基于幂效用函数的多属性英式拍卖研究

以采购问题为背景研究多属性拍卖问题,其中拍卖问题的特点是：（1）包含任意有限个属性;（2）买卖双方的效用函数均具有加性结构,且在除价格以外的单个属性上,买方的效用函数和卖方的成本函数均为一般幂函数形式。首先,设计了一种买方事先公布评分函数而卖方轮流提交投标的多属性英式拍卖机制;其次,在卖方对称的假设下分析了拍卖机制中的最优投标策略,确定了最优投标价格和最优非价格属性值;然后,分析得出了最具成本优势的卖方最终胜出的条件以及最优多属性投标;最后,计算了该拍卖机制中买方的期望收益,并求出了使其期望收益最大化的最优评分函数权重。     

多部件采购外包的两阶段均衡投标策略

本文考虑一个由单个制造商和多个供应商群体组成的供应链——该制造商需要采购多个部件,对于每个部件在市场上均存在多个供应商。不同于传统的从各供应商群体分别采购各个部件,制造商考虑将所有部件的采购整体外包给某个供应商。在第一阶段,制造商使用一级价格密封投标的逆向拍卖来确定赢得整体采购合约的供应商。接下来,第一阶段投标的获胜者生产其所能供应的部件,并使用逆向拍卖向第一阶段中未获胜的其他竞标者采购其余部件。我们分析了供应商在两个阶段的均衡竞价策略,并比较了制造商在亲自逐件采购和外包整体采购两种情况下的期望采购成本。我们证明了在两种机制下制造商的总的期望采购成本相等。     

供应风险下双源采购批发单价拍卖最优设计

考虑多个具有供应风险和成本私有信息的潜在供应商,研究了供应商投标批发单价的最优双源采购拍卖机制设计.首先,针对一般的采购商收益函数,求出了最优的订货量分配规则和供应商投标均衡,并分别与单源采购及对称信息对比,发现双源采购拍卖增加了采购商和供应商的期望利润,不对称信息对供应商有利但对采购商和供应链不利.然后,分别针对报童及垄断环境,进一步分析了双源采购拍卖下的订货分散程度、信息价值和双源采购价值,发现,订货分散程度与供应风险及两个获胜者的利润率贡献相近程度正相关;高成本获胜者比成本较低者索取更高的单位信息租金,导致不对称信息下的订货分散程度比对称信息下低;供应风险越高或投标人数越多时,双源采购价值越大.     

价格相依随机需求下的逆向拍卖采购与定价联合决策

研究价格相依随机需求下零售商的逆向拍卖采购与定价联合决策问题。假定零售商首先确定一个采购合同,然后供应商投标,通过逆向拍卖选取一个获胜的供应商,由该供应商确定采购量并传递给零售商,同时零售商做定价决策影响其需求,目标是寻求一个最优的采购与定价策略以最大化零售商的期望利润。对于一般的随机需求函数,引进期望销售弹性这一新的概念并利用其性质证明零售商的期望收益(不包括采购费用)是采购量的凹函数,从而得到其最优的采购与定价策略。特别地,对正态需求分布情形给出了零售商的采购量和利润函数的解析表达式并进行数值分析。     

多因素采购组合拍卖动态机制设计研究

在允许"价格-质量"投标的多因素投标环境下,设计了一种多因素采购组合拍卖的动态机制(规则),提出了竞争均衡打分的概念。构建了多因素采购组合拍卖动态机制的优化模型,讨论了拍卖规则和优化模型实现互补松弛条件之间的必然联系。基本结论是:在本拍卖机制中,投标者采用最佳近视反应投标策略,将使拍卖的分配结果趋向最优,最终在拍卖结束时实现系统效用最大化。     

拍卖中卡特尔的两种合谋机制研究

投标者合谋损害了拍卖者的利益、破坏了社会资源的配置效率.本文通过建立教学模型,研究具有货币补偿支付"强"卡特尔的两种典型合谋机制.发现在卡特尔内部预拍卖中.不同的利益分享机制其成员的汇报价不同.进一步地.当合谋人数等于投标总人数时.第二密封价格的公开拍卖比第一密封价格拍卖更有利于卡特尔的合谋,此时,拍卖者采用隐藏保留价的第一密封价格拍卖,是占优策略.而当卡特尔成员数小于投标总人数时,拍卖者不公布保留价.卡特尔第一价格合谋机制就没有效率,卡特尔第二价格合谋机制在卡特尔代表的估价高于预拍卖第二高价时,合谋非效率.     

完全信息采购环境下应用拍卖机制协调供应链

在完全信息的采购环境下,应用拍卖机制研究了供应链的协调问题.针对市场中存在n个供应商1个买者、且市场反需求函数为幂函数的情形,分析了不同拍卖机制对供应链协调的影响,证明了在目录拍卖和批发价格拍卖下,系统不能达到协调;在由供应商引发的二部合同拍卖下能够达到渠道协调;在由买者引发的二部合同拍卖下,如果买者能够知晓供应商所能接受的最低利润时也可实现渠道协调.     

