skip to main content
10.1145/1993574.1993609acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Single valued combinatorial auctions with budgets

Published:05 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

We consider budget constrained combinatorial auctions where each bidder has a private value for each of the items in some subset of the items and an overall budget constraint. Such auctions capture adword auctions, where advertisers offer a bid for those adwords that (hopefully) target their intended audience, and advertisers also have budgets. It is known that even if all items are identical and all budgets are public it is not possible to be truthful and efficient. Our main result is a novel auction that runs in polynomial time, is incentive compatible, and ensures Pareto-optimality. The auction is incentive compatible with respect to the private valuations whereas the budgets and the sets of interest are assumed to be public knowledge. This extends the result of Dobzinski, Lavi and Nisan (FOCS 2008) for auctions of multiple identical items with bugets to single-valued combinatorial auctions and address one of the basic challenges on auctioning web ads (see Nisan et al, 2009, Google auctions for tv ads).

References

  1. G. Aggarwal, S. Muthukrishnan, D. Pál, and M. Pál. General auction mechanism for search advertising. In WWW '09: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web, pages 241--250, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Ashlagi, M. Braverman, A. Hassidim, R. Lavi, and M. Tennenholtz. Position auctions with budgets: Existence and uniqueness, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. L. M. Ausubel. An efficient ascending-bid auction for multiple objects. American Economic Review, 94(5):1452--1475, December 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. L. M. Ausubel and P. R. Milgrom. Ascending auctions with package bidding. Frontiers of Theoretical Economics, 1:1019--1019, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. S. Bhattacharya, V. Conitzer, K. Munagala, and L. Xia. Incentive compatible budget elicitation in multi-unit auctions. CoRR, abs/0904.3501, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Bhattacharya, G. Goel, S. Gollapudi, and K. Munagala. Budget constrained auctions with heterogeneous items. In STOC '10: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 379--388, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Dobzinski, R. Lavi, and N. Nisan. Multi-unit auctions with budget limits. In FOCS, pages 260--269. IEEE Computer Society, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Dobzinski, R. Lavi, and N. Nisan. Multi-unit auctions with budget limits, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. B. Edelman, M. Ostrovsky, M. Schwarz. Internet advertising and the generalized second price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. American Economic Review, 97, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Hatfield and P. Milgrom. Matching with contracts. The American Economic Review, 95(4):913--935, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. P. Milgrom. Putting auction theory to work. Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Milgrom. Putting auction theory to work: The simultaneous ascending auction. Journal of Political Economy, 108:245--272, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. N. Nisan, J. Bayer, D. Chandra, Tal Franji, Robert Gardner, Yossi Matias, Neil Rhodes, Misha Seltzer, Danny Tom, Hal R. Varian, and Dan Zigmond. Google's auction for tv ads. In S. Albers, A. Marchetti-Spaccamela, Y. Matias, S. E. Nikoletseas, and W. Thomas, editors, ICALP (2), volume 5556 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 309--327. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. W. Pulleyblank. Dual integrality in b-matching problems. In R. W. et. al. Cottle, editor, Combinatorial Optimization, volume 12 of Mathematical Programming Studies, pages 176--196. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. W. Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of Finance, 16(1):8--37, 1961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    EC '11: Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce
    June 2011
    384 pages
    ISBN:9781450302616
    DOI:10.1145/1993574

    Copyright © 2011 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 5 June 2011

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate664of2,389submissions,28%

    Upcoming Conference

    EC '24
    The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
    July 8 - 11, 2024
    New Haven , CT , USA

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader