TY - GEN
T1 - Characterization of revenue monotonicity in combinatorial auctions
AU - Todo, Taiki
AU - Iwasaki, Atsushi
AU - Yokoo, Makoto
PY - 2010/12/13
Y1 - 2010/12/13
N2 - An auction mechanism consists of an allocation rule and a payment rule. There have been several studies on characterizing strategy-proof allocation rules; if the allocation rule satisfies a condition called weak-monotonicity, an appropriate payment rule is guaranteed to exist. One desirable property that an auction mechanism should satisfy is revenue monotonicity; a seller's revenue is guaranteed to weakly increase as the number of bidders grows. In this paper, we first identify a simple condition called summation-monotonicity for characterizing strategy-proof and revenue monotone allocation rules. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to characterize revenue monotone allocation rules. Based on this characterization, we also examine the connections between revenue monotonicity and false-name-proofness, which means a bidder cannot increase his utility by submitting multiple bids under fictitious names. In a single-item auction, we show that they are basically equivalent; a mechanism is false-name-proof if and only if it is strategy-proof and revenue monotone. On the other hand, we show these two conditions cannot coexist in combinatorial auctions under some minor condition.
AB - An auction mechanism consists of an allocation rule and a payment rule. There have been several studies on characterizing strategy-proof allocation rules; if the allocation rule satisfies a condition called weak-monotonicity, an appropriate payment rule is guaranteed to exist. One desirable property that an auction mechanism should satisfy is revenue monotonicity; a seller's revenue is guaranteed to weakly increase as the number of bidders grows. In this paper, we first identify a simple condition called summation-monotonicity for characterizing strategy-proof and revenue monotone allocation rules. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to characterize revenue monotone allocation rules. Based on this characterization, we also examine the connections between revenue monotonicity and false-name-proofness, which means a bidder cannot increase his utility by submitting multiple bids under fictitious names. In a single-item auction, we show that they are basically equivalent; a mechanism is false-name-proof if and only if it is strategy-proof and revenue monotone. On the other hand, we show these two conditions cannot coexist in combinatorial auctions under some minor condition.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649888121&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649888121&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.186
DO - 10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.186
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:78649888121
SN - 9780769541914
T3 - Proceedings - 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2010
SP - 383
EP - 390
BT - Proceedings - 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2010
T2 - 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2010
Y2 - 31 August 2010 through 3 September 2010
ER -