Incentives in Multi-dimensional Auctions under Information Asymmetry for Costs and Qualities

  • Athanasios Papakonstantinou
  • Peter Bogetoft
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 136)

Abstract

This paper discusses the design of a novel multi-dimensional mechanism which allows a principal to procure a single project or an item from multiple suppliers through a two-step payment. The suppliers are capable of producing different qualities at costs which cannot exceed a certain value and the mechanism balances between the costs faced by the suppliers and the benefit the principal achieves from higher qualities. Iniatially, the principal implements a standard second score auction and allocates the project to a single supplier based its reported cost and quality, while then it elicits truthful reporting of the quality by issuing a symmetric secondary payment after observing the winner’s production. We then provide an alternate mechanism in which the principal issues an asymmetric secondary payment which rewards agents for producing higher qualities, while it penalises them for producing lower qualities than they reported. We prove that for both mechanisms truthful revelation of costs and qualities is a dominant strategy (weakly for costs) and that they are immune to combined misreporting of both qualities and costs. We also show that the mechanisms are individually rational, and that the optimal payments received by the winners of the auctions are equal to the payment issued by the standard second score auction.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Che, Y.-K.: Design competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND Journal of Economics 24(4), 668–680 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Branco, F.: The design of multidimensional auctions. RAND Journal of Economics 28(1), 63–81 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beil, D.R., Wein, L.: An inverse-optimization-based auction mechanism to support a multiattribute RFQ process. Management Science 49(11), 1529–1545 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parkes, D., Kalagnanam, J.: Models for Iterative Multiattribute Procurement Auctions. Management Science 51(3), 435–451 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogetoft, P., Nielsen, K.: DEA based auctions. European Journal of Operational Research 184(2), 685–700 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2(6), 429–444 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Short Communication: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 3, 339 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, M., Jennings, N.R., Leung, H.-F.: On Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(4), 985–1002 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bichler, M.: An experimental analysis of multi-attribute auctions. Decision Support Systems 29, 249–268 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bichler, M., Kalagnanam, J.: Configurable Offers and Winner Determination in Multi-Attribute Auctions. European Journal of Operational Research 160, 380–394 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asker, J., Cantillon, E.: Properties of scoring auctions. RAND Journal of Economics 39(1), 69–85 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Athanasios Papakonstantinou
    • 1
  • Peter Bogetoft
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations