Skip to main content

Optimal bidding algorithms against cheating in multiple-object auctions

  • Session 6: Cryptography and Computational Finance
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1276))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 100 Accesses

Abstract

This paper studies some basic problems in a multiple-object auction model using methodologies from theoretical computer science. We are especially concerned with situations where an adversary bidder knows the bidding algorithms of all the other bidders. In the two-bidder case, we derive an optimal randomized bidding algorithm, by which the disadvantaged bidder can procure at least half of the auction objects despite the adversary's a priori knowledge of his algorithm. In the general k-bidder case, if the number of objects is a multiple of k, an optimal randomized bidding algorithm is found. If the k − 1 disadvantaged bidders employ that same algorithm, each of them can obtain at least 1/k of the objects regardless of the bidding algorithm the adversary uses. These two algorithms are based on closed-form solutions to certain multivariate probability distributions. In situations where a closed-form solution cannot be obtained, we study a restricted class of bidding algorithms as an approximation to desired optimal algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V. Benes and J. Stepan, Extremal solutions in the marginal problem, in Advances in Probability Distributions with Given Marginals, 1991, pp. 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Blackwell, An analog of the minimax theorem for vector payoffs, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 6 (1956), pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Blackwell and M. A. Girshick, Theory of Games and Statistical Decisions, John Wiley & Sons, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. Dall'Aglio, Fréchet classes: The beginnings, in Advances in Probability Distributions with Given Marginals, 1991, pp. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. L. Eager and J. Zahorjan, Adaptive guided self-scheduling, Tech. Report TR 92-01-01, University of Washington, Jan. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Fréchet, Sur les tableaux de corrélation dont les marges sont données, Annales de l'Université de Lyon, Lyon Science, 20 (1951), pp. 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Y. Freund and R. Schapire, Game theory, on-line prediction and boosting, in Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole, Game Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. A. Gagliano, M. D. Fraser, and M. E. Schaefer, Auction allocation of computing resources, Communications of the ACM, 38 (1995), pp. 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. Hendricks and H. J. Paarsh, A survey of recent empirical work concerning auctions, Canadian Journal of Economics, 28 (1995), pp. 403–426.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Kotz and J. P. Seeger, A new approach to dependence in multivariate distributions, in Advances in Probability Distributions with Given Marginals, 1991, pp. 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  12. H. C. Lin and C. S. Raghavendra, A dynamic load-balancing policy with a centralized job dispatcher (LBC), IEEE Trans. on Softw. Eng., 18 (1992), pp. 148–258.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. P. McAfee, Auctions and bidding, Journal of Economic Literature, 25 (1987), pp. 699–738.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. R. Milgrom, Good news and bad news: Representation theorems and applications, Bell Journal of Economics, 12 (1981), pp. 380–391.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. R. Milgrom and R. J. Weber, A theory of auctions and competitive bidding, Econometrica, 50 (1982), pp. 1089–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. B. Myerson, Optimal auction design, Mathematics of Operations Research, 6 (1981), pp. 58–73.

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. Pitchik and A. Schotter, Perfect equilibria in budget-constrained sequential auctions: an experimental study, RAND Journal of Economics, 19 (1988), pp. 363–388.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B. Schweizer, Thirty years of copulas, in Advances in Probability Distributions with Given Marginals, 1991, pp. 13–50.

    Google Scholar 

  19. N. G. Shivaratri, P. Krueger, and M. Shinghal, Load distributing for locally distributed systems, IEEE Computer, (1992), pp. 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Wilson, Handbook of Game Theory, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. H. Yang, M. M. Barash, and D. M. Upton, Accommodation of priority parts in a distributed computer-controlled manufacturing system with aggregate bidding schemes, in Proceedings of the 2nd Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 1993, pp. 827–831.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Tao Jiang D. T. Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kao, MY., Qi, J., Tan, L. (1997). Optimal bidding algorithms against cheating in multiple-object auctions. In: Jiang, T., Lee, D.T. (eds) Computing and Combinatorics. COCOON 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1276. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0045086

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0045086

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63357-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69522-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics