IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2511.12456.html

Collusion-proof Auction Design using Side Information

Author

Listed:
  • Sukanya Kudva
  • Anil Aswani

Abstract

We study the problem of auction design in the presence of bidder collusion. Specifically, we consider a multi-unit auction of identical items with single-minded bidders, where a subset of bidders may collude by coordinating bids and transferring payments and items among themselves. The classical Vickrey-Clarke-Groves(VCG) mechanism is highly vulnerable to collusion and fully collusion-proof mechanisms are limited to posted-price formats, which fail to guarantee even approximate efficiency. This paper aims to bridge this gap by designing auctions that achieve good welfare and revenue guarantees even when some bidders collude. We first characterize the strategic behavior of colluding bidders under VCG and prove that such bidders optimally bid shade: they never overbid or take additional items, but instead reduce the auction price. This characterization enables a Bulow-Klemperer type result: adding colluding bidders can only improve welfare and revenue relative to running VCG on the non-colluding group alone. We next consider a setting where black-box collusion detection algorithm is available to label bidders as being colluding or non-colluding, and we propose a VCG-Posted Price(V-PoP) mechanism that combines VCG applied to non-colluding bidders with a posted-price mechanism for colluding bidders. We show that V-PoP is ex-post dominant-strategy incentive compatible(DSIC) and derive probabilistic guarantees on expected welfare and revenue under both known and unknown valuation distributions. Numerical experiments across several distributions demonstrate that V-PoP consistently outperforms VCG restricted to non-colluding bidders and approaches the performance of the ideal VCG mechanism assuming universal truthfulness. Our results provide a principled framework for incorporating collusion detection into mechanism design, offering a step toward collusion-resistant auctions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sukanya Kudva & Anil Aswani, 2025. "Collusion-proof Auction Design using Side Information," Papers 2511.12456, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2511.12456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.12456
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitra, Manipushpak & Mutuswami, Suresh, 2011. "Group strategyproofness in queueing models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 242-254, May.
    2. Bulow, Jeremy & Klemperer, Paul, 1996. "Auctions versus Negotiations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 180-194, March.
    3. Dhangwatnotai, Peerapong & Roughgarden, Tim & Yan, Qiqi, 2015. "Revenue maximization with a single sample," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 318-333.
    4. Mailath, George J. & Zemsky, Peter, 1991. "Collusion in second price auctions with heterogeneous bidders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 467-486, November.
    5. Sylvain Chassang & Kei Kawai & Jun Nakabayashi & Juan Ortner, 2022. "Robust Screens for Noncompetitive Bidding in Procurement Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 315-346, January.
    6. Emilio Calvano & Giacomo Calzolari & Vincenzo Denicolò & Sergio Pastorello, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(10), pages 3267-3297, October.
    7. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    8. KayI, Çagatay & Ramaekers, Eve, 2010. "Characterizations of Pareto-efficient, fair, and strategy-proof allocation rules in queueing problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 220-232, January.
    9. Ranojoy Basu & Conan Mukherjee, 2024. "Strategy-Proof Multidimensional Mechanism Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 2768-2785, November.
    10. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    11. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    12. Stephanie Assad & Robert Clark & Daniel Ershov & Lei Xu, 2024. "Algorithmic Pricing and Competition: Empirical Evidence from the German Retail Gasoline Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(3), pages 723-771.
    13. Joseph E Harrington, 2018. "Developing Competition Law For Collusion By Autonomous Artificial Agents," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 331-363.
    14. Timothy G. Conley & Francesco Decarolis, 2016. "Detecting Bidders Groups in Collusive Auctions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-38, May.
    15. Marc S. Robinson, 1985. "Collusion and the Choice of Auction," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 141-145, Spring.
    16. Robert Day & Paul Milgrom, 2008. "Core-selecting package auctions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 393-407, March.
    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. Chun, Youngsub & Yengin, Duygu, 2017. "Welfare lower bounds and strategy-proofness in the queueing problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 462-476.
    2. Kwang Mong Sim, 2024. "A Strongly Group Strategyproof and Shill Resistant Bargaining Mechanism for Fog Resource Pricing," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 1238-1267, November.
    3. Parikshit De & Manipushpak Mitra, 2017. "Incentives and justice for sequencing problems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(2), pages 239-264, August.
    4. Jeong, Seungwon (Eugene) & Lee, Joosung, 2024. "The groupwise-pivotal referral auction: Core-selecting referral strategy-proof mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 191-203.
    5. Chun, Youngsub & Mitra, Manipushpak & Mutuswami, Suresh, 2014. "Characterizations of pivotal mechanisms in the queueing problem," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 62-66.
    6. Youngsub Chun & Manipushpak Mitra & Suresh Mutuswami, 2023. "Balanced VCG mechanisms for sequencing problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(1), pages 35-46, January.
    7. Youngsub Chun & Manipushpak Mitra & Suresh Mutuswami, 2019. "Recent developments in the queueing problem," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 27(1), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Sreoshi Banerjee & Parikshit De & Manipushpak Mitra, 2024. "Generalized welfare lower bounds and strategyproofness in sequencing problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(2), pages 323-357, September.
    9. Youngsub Chun & Manipushpak Mitra & Suresh Mutuswami, 2017. "Reordering an existing queue," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 65-87, June.
    10. Banerjee, Sreoshi & De, Parikshit & Mitra, Manipushpak, 2020. "A welfarist approach to sequencing problems with incentives," MPRA Paper 107188, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    12. Yengin, Duygu & Chun, Youngsub, 2020. "No-envy, solidarity, and strategy-proofness in the queueing problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 87-97.
    13. Chun, Youngsub & Mitra, Manipushpak, 2014. "Subgroup additivity in the queueing problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 281-289.
    14. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83199, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Andrew Komo & Scott Duke Kominers & Tim Roughgarden, 2024. "Shill-Proof Auctions," Papers 2404.00475, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    16. Benedikt Bünz & Benjamin Lubin & Sven Seuken, 2022. "Designing Core-Selecting Payment Rules: A Computational Search Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1157-1173, December.
    17. Mochon, A. & Saez, Y. & Gomez-Barroso, J.L. & Isasi, P., 2012. "Exploring pricing rules in combinatorial sealed-bid auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 462-478.
    18. De, Parikshit, 2014. "Rawlsian Allocation In Queueing And Sequencing Problem," MPRA Paper 58744, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Çağıl Koçyiğit & Garud Iyengar & Daniel Kuhn & Wolfram Wiesemann, 2020. "Distributionally Robust Mechanism Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 159-189, January.
    20. Paul Milgrom, 2011. "Critical Issues In The Practice Of Market Design," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 311-320, April.

    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:2511.12456. 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.