptions and show that both the CC and CC+ auctions achieve high levels of efficiency, even if bidders are restricted to submit only a small number of bids in each round. The results indicate that the CC+ auction is robust against various deviations from powerset bidding strategies which also explains high levels of efficiency of the CC auction that have been observed in the lab. Comparing the number of bids and auction rounds with efficient non-linear price auction formats, we observe considerably lower numbers in the CC and CC+ auctions on average.

[1]  Martin Bichler,et al.  On the robustness of non-linear personalized price combinatorial auctions , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Combinatorial Auctions , 2005, Encyclopedia of Wireless Networks.

[3]  D. Gale,et al.  Multi-Item Auctions , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  V. Crawford,et al.  Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes , 1982 .

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

[6]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[7]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  A theory of auctions and competitive bidding , 1982 .

[8]  Martin Bichler,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Price Combinatorial Auctions , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[9]  S. Rassenti,et al.  Smart Computer-Assisted Markets , 1991, Science.

[10]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  GROVES' SCHEME ON RESTRICTED DOMAINS , 1979 .

[11]  P. Cramton Auctioning the Digital Dividend , 2009 .

[12]  Ronald M. Harstad,et al.  Modeling Competitive Bidding: A Critical Essay , 1994 .

[13]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Towards a universal test suite for combinatorial auction algorithms , 2000, EC '00.

[14]  S. Reiter,et al.  The informational size of message spaces , 1974 .

[15]  Ronnie Belmans,et al.  Block order restrictions in combinatorial electric energy auctions , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Characterization of Satisfactory Mechanisms for the Revelation of Preferences for Public Goods , 1977 .

[17]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  An Experimental Test of Flexible Combinatorial Spectrum Auction Formats , 2010 .

[18]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Ex Ante Information and the Design of Keyword Auctions , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[19]  S. Rassenti,et al.  A Combinatorial Auction Mechanism for Airport Time Slot Allocation , 1982 .

[20]  Sushil Bikhchandani,et al.  The Package Assignment Model , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[21]  P. Cramton,et al.  Introduction to Combinatorial Auctions , 2006 .

[22]  P. Keskinocak,et al.  Bidding strategies and their impact on revenues in combinatorial auctions , 2005 .

[23]  J. Jordan The competitive allocation process is informationally efficient uniquely , 1982 .

[24]  Steven R. Williams A characterization of efficient, bayesian incentive compatible mechanisms , 1999 .

[25]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Designing smart markets , 2010 .

[26]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  Competitive Equilibrium in an Exchange Economy with Indivisibilities , 1997 .

[27]  Ramayya Krishnan,et al.  On Evaluating Information Revelation Policies in Procurement Auctions: A Markov Decision Process Approach , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  Alok Gupta,et al.  Toward Comprehensive Real-Time Bidder Support in Iterative Combinatorial Auctions , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Iterative Combinatorial Auctions , 2006 .

[30]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Ascending Prices and Package Bidding: An Experimental Analysis * , 2008 .

[31]  Timothy C. Salmon,et al.  A Theory of Jump Bidding in Ascending Auctions , 2004 .

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

[33]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Incentives in public decision-making , 1979 .

[34]  Jacob K. Goeree,et al.  Hierarchical package bidding: A paper & pencil combinatorial auction , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[35]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  Ascending Proxy Auctions , 2005 .

[36]  Ennio Stacchetti,et al.  The English Auction with Differentiated Commodities , 2000, J. Econ. Theory.

[37]  N. Nisan,et al.  The Communication Complexity of Efficient Allocation Problems , 2002 .

[38]  Chris Caplice,et al.  Combinatorial Auctions for Truckload Transportation , 2005 .

[39]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Hope or Hype: On the Viability of Escrow Services as Trusted Third Parties in Online Auction Environments , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  Sven de Vries,et al.  On ascending Vickrey auctions for heterogeneous objects , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[41]  Faruk Gul,et al.  WALRASIAN EQUILIBRIUM WITH GROSS SUBSTITUTES , 1999 .

[42]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  The Clock-Proxy Auction: A Practical Combinatorial Auction Design , 2004 .

[43]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Pricing combinatorial auctions , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[44]  Noam Nisan,et al.  The communication requirements of efficient allocations and supporting prices , 2006, J. Econ. Theory.

[45]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  A Market-Based Optimization Algorithm for Distributed Systems , 2007, Manag. Sci..

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

[47]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Ascending Price Vickrey Auctions for General Valuations , 2005, J. Econ. Theory.

[48]  S. Raghavan,et al.  Fair Payments for Efficient Allocations in Public Sector Combinatorial Auctions , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[49]  Jérémie Gallien,et al.  A Smart Market for Industrial Procurement with Capacity Constraints , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[50]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Vote elicitation: complexity and strategy-proofness , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[51]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Theory and Practice , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[52]  Jan Stallaert,et al.  A Market Design for Grid Computing , 2008, INFORMS J. Comput..

[53]  N. Georgescu-Roegen Methods in Economic Science , 1979 .

[54]  Michael H. Rothkopf,et al.  Thirteen Reasons Why the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves Process Is Not Practical , 2007, Oper. Res..

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

[56]  David Levine,et al.  Changing the Game in Strategic Sourcing at Procter & Gamble: Expressive Competition Enabled by Optimization , 2006, Interfaces.

[57]  Chrysanthos Dellarocas,et al.  Vertically Differentiated Simultaneous Vickrey Auctions: Theory and Experimental Evidence , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[58]  K. Arrow,et al.  EXISTENCE OF AN EQUILIBRIUM FOR A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY , 1954 .

[59]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Industrial Procurement Auctions , 2005 .

[60]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions , 2001, AAMAS '02.

[61]  David Porter,et al.  Combinatorial auction design , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.