Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:44:44.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - A New Payment Rule for Core-Selecting Package Auctions

from Part II - The Combinatorial Clock Auction Designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Aytek Erdil
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge
Paul Klemperer
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Oxford
Martin Bichler
Affiliation:
Technische Universität München
Jacob K. Goeree
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

Although the Combinatorial Clock Auction has been used in several spectrum auctions, the theoretical justification for the usual rule used to compute bidders’ payments is weak if “minimum revenue core” prices are not unique in the final (core-selecting package auction) stage. So this paper proposes an alternative way to compute bidders’ payments in that case. Specifically, we propose a new, easy-to-implement, class of payment rules: “Reference Rules”. In our simple model, Reference Rules give bidders lower marginal incentives to deviate from “truthful bidding” than the usual (“Vickrey-nearest”) payment rule, and are as robust as the usual rules to large deviations. (By contrast, small, almost-riskless, profitable deviations from “truthful bidding” are often easy for bidders to find under the usual rules.) Other considerations, including fairness and comprehensibility, also seem to support the use of Reference Rules. So although we take no position on the general merits, or otherwise, of Combinatorial Clock Auctions, we believe that using Reference Rules could improve their design.

Introduction

Day and Milgrom (2008) recently proposed a novel multi-object auction form – the “core-selecting package auction” – that seems sufficiently attractive, in particular in its handling of complementarities between objects, that it has already been adopted by regulators in several countries. The United States planned to use it for auctioning airport takeoff and landing slots, and the United Kingdom and other European countries have used it for auctioning radio spectrum.1 However Day and Milgrom's original work did not completely specify the auction's payment rules. This paper helps fill that gap.

A core-selecting auction takes sealed bids, identifies the “efficient” allocation (i.e., the allocation that would be value-maximising if all bids were actual values), and chooses associated payments so that the final (non-negative) payoffs are in the core (i.e., no set of bidders can join with the seller to form a “blocking coalition”). That is, a core-selecting auction allocates goods in the same way as a Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (henceforth, Vickrey) auction but substitutes core payments for Vickrey payments.

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, Peter, Cramton, and Paul, Milgrom (2006) “The clock-proxy auction: a practical combinatorial auction design.” In Combinatorial Auctions, edited by Peter, Cramton, Yoav, Shoham, and Richard, Steinberg, MIT Press.
Ausubel, Lawrence, and Paul, Milgrom (2002) “Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding.” Frontiersof Theoretical Economics, 1:1 Article 1.Google Scholar
Ausubel, Lawrence, and Paul, Milgrom (2006) “The lovely but lonely Vickrey auction.” In CombinatorialAuctions, edited by Peter, Cramton, Yoav, Shoham, and Richard, Steinberg, MIT Press.
Chatterjee, Kalyan, and William, Samuelson (1983) “Bargaining under Incomplete Information.” Operations Research, Vol. 31, No. 5, 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramton, Peter (2009) “Spectrum Auction Design.” U Maryland Working Paper.
Day, Robert W., and Peter, Cramton (2008) “The Quadratic Core-Selecting Payment Rule for Combinatorial Auctions.” U Maryland Working Paper.
Day, RobertW., and Paul, Milgrom (2008) “Core-selecting package auctions.” International Journalof Game Theory, 36:3–4, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Robert W., and S., Raghavan (2007) “Fair Payments for Efficient Allocations in Public Sector Combinatorial Auctions.” Management Science, 53:9 1389–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Benjamin, Michael, Ostrovsky, and Michael, Schwarz (2007) “Internet Advertising and the Generalized Second-Price Auction: Selling Billions of Dollars Worth of Keywords.” AmericanEconomic Review, 97:1 242–59.Google Scholar
Erdil, Aytek, and Paul, Klemperer (2009) “Alternative Payment Rules in Core-Selecting Package Auctions.” Unpublished notes, Oxford University.
Klemperer, Paul (2004) Auctions: Theory and Practice. (The Toulouse Lectures in Economics), Princeton University Press.
Klemperer, Paul (2008) “A New Auction for Substitutes: Central-Bank Liquidity Auctions, ‘Toxic Asset’ Auctions, and Variable Product-Mix Auctions.” mimeo, Oxford University.
Klemperer, Paul (2010) “The Product-Mix Auction: A New Auction Design for Differentiated Goods.” Journal of the European Economic Association, 8:2–3, 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, John O. (2007) “Optimal combinatoric auctions with single-minded bidders.” EC–07: Proc. 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubin, Benjamin, and David C., Parkes (2009) “Quantifying the Strategyproofness of Mechanisms via Metrics on Payoff Distributions.” Proc. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI-00), pp. 74–81.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul (2009) “Assignment Messages and Exchanges.” American Economic Journal:Microeconomics, 1:2 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger B., and Mark A., Satterthwaite (1983) “Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading.” Journal of Economic Theory, 29, 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkes, David C., Jayant, Kalagnanam, and Marta, Eso (2001) “Achieving Budget-Balance with Vickrey-Based Payment Schemes in Exchanges.” Proc. 17th Int'l Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI 01), pp. 1161–1168.Google Scholar
Parkes, David C., and Lyle H., Ungar (2000) “Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Theory and Practice.” Proc. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00), pp. 74–81.Google Scholar
Varian, Hal (2007) “Position auctions: Theory and Practice.” International Journal of IndustrialOrganization, 25, 1163–78.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
×