On the communication requirements of verifying the VCG outcome

We consider the amount of communication required to verify the outcome of the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanism: an efficient allocation together with incentivizing VCG payments. We compare this to the communication required to verify the efficient decision rule alone, to assess the overhead imposed by VCG payments. Our characterizations are obtained by leveraging a connection between the VCG outcome and a price equilibrium concept known as universal competitive equilibrium. We consider four related environments within a common framework: the classic single-item setting, the multi-unit setting with decreasing marginal values, the classic assignment problem with unit-demand valuations, and the multi-unit assignment problem with substitutes valuations. We find that the single-unit settings have zero overhead, whereas the multi-unit settings can have significant positive overhead. With multiple units, the naïve VCG protocol that runs several efficient protocols in sequence (one with all agents, and ones with an agent removed, for each agent) is asymptotically optimal for several parameter settings of the number of agents, commodities, and units.

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

[2]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Price-Based Information Certificates for Minimal-Revelation Combinatorial Auctions , 2002, AMEC.

[3]  T. Groves,et al.  Efficient Collective Choice when Compensation is Possible , 1979 .

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

[5]  Ronald Fadel,et al.  The communication cost of selfishness , 2009, J. Econ. Theory.

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

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

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

[9]  H. Leonard Elicitation of Honest Preferences for the Assignment of Individuals to Positions , 1983, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Lawrence M. Ausubel An efficient dynamic auction for heterogeneous commodities , 2006 .

[11]  E. H. Clarke Multipart pricing of public goods , 1971 .

[12]  Vijay Krishna,et al.  Efficient Mechanism Design , 1998 .

[13]  David C. Parkes,et al.  More on the Power of Demand Queries in Combinatorial Auctions: Learning Atomic Languages and Handling Incentives , 2005, IJCAI.

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

[15]  Lawrence M. Ausubel An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects , 2004 .

[16]  William Vickrey,et al.  Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

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

[18]  M. Rothkopf,et al.  Why Are Vickrey Auctions Rare? , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Daniel Lehmann,et al.  Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities , 2001, EC '01.

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

[21]  Zaifu Yang,et al.  A Note on Kelso and Crawford's Gross Substitutes Condition , 2003, Math. Oper. Res..

[22]  David C. Parkes,et al.  An Ascending-Price Generalized Vickrey Auction , 2002 .

[23]  L. Shapley,et al.  The assignment game I: The core , 1971 .

[24]  S. Reichelstein Incentive compatibility and informational requirements , 1984 .

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

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

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