Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T03:42:28.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Assignment Messages and Exchanges

from Part III - Alternative Auction Designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Paul R. Milgrom
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Stanford University
Martin Bichler
Affiliation:
Technische Universität München
Jacob K. Goeree
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

In abstract mechanism theory, the designer is often presumed able to create a direct mechanism in which each participant reports its “type,” revealing the participant's preferences along with anything else the participant may know. In practice, these details can be too numerous to report. For example, in Federal Communciations Commission (FCC) Auction No. 66 with 1,132 licenses for sale, a type includes a vector of values for every subset of licenses. Reporting that vector would have entailed reporting 21132 numbers.

One approach to mitigating the length-of-report problem is to simplify reporting by limiting the message space. The National Resident Matching Program uses this approach. It limits hospitals’ reports to a number of positions and a rank order list of candidates. If a hospital has 10 openings and interviews 50 candidates, it reports the number 10 and a list of 50—a manageably short message. In contrast, because the number of classes of 10 or fewer doctors from among 50 is about 1.3 × 1010, a general type report, including a rank order list of all those classes, would be impracticably long.

This paper introduces and analyzes a new message space—the space of assignment messages—designed for use in auctions, exchanges, and other applications where goods are substitutes. Assignment messages describe preferences indirectly as the value of a linear program for which the set of constraints is describable as a structured collection of trees or hierarchies. We show that if the constraints have this form, then the goods are substitutes, regardless of the various parameters. Conversely, if the constraints describing substitution among different goods do not respect the tree structure, then there exist parameters such that goods are not a substitutes. In that sense, the constraint structure employed by assignment messages is the most general one consistent with substitutable preferences in linear programming.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ausubel, Lawrence M. 2001. “System and Method for an Efficient Dynamic Multi-Unit Auction.” US Patent 7,165,046, filed July 5, 2001, and issued January 16, 2007.
Ausubel, Lawrence M. 2004. “An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects.” AmericanEconomic Review, 94 5: 1452–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, Lawrence M., and Peter, Cramton. 2004. “Auctioning Many Divisible Goods.” Journalof the European Economic Association, 2(2–3): 480–93.Google Scholar
Ausubel, Lawrence M., and Paul R., Milgrom. 2002. “Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding.” Frontiers of Theoretical Economics, 1 (1): Article 1.Google Scholar
Ausubel, Lawrence M., and Paul R., Milgrom. 2006. “The Lovely but Lonely Vickrey Auction.” In Combinatorial Auctions, ed. Peter, Cramton, Yoav, Shoham, and Richard, Steinberg, 17–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Budish, Eric, Yeon-Koo, Che, Fuhito, Kojima, and Paul R., Milgrom. 2008 “Implementing Random Assignments: A Generalization of the Birkhoff-Von Neumann Theorem.” Unpublished.
Compte, Olivier, and Philippe, Jehiel. 2000. “On the Virtues of the Ascending Price Auction: New Insights in the Private Value Setting.” www.enpc.fr/ceras/compte/ascend.pdf.
Cramton, Peter, Yoav, Shoham, and Richard, Steinberg. 2006. Combinatorial Auctions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crawford, Vincent P. 2008. “The Flexible-SalaryMatch: A Proposal to Increase the Salary Flexibility of the National Resident Matching Program.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66 2: 149–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, David. 1960. The Theory of Linear Economic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gul, Faruk, and Ennio, Stacchetti. 1999. “Walrasian Equilibrium with Gross Substitutes.” Journalof Economic Theory, 87 1: 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gul, Faruk, and Ennio, Stacchetti. 2000. “The English Auction with Differentiated Commodities.” Journal of Economic Theory, 92 1: 66–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, John William, and Paul R., Milgrom. 2005. “Matching with Contracts.” American EconomicReview, 95 4: 913–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, I., and C. B., Tompkins. 1956. “An Extension of a Theorem of Dantzig’ s.” In Linear Inequalitiesand Related Systems, ed. HaroldWilliam, Kuhn and AlbertWilliam, Tucker, 247–54. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kelso, Alexander S., Jr., and Vincent P., Crawford. 1982. “Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes.” Econometrica, 50 6: 1483–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, Paul D. 2008. “A New Auction for Substitutes: Central Bank Liquidity Auctions, the U.S. TARP, and Variable Product-Mix Auctions.” www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/klemperer/substsauc_ NonConfidentialVersion.pdf.
Kremer, Ilan, and Kjell G., Nyborg. 2004. “Divisible-Good Auctions: The Role of Allocation Rules.” RAND Journal of Economics, 35 1: 147–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdams, David. 2002. “Modifying the Uniform-Price Auction to Eliminate ‘Collusive-Seeming Equilibria.”’ www.nyu.edu/sed2002/pdfs/at2-2-txt.pdf.
Milgrom, Paul. Forthcoming. “Simplified Mechanisms with an Application to Sponsored-Search Auctions.” Games and Economic Behavior.
Milgrom, Paul. 2000. “Putting Auction Theory to Work: The Simultaneous Ascending Auction.” Journal of Political Economy, 108 2: 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul. 2004. Putting Auction Theory toWork. Cambridge,MA: Cambridge University Press.
Milgrom, Paul. 2007. “Package Auctions and Exchanges.” Econometrica, 75 (4):935–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul, and Bruno, Strulovici. 2009. “Substitute Goods, Auctions, and Equilibrium.” Journalof Economic Theory, 144 1: 212–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisan, Noam. 2006. “Bidding Languages for Combinatorial Auctions.” In Combinatorial Auctions, ed. Peter, Cramton, Yoav, Shoham, and Richard, Steinberg, 215–31. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rezende, Leonardo. 2005. “Mid-Auction Information Acquisition.” https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ lrezende/www/noise.pdf.
Shapley, Lloyd S., and Martin, Shubik. 1971. “The Assignment Game I: The Core.” InternationalJournal of Game Theory, 1 1: 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topkis, Donald M. 1978. “Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice.” Operations Research, 26 2: 305–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert B. 1979. “Auctions of Shares.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93 4: 675–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×