An Experimental Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Price Combinatorial Auctions

Combinatorial auctions are used for the efficient allocation of heterogeneous goods and services. They require appropriate software platforms that provide automated winner determination and decision support for bidders. Several promising ascending combinatorial auction formats have been developed throughout the past few years based on primal-dual algorithms and linear programming theory. The ascending proxy auction and iBundle result in Vickrey payoffs when the coalitional value function satisfies buyer submodularity conditions and bidders bid their best responses. These auction formats are based on nonlinear and personalized ask prices. In addition, there are a number of designs with linear prices that have performed well in experiments, the approximate linear prices auction, and the combinatorial clock auction. In this paper, we provide the results of lab experiments that tested these different auction formats in the same setting. We analyze aggregate metrics such as efficiency and auctioneer revenue for small-and medium-sized value models. In addition, we provide a detailed analysis not only of aggregate performance metrics but also of individual bidding behaviour under alternative combinatorial auction formats.

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

[2]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  The simultaneous, ascending auction: dynamics of price adjustment in experiments and in the UK3G spectrum auction , 2004 .

[3]  Alejandro Rodríguez Arana Bounded Rationality and Macroeconomic Policy Games , 2005 .

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

[5]  Anthony M. Kwasnica,et al.  A New and Improved Design for Multiobject Iterative Auctions , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[6]  P. Cramton Money Out of Thin Air: The Nationwide Narrowband PCS Auction , 1995 .

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

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

[9]  Jesse A. Schwartz,et al.  Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions , 2001 .

[10]  J. Banks,et al.  Allocating uncertain and unresponsive resources: an experimental approach. , 1989, The Rand journal of economics.

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

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

[13]  Martin Bichler,et al.  A Computational Analysis of Linear Price Iterative Combinatorial Auction Formats , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[15]  F. Kelly,et al.  A Combinatorial Auction with Multiple Winners for Universal Service , 2000 .

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

[17]  Jesse A. Schwartz,et al.  Collusive Bidding: Lessons from the FCC Spectrum Auctions , 2000 .

[18]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Individual bidder behavior in first-price private value auctions , 1985 .

[19]  Alok Gupta,et al.  A theoretical and empirical investigation of multi‐item on‐line auctions , 2000, Inf. Technol. Manag..

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

[21]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Alok Gupta,et al.  Insights and analyses of online auctions , 2001, CACM.

[23]  R. Isaac,et al.  Robustness of the Incentive Compatible Combinatorial Auction , 2000 .

[24]  Michael H. Rothkopf,et al.  Decision Analysis: The Right Tool for Auctions , 2007, Decis. Anal..

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

[26]  J. Ledyard,et al.  Experiments Testing Multiobject Allocation Mechanisms , 1997 .

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

[28]  Eiichiro Kazumori,et al.  Auctions with Package Bidding: An Experimental Study , 2005 .

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

[30]  A. Roth Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: A Methodological Overview , 1988 .

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

[32]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Decentralized Mechanism Design for Supply Chain Organizations Using an Auction Market , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[33]  Yan Chen,et al.  Multi-object auctions with package bidding: An experimental comparison of Vickrey and iBEA , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[34]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .

[35]  Stephen J. Rassenti,et al.  Theory, experiment and the federal communications commission spectrum auctions , 2003 .

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

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

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