Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-tq7bh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T21:25:01.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scheduling with package auctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Kan Takeuchi ,
John C. Lin ,
Yan Chen  and
Thomas A. Finholt
Kan Takeuchi*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601, Japan
John C. Lin*
Affiliation:
School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Yan Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Thomas A. Finholt*
Affiliation:
School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
*
e-mail: kan@econ.hit-u.ac.jp
e-mail: johnclin@umich.edu
e-mail: yanchen@umich.edu
e-mail: finholt@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In scientific collaborations, technologies have broadened access to scarce scientific and engineering resources. While broader access is often applauded, little attention has been focused on the problem of efficient and equitable resource allocation. This paper presents laboratory experiments designed to compare different allocation mechanisms for access to joint research facilities. Specifically, we study the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) auction, a simultaneous ascending auction (the Resource Allocation Design, RAD), and a mechanism based on submitted rankings (Knapsack). Experimental results show that RAD and VCG are both more efficient than Knapsack, while Knapsack achieves a more equal distribution of resources than RAD or VCG. The findings highlight the need for systematic exploration of allocation mechanisms within collaboratories.

Keywords

Package auctionsSchedulingExperiments

JEL classification

C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior D82: Asymmetric and Private Information • Mechanism Design

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 476 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We thank Elena Katok, Tony Kwasnica, John Ledyard, Jeff MacKie-Mason, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, and Sasha Achen and Benjamin Taylor for excellent research assistance. Chen gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the National Science Foundation through grant no. SES-0339587. Any remaining errors are our own.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-010-9252-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Ausubel, L.M., & Milgrom, P. R. (2006). The lovely but lonely Vickrey auction. In Cramton, P., Shoham, Y., & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), Combinatorial auctions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Banks, J. S., Ledyard, J. O., & Porter, D. P. (1989). Allocating uncertain and unresponsive resources: an experimental approach. Rand Journal of Economics, 20, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunner, C., Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., & Ledyard, J. O. (2010). An experimental test of flexible combinatorial spectrum auction formats. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
Cantillon, E., & Pesendorfer, M. (2006). Auctioning bus routes: the London experience. In Cramton, P., Shoham, Y., & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), Combinatorial auctions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., & Takeuchi, K. (2010). Multi-object auctions with package bidding: an experimental comparison of Vickrey and iBEA. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Katuščák, P., & Ozdenoren, E. (2007). Sealed bid auctions with ambiguity: theory and experiments. Journal of Economic Theory, 136(1), 513–535.10.1016/j.jet.2006.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E. H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11, 17–33.10.1007/BF01726210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finholt, T. A. (2002). Collaboratories. In Cronin, B. (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 74–107). Washington: American Society for Information Science.Google Scholar
Groves, T. (1973). Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 41(4), 617–631.10.2307/1914085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). Scientific community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Interagency Working Group on Neutron Science. (2002). Report on the status and needs of major neutron scattering facilities and instruments in the United States. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, June 2002.Google Scholar
Isaac, R. M., & James, D. (2000). Robustness of the incentive compatible combinatorial auction. Experimental Economics, 3(1), 31–53.10.1023/A:1009942024096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, R. M., & Schnier, K. (2006). Sealed bid variations on the silent auction. In Isaac, R. M. & Davis, D. D. (Eds.), Research in experimental economics (Vol. 11, pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. H. (1995). Auctions: a survey of experimental research. In Kagel, J. & Roth, A. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 131–148). Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691213255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katok, E., & Roth, A. E. (2004). Auctions of homogeneous goods with increasing returns: experimental comparison of alternative “Dutch” auctions. Management Science, 50(8), 1044–1063.10.1287/mnsc.1040.0254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwasnica, A. M., Ledyard, J. O., Porter, D., & DeMartini, C. (2005). A new and improved design for multi-object iterative auctions. Management Science, 51(3), 419–434.10.1287/mnsc.1040.0334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, J. O., Noussair, C., & Porter, D. (1996). The allocation of a shared resource within an organization. Review of Economic Design, 2(1), 163–192.10.1007/BF02499132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, J. O., Olson, M., Porter, D. P., Swanson, J. A., & Torma, D. (2002). The first use ofa combined- value auction for transportation services. Interfaces, 32(5), 4–12.10.1287/inte.32.5.4.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, J. (2006). An insider's perspective on observing time selection committees. In Heck, A. (Ed.), Organizations and strategies in astronomy (Vol. 6, pp. 111–116). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-4056-3_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCray, W. P. (2000). Large telescopes and the moral economy of recent astronomy. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 685–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P. (2007). Package auctions and exchanges. Econometrica, 75(4), 935–965.10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00778.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P. R. (2004). Putting auction theory to work. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOAO. (2007). National optical astronomy observatory policies for allocation of observing time. Tucson, AZ: Kitt Peak National Observatory, July 2007.Google Scholar
Olson, M., & Porter, D. (1994). An experimental examination into design of decentralized methods to solve the assignment problem with and without money. Economic Theory, 4, 11–40.10.1007/BF01211117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, R., Kraus, A., & Zensus, J. A. (2006). Evaluation and selection of radio astronomy programs: the case of the 100 M radio telescope at Effelsberg. In Heck, A. (Ed.), Organizations and strategies in astronomy (Vol. 6, pp. 125–131). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-4056-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickrey, W. S. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37.10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulf, W. A. The collaboratory opportunity. Science, 261(5123), 854–855 (1993).10.1126/science.8346438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Takeuchi et al. supplementary material

Supplemental Material: Scheduling with Package Auctions
Download Takeuchi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 310.5 KB