Skip to main content

Two Extensions

  • Chapter
Book cover Rings in Auctions

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 447))

  • 54 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter we consider two interesting extensions. The case of the lattice mechanism with continuous bids is investigated in Section 5.1. In Section 5.2, we consider the case of a coalition of two players which bids non-cooperatively versus an individual bidder.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Note that all we need to reduce the inefficiency of the lattice mechanism is to allow players to submit real bids. We assume that the types are continuous only because it makes the problem more tractable.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Although we prove our result under the assumption of independence, the result is true when we assume that each single variable is uniform distributed and the maximum of the n random variables has to be equal to or higher than r. In fact, if a player observes a value which is lower than r then it is optimal for him to bid zero, otherwise he is concerned only with the distribution of the maximum of the n-1 variables and this does not depend on his observation.

    Google Scholar 

  3. They consider both the case in which a coalition play versus another coalition, and the case in which a coalition play versus individual non collusive bidders. With three players, as in our set-up, the two cases coincide.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Marshall et al. make a more standard assumption that the values of each player are independently drawn by uniform distributions on the interval [0, 1].

    Google Scholar 

  5. To calculate this second probability correctly, it necessary that the coalition use a mechanism which is incentive compatible. Marshall et al. (1994) do not pose a collusive mechanism in the paper. They assume that the values of the members of a coalition are common knowledge within the coalition.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Artale, A. (1997). Two Extensions. In: Rings in Auctions. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 447. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59158-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59158-7_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61930-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-59158-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics