Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:16:13.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robustness of the Incentive Compatible Combinatorial Auction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

R. Mark Isaac  and
Duncan James
R. Mark Isaac
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Department of Economics/Tocson, AZ 85721, USA
Duncan James
Affiliation:
Fordham University, Department of Economics/Bronx, NY 10458, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Goods are said to be combinatorial when the value of a bundle of goods is not equal to the sum of the values of the same goods unbundled. Investigations of combinatorial allocation problems should recognize that there are two separate aspects of such problems: an environmental distinction between multiple-unit allocation problems which involve combinatorial goods and those which do not do so, and an institutional distinction between auctions in which combinatorial values can be expressed as part of the bidding rules and those in which they cannot. Forsythe and Isaac (Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 2 (1982). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc.) reports the extension of the Vickrey auction into a demand-revealing, multiple unit, private goods auction that can incorporate combinatorial values. This current paper places that theoretically demand-revealing institution in a series of experimental environments in order to generate results (e.g. efficiencies) which may serve as a benchmark for other auctions (combinatorial or otherwise) whose implementation characteristics may be more favorable. To aid in interpretation of our Vickrey experimental results, we also provide results of alternatives to Vickrey allocations from both institutional and heuristic sources, as well as a discussion of the source of the Vickrey auctions high efficiencies even in the presence of misrevelation.

Keywords

combinatorialauctionsVickreyexperiments

JEL classification

D44: Auctions C90: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , June 2000 , pp. 31 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Economic Science Association

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

Attiyeh, G., Franciosi, R., and Isaac, R.M. (2000). “Experiments With the Pivot Process for Providing Public Goods.” Public Choice. 102, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, J.S., Ledyard, J.O., and Porter, D.P. (1989). “Allocating Uncertain and Unresponsive Resources: An Experimental Approach.” Rand Journal of Economics. 20, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, J.C., Isaac, R.M., Cech, P.-A., and Conn, D. (1996). “Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection in Procurement Contracting.” Games and Economic Behavior. 17, 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J.C., Roberson, B., and Smith, V.L. (1982). “Theory and Behavior of Single Object Auctions.” In Smith, V.L. (ed.), Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 2. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R. and Isaac, R.M. (1982). “Demand-Revealing Mechanisms for Private Good Auctions.” In Smith, V.L. (ed.), Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 2. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Laffont, J.-J. (1977). “Characterization of Satisfactory Mechanisms for the Revelation of Preferences of Public Goods.” Econometrica. 45, 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grether, D., Isaac, R.M., and Plott, C.R. (1989). The Allocation of Scarce Resources: Experimental Economics and the Problem of Allocating Airport Slots. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Groves, T. (1973). “Incentives in Teams.” Econometrica. 41, 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J.H., Harstad, R.M., and Levin, D. (1987). “Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions With Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study.” Econometrica. 55, 1275–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawagoe, T. and Mori, T. (1998). “Can Pivotal Mechanisms Induce Truthtelling? An Experimental Study.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
Krishna, V. and Rosenthal, R. (1995). “Simultaneous Auctions With Synergies.” Department of Economics, Boston University, ISP Discussion Paper #56.Google Scholar
Rassenti, S., Smith, V.L., and Bulfin, R.L. (1982). “A Combinatorial Auction Mechanism for Airport Time Slot Allocation.” Bell Journal of Economics. 13, 402–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothkopf, M., Pekec, A., and Harstad, R.M. (1995). “Computationally Manageable Combinatorial Auctions.” Working paper, Rutgers Center for Operations Research, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Vickrey, W. (1961). “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance. 16, 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar