Sequential Bandwidth and Power Auctions for Distributed Spectrum Sharing

We study a sequential auction for sharing a wireless resource (bandwidth or power) among competing transmitters. The resource is assumed to be managed by a spectrum broker (auctioneer), who collects bids and allocates discrete units of the resource via a sequential second-price auction. It is well known that a second price auction for a single indivisible good has an efficient dominant strategy equilibrium; this is no longer the case when multiple units of a homogeneous good are sold in repeated iterations. For two users with full information, we show that such an auction has a unique equilibrium allocation. The worst-case efficiency of this allocation is characterized under the following cases: (i) both bidders have a concave valuation for the spectrum resource, and (ii) one bidder has a concave valuation and the other bidder has a convex valuation (e.g., for the other useriquests power). Although the worst-case efficiency loss can be significant, numerical results are presented, which show that for randomly placed transmitter-receiver pairs with rate utility functions, the sequential second-price auction typically achieves the efficient allocation. For more than two users it is shown that this mechanism always has a pure strategy equilibrium, but in general there may be multiple equilibria. We give a constructive procedure for finding one equilibrium; numerical results show that when all users have concave valuations the efficiency loss decreases with an increase in the number of users.

[1]  Shane Greenstein,et al.  Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets , 2001 .

[2]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  Spectrum sharing for unlicensed bands , 2005, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[3]  John N. Tsitsiklis,et al.  Efficiency loss in a network resource allocation game: the case of elastic supply , 2005, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[4]  Armando Ortega-Reichert Models for competitive bidding under uncertainty , 1967 .

[5]  Dov Monderer,et al.  A Learning Approach to Auctions , 1998 .

[6]  K. Steiglitz Snipers, Shills, and Sharks: eBay and Human Behavior , 2007 .

[7]  Daniel R. Vincent,et al.  The Declining Price Anomaly , 1993 .

[8]  S. Bikhchandani Reputation in repeated second-price auctions , 1988 .

[9]  Jon M. Peha,et al.  Real-Time Secondary Markets for Spectrum , 2003 .

[10]  N. Mandayam,et al.  Demand responsive pricing and competitive spectrum allocation via a spectrum server , 2005, First IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, 2005. DySPAN 2005..

[11]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

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

[13]  Johannes Hörner,et al.  Private Information in Repeated Auctions , 2003 .

[14]  Shuguang Cui,et al.  Price-Based Spectrum Management in Cognitive Radio Networks , 2008, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process..

[15]  R. Weber Multiple-Object Auctions , 1981 .

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

[17]  N.B. Mandayam,et al.  Scheduling variable rate links via a spectrum server , 2005, First IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, 2005. DySPAN 2005..

[18]  Michael L. Honig,et al.  Distributed interference compensation for wireless networks , 2006, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[19]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Sequential Auctions for the Allocation of Resources with Complementarities , 1999, IJCAI.

[20]  Michael L. Honig,et al.  Auction-Based Spectrum Sharing , 2006, Mob. Networks Appl..

[21]  Johannes Hörner,et al.  Sequential Common-Value Auctions with Asymmetrically Informed Bidders , 2008 .

[22]  D. Hausch,et al.  Multi-object auctions: sequential vs. simultaneous sales , 1986 .