IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1903.00261.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stealed-bid Auctions: Detecting Bid Leakage via Semi-Supervised Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitry I. Ivanov
  • Alexander S. Nesterov

Abstract

Bid leakage is a corrupt scheme in a first-price sealed-bid auction in which the procurer leaks the opponents' bids to a favoured participant. The rational behaviour of such participant is to bid close to the deadline in order to receive all bids, which allows him to ensure his win at the best price possible. While such behaviour does leave detectable traces in the data, the absence of bid leakage labels makes supervised classification impossible. Instead, we reduce the problem of the bid leakage detection to a positive-unlabeled classification. The key idea is to regard the losing participants as fair and the winners as possibly corrupted. This allows us to estimate the prior probability of bid leakage in the sample, as well as the posterior probability of bid leakage for each specific auction. We extract and analyze the data on 600,000 Russian procurement auctions between 2014 and 2018. We find that around 9% of the auctions are exposed to bid leakage, which results in an overall 1.5% price increase. The predicted probability of bid leakage is higher for auctions with a higher reserve price, with too low or too high number of participants, and if the winner has met the auctioneer in earlier auctions.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitry I. Ivanov & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2019. "Stealed-bid Auctions: Detecting Bid Leakage via Semi-Supervised Learning," Papers 1903.00261, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1903.00261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00261
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John, 1987. "Auctions with a stochastic number of bidders," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Maxim Mironov & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2016. "Corruption in Procurement and the Political Cycle in Tunneling: Evidence from Financial Transactions Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 287-321, May.
    3. Andrei Yakovlev & Oleg Vyglovsky & Olga Demidova & Alexander Bashlyk, 2016. "Incentives for repeated contracts in public sector: empirical study of gasoline procurement in Russia," International Journal of Procurement Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 272-289.
    4. Porter, Robert H & Zona, J Douglas, 1993. "Detection of Bid Rigging in Procurement Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 518-538, June.
    5. Max Bader & Carolien van Ham, 2015. "What explains regional variation in election fraud? Evidence from Russia: a research note," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 514-528, November.
    6. Huber, Martin & Imhof, David, 2019. "Machine learning with screens for detecting bid-rigging cartels," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 277-301.
    7. Anna Balsevich & Elena Podkolzina, 2014. "Indicators Of Corruption In Public Procurement: The Example Of Russian Regions," HSE Working papers WP BRP 76/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    8. Athey, Susan & Haile, Philip A., 2007. "Nonparametric Approaches to Auctions," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 60, Elsevier.
    9. Elena Krasnokutskaya & Katja Seim, 2011. "Bid Preference Programs and Participation in Highway Procurement Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2653-2686, October.
    10. Matthews, Steven, 1987. "Comparing Auctions for Risk Averse Buyers: A Buyer's Point of View," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 633-646, May.
    11. Aoyagi, Masaki, 2003. "Bid rotation and collusion in repeated auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 79-105, September.
    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. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2023. "Spying and imperfect commitment in first-price auctions: a case of tacit collusion," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 11(2), pages 255-275, October.
    2. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2021. "Strategic Leaks in First-Price Auctions and Tacit Collusion: The Case of Spying and Counter-Spying," CESifo Working Paper Series 9021, CESifo.
    3. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2023. "Price leadership, spying, and secret price changes: a Stackelberg game with imperfect commitment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(3), pages 775-804, September.

    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. Martin Huber & David Imhof & Rieko Ishii, 2022. "Transnational machine learning with screens for flagging bid‐rigging cartels," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 1074-1114, July.
    2. Paul Klemperer, 2007. "Bidding Markets," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-47.
    3. Yunmi Kong, 2020. "Not knowing the competition: evidence and implications for auction design," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(3), pages 840-867, September.
    4. Tong Li & Xiaoyong Zheng, 2009. "Entry and Competition Effects in First-Price Auctions: Theory and Evidence from Procurement Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1397-1429.
    5. Fang, Hanming & Tang, Xun, 2014. "Inference of bidders’ risk attitudes in ascending auctions with endogenous entry," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 198-216.
    6. Hanming Fang & Xun Tang, 2013. "Inference of Bidders’ Risk Attitudes in Ascending Auctions with Endogenous Entry," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-056, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    7. Yuanzhu Lu & Xundong Yin & Hu Zhang, 2023. "Does surround‐bidding corruption hurt procurers?," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 91(4), pages 320-335, July.
    8. Yusuke Matsuki, 2016. "A Distribution-Free Test of Monotonicity with an Application to Auctions," Working Papers e110, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    9. Pierre Bernhard & Marc Deschamps, 2017. "On Dynamic Games with Randomly Arriving Players," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 360-385, September.
    10. Matthew Gentry & Tong Li & Jingfeng Lu, 2015. "Identification and estimation in first-price auctions with risk-averse bidders and selective entry," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Fazekas,Mihály & Blum,Jurgen Rene, 2021. "Improving Public Procurement Outcomes : Review of Tools and the State of the Evidence Base," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9690, The World Bank.
    12. Lansdowne, Z. F., 1996. "Extensions of bidding theory: Concealed bidding, optimal number of bidders, and follow-on contracts," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 107-114, February.
    13. Erica Bosio & Simeon Djankov & Edward Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2022. "Public Procurement in Law and Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1091-1117, April.
    14. Jehiel, Philippe & Lamy, Laurent, 2014. "On discrimination in procurement auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 9790, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Hannes Wallimann & Silvio Sticher, 2023. "On suspicious tracks: machine-learning based approaches to detect cartels in railway-infrastructure procurement," Papers 2304.11888, arXiv.org.
    16. Qiang Fu & Jingfeng Lu & Jun Zhang, 2016. "Disclosure policy in Tullock contests with asymmetric stochastic entry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(1), pages 52-75, February.
    17. Stephan Lauermann & Andre Speit, 2023. "Bidding in Common‐Value Auctions With an Unknown Number of Competitors," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(2), pages 493-527, March.
    18. Milchtaich, Igal, 2004. "Random-player games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 353-388, May.
    19. Emmanuel Guerre & Yao Luo, 2019. "Nonparametric Identification of First-Price Auction with Unobserved Competition: A Density Discontinuity Framework," Papers 1908.05476, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    20. Hu, Audrey & Offerman, Theo & Onderstal, Sander, 2011. "Fighting collusion in auctions: An experimental investigation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 84-96, January.

    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:1903.00261. 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.