IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2001.06975.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive-Compatible Diffusion Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Li
  • Dong Hao
  • Dengji Zhao

Abstract

Diffusion auction is a new model in auction design. It can incentivize the buyers who have already joined in the auction to further diffuse the sale information to others via social relations, whereby both the seller's revenue and the social welfare can be improved. Diffusion auctions are essentially non-typical multidimensional mechanism design problems and agents' social relations are complicatedly involved with their bids. In such auctions, incentive-compatibility (IC) means it is best for every agent to honestly report her valuation and fully diffuse the sale information to all her neighbors. Existing work identified some specific mechanisms for diffusion auctions, while a general theory characterizing all incentive-compatible diffusion auctions is still missing. In this work, we identify a sufficient and necessary condition for all dominant-strategy incentive-compatible (DSIC) diffusion auctions. We formulate the monotonic allocation policies in such multidimensional problems and show that any monotonic allocation policy can be implemented in a DSIC diffusion auction mechanism. Moreover, given any monotonic allocation policy, we obtain the optimal payment policy to maximize the seller's revenue.

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Li & Dong Hao & Dengji Zhao, 2020. "Incentive-Compatible Diffusion Auctions," Papers 2001.06975, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2001.06975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.06975
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bin Li & Dong Hao & Dengji Zhao & Tao Zhou, 2018. "Customer Sharing in Economic Networks with Costs," Papers 1807.06822, arXiv.org.
    2. Mu'alem, Ahuva & Nisan, Noam, 2008. "Truthful approximation mechanisms for restricted combinatorial auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 612-631, November.
    3. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    4. Myerson, Roger B, 1979. "Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 61-73, January.
    5. Sushil Bikhchandani & Shurojit Chatterji & Ron Lavi & Ahuva Mu'alem & Noam Nisan & Arunava Sen, 2006. "Weak Monotonicity Characterizes Deterministic Dominant-Strategy Implementation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 1109-1132, July.
    6. Takehiro Kawasaki & Nathanael Barrot & Seiji Takanashi & Taiki Todo & Makoto Yokoo, 2019. "Strategy-Proof and Non-Wasteful Multi-Unit Auction via Social Network," Papers 1911.08809, arXiv.org.
    7. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    8. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    9. Groves, Theodore, 1973. "Incentives in Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 617-631, July.
    10. Rochet, Jean-Charles, 1987. "A necessary and sufficient condition for rationalizability in a quasi-linear context," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 191-200, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rangeet Bhattacharyya & Parvik Dave & Palash Dey & Swaprava Nath, 2022. "Optimal Referral Auction Design," Papers 2208.09326, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    2. Yuhang Guo & Dong Hao & Bin Li, 2022. "Combinatorial Procurement Auction in Social Networks," Papers 2208.14591, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Mechanism design without quasilinearity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    2. Carbajal, Juan Carlos & Ely, Jeffrey C., 2013. "Mechanism design without revenue equivalence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 104-133.
    3. Georgiou, Konstantinos & Swamy, Chaitanya, 2019. "Black-box reductions for cost-sharing mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 17-37.
    4. Archer, Aaron & Kleinberg, Robert, 2014. "Truthful germs are contagious: A local-to-global characterization of truthfulness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 340-366.
    5. Loertscher, Simon & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2021. "A dominant strategy, double clock auction with estimation-based tatonnement," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    6. Corchón, Luis C., 2008. "The theory of implementation : what did we learn?," UC3M Working papers. Economics we081207, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    7. Debasis Mishra & Abdul Quadir, 2012. "Deterministic single object auctions with private values," Discussion Papers 12-06, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    8. M. Yenmez, 2015. "Incentive compatible market design with applications," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(3), pages 543-569, August.
    9. Bierbrauer, Felix & Netzer, Nick, 2016. "Mechanism design and intentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 557-603.
    10. Claude d'Aspremont & Jacques Crémer & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2003. "Correlation, independence, and Bayesian incentives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 281-310, October.
    11. Yuhang Guo & Dong Hao & Bin Li, 2022. "Combinatorial Procurement Auction in Social Networks," Papers 2208.14591, arXiv.org.
    12. Esther Gal-Or & Anindya Ghose, 2005. "The Economic Incentives for Sharing Security Information," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 186-208, June.
    13. Heydenreich, B. & Mishra, D. & Müller, R.J. & Uetz, M.J., 2008. "Optimal mechanisms for single machine scheduling," Research Memorandum 033, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    14. Ronald M. Harstad & Aleksandar Saša Pekeč, 2008. "Relevance to Practice and Auction Theory: A Memorial Essay for Michael Rothkopf," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 367-380, October.
    15. Carbajal, Juan Carlos, 2010. "On the uniqueness of Groves mechanisms and the payoff equivalence principle," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 763-772, March.
    16. Yukun Cheng & Xiaotie Deng & Dominik Scheder, 2022. "Recent studies of agent incentives in internet resource allocation and pricing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 314(1), pages 49-76, July.
    17. Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2015. "Mechanism design with two alternatives in quasi-linear environments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 433-455, February.
    18. Vijay Krishna & Motty Perry, 1997. "Efficient Mechanism Design," Game Theory and Information 9703010, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 28 Apr 1998.
    19. Mishra, Debasis & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "Robertsʼ Theorem with neutrality: A social welfare ordering approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 283-298.
    20. Hartline, Jason D. & Kleinberg, Robert & Malekian, Azarakhsh, 2015. "Bayesian incentive compatibility via matchings," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 401-429.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2001.06975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.