IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2306.09437.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Designing Auctions when Algorithms Learn to Bid: The critical role of Payment Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Pranjal Rawat

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of different payment rules on efficiency when algorithms learn to bid. We use a fully randomized experiment of 427 trials, where Q-learning bidders participate in up to 250,000 auctions for a commonly valued item. The findings reveal that the first price auction, where winners pay the winning bid, is susceptible to coordinated bid suppression, with winning bids averaging roughly 20% below the true values. In contrast, the second price auction, where winners pay the second highest bid, aligns winning bids with actual values, reduces the volatility during learning and speeds up convergence. Regression analysis, incorporating design elements such as payment rules, number of participants, algorithmic factors including the discount and learning rate, asynchronous/synchronous updating, feedback, and exploration strategies, discovers the critical role of payment rules on efficiency. Furthermore, machine learning estimators find that payment rules matter even more with few bidders, high discount factors, asynchronous learning, and coarse bid spaces. This paper underscores the importance of auction design in algorithmic bidding. It suggests that computerized auctions like Google AdSense, which rely on the first price auction, can mitigate the risk of algorithmic collusion by adopting the second price auction.

Suggested Citation

  • Pranjal Rawat, 2023. "Designing Auctions when Algorithms Learn to Bid: The critical role of Payment Rules," Papers 2306.09437, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2306.09437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.09437
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael D. Noel, 2008. "Edgeworth Price Cycles and Focal Prices: Computational Dynamic Markov Equilibria," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 345-377, June.
    2. Susan Athey & Guido Imbens, 2016. "The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments," Papers 1607.00698, arXiv.org.
    3. Martino Banchio & Giacomo Mantegazza, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Spontaneous Collusion," Papers 2202.05946, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Inkoo Cho & Noah Williams, 2024. "Collusive Outcomes Without Collusion," Papers 2403.07177, arXiv.org.
    2. Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2021. "Conspiracy against the public - An experiment on collusion11“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publ," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Øystein Foros & Mai Nguyen-Ones & Frode Steen, 2021. "The Effects of a Day off from Retail Price Competition: Evidence on Consumer Behavior and Firm Performance in Gasoline Retailing," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 49-87, January.
    4. Angela S. Bergantino & Claudia Capozza & Mauro Capurso, 2018. "Pricing strategies: who leads and who follows in the air and rail passenger markets in Italy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(46), pages 4937-4953, October.
    5. Noel, Michael D., 2015. "Do Edgeworth price cycles lead to higher or lower prices?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 81-93.
    6. Abhijit Banerjee & Rukmini Banerji & James Berry & Esther Duflo & Harini Kannan & Shobhini Mukerji & Marc Shotland & Michael Walton, 2017. "From Proof of Concept to Scalable Policies: Challenges and Solutions, with an Application," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 73-102, Fall.
    7. Michael Noel, 2009. "Do retail gasoline prices respond asymmetrically to cost shocks? The influence of Edgeworth Cycles," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(3), pages 582-595, September.
    8. Timo Klein, 2021. "Autonomous algorithmic collusion: Q‐learning under sequential pricing," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(3), pages 538-558, September.
    9. Burgess, Simon & Metcalfe, Robert & Sadoff, Sally, 2021. "Understanding the response to financial and non-financial incentives in education: Field experimental evidence using high-stakes assessments," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. de Roos, Nicolas, 2017. "Edgeworth cycles with partial price commitment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 122-125.
    11. Sara Ellison & Christopher M. Snyder, 2014. "An Empirical Study of Pricing Strategies in an Online Market with High-Frequency Price Information," CESifo Working Paper Series 4655, CESifo.
    12. Sara Ellison & Christopher M. Snyder & Hongkai Zhang, 2016. "Costs of Managerial Attention and Activity as a Source of Sticky Prices: Structural Estimates from an Online Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 6285, CESifo.
    13. Diego Escobari, 2013. "Asymmetric Price Adjustments in Airlines," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 74-85, March.
    14. Beare, Brendan K. & Seo, Juwon, 2014. "Time Irreversible Copula-Based Markov Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 923-960, October.
    15. David P. Byrne, Gordon W. Leslie, and Roger Ware, 2015. "How do Consumers Respond to Gasoline Price Cycles?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    16. Seaton, Jonathan S. & Waterson, Michael, 2013. "Identifying and characterising price leadership in British supermarkets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 392-403.
    17. Woo-Hyung Hong & Daeyong Lee, 2020. "Asymmetric pricing dynamics with market power: investigating island data of the retail gasoline market," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2181-2221, May.
    18. Bharat Chandar & Ali Hortacsu & John List & Ian Muir & Jeffrey Wooldridge, 2019. "Design and Analysis of Cluster-Randomized Field Experiments in Panel Data Settings," Natural Field Experiments 00681, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Doraszelski, Ulrich & Escobar, Juan F., 2019. "Protocol invariance and the timing of decisions in dynamic games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), May.
    20. Genicot, Garance & Hernandez-de-Benito, Maria, 2022. "Women’s land rights and village institutions in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    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:2306.09437. 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.