基于多Agent的在线多属性采购拍卖的机制设计

对目前网络拍卖进行研究发现,在线多属性采购拍卖的实施水平仍处在基础的信息发布阶段.基于委托代理模型的参与约束和激励相容约束,通过改进多属性决策的一般方法,提出一种以释放权重信息为核心的在线多属性采购拍卖设计机制.拍卖设计的第一阶段融入谈判机制以协商拍卖的属性规则,确定多维拍卖的属性选择;第二阶段通过投标人提供的属性赋值和权重设置确定赢者的胜出.为开发实际的在线网络采购或供应链管理平台.进一步提出基于多Agent系统的多属性采购拍卖的技术实现框架.通过一个简单的二维属性拍卖的例证分析,说明该机制可以增进拍卖双方信息的正向交互,实现拍卖机制的最优,并可以通过多Agent系统提高在线拍卖的效率.     

技术拍卖的最优机制

实践中,技术拍卖常常采用固定费(英式)拍卖,报价与技术的产出无关.把技术的拍卖价格与其产出联系起来,提出了两部制拍卖机制,即获胜者要支付固定费与提成.首先,作为比较基准,分析了固定费拍卖.其次,分析了独立私有价值情形的最优两部制拍卖机制,每个企业直接报告自己的成本,成本最低的企业赢得拍卖.最优拍卖的固定费与提成由企业报告的成本决定,并且无需设定保留价格.与固定费拍卖相比较,两部制拍卖能够带来更高的期望收益,以及更高的拍卖成交率.     

两阶段网上相继起拍拍卖中最优拍卖策略研究

基于序贯拍卖和同时向上叫价拍卖的特点,本文首先提出了网上相继起拍拍卖模式,建立了两阶段相继起拍拍卖模型;在允许缺货的条件下,分析了卖方最优拍卖策略的一些性质,给出了卖方总期望收益的上下限;最后,对影响卖方最优拍卖策略的因素进行了数值分析,得到在某些情况下卖方在第二场拍卖开始时根据当前库存量以及已参与第一场拍卖的顾客数采用缺货策略可以提高卖方期望收益等结论。     

Push or Pull? Auctioning Supply Contracts

Consider a buyer, facing uncertain demand, who sources from multiple suppliers via online procurement auctions (open descending price‐only auctions). The suppliers have heterogeneous production costs, which are private information, and the winning supplier has to invest in production capacity before the demand uncertainty is resolved. The buyer chooses to offer a push or pull contract, for which the single price and winning supplier are determined via the auction. We show that, with a pull contract, the buyer does not necessarily benefit from a larger number of suppliers participating in the auction, due to the negative effect of supplier competition on the incentive of supplier capacity investment. We thus propose an enhanced pull mechanism that mitigates this effect with a floor price. We then analyze and compare the outcomes of auctions for push and (enhanced) pull contracts, establishing when one form is preferred over the other based on the buyer's profits. We also compare our simple, price‐only push and pull contract auctions to the optimal mechanisms, benchmarking the performance of the simple mechanisms as well as establishing the relative importance of auction design and contract design in procurement auctions.     

An Analysis of Scoring and Buyer‐Determined Procurement Auctions

In procurement auctions, the object for sale is a contract, bidders are suppliers, and the bid taker is a buyer. The suppliers bidding for the contract are usually the current supplier (the incumbent) and a group of potential new suppliers (the entrants). As the buyer has an ongoing relationship with the incumbent, he needs to adjust the bids of the entrants to include non‐price attributes, such as the switching costs. The buyer can run a scoring auction, in which suppliers compete on the adjusted bids or scores, or, he can run a buyer‐determined auction, in which suppliers compete on the price, and the buyer adjusts a certain number of the bids with the non‐price attributes after the auction to determine the winner. Unless the incumbent has a significant cost advantage over the entrants, I find that the scoring auction yields a lower average cost for the buyer, if the non‐price attributes are available. If the non‐price attributes are difficult or expensive to obtain, the buyer could run a buyer‐determined auction adjusting only the lowest price bid.     

不同质量权重评分规则下的多维招标机制设计

本文主要研究包括价格变量及非价格变量(质量)的多维招标机制设计,在Che模型评分规则的基础上引入新的参数,研究了赋予质量不同权重的第一高分和第二高分招标机制的均衡情况。研究发现,不管新参数如何变化,第一高分招标和第二高分招标是等价的。在该评分规则下,买方还可以灵活根据自己的质量偏好、设定质量门槛筛选企业。如果买方和中标企业在中标后有协调机制,则能实现共赢、社会福利的最大化。     

Sourcing Through Auctions and Audits

Buyers often find that obtaining complete information about suppliers is costly. In such scenarios, there is a trade‐off between the costs of obtaining information and the benefits that accrue to the owners of such information. There are also various ways in which the missing information can be obtained or inferred. In this paper, we compare the efficiency of obtaining information via the classical mechanism design approach, which relies on the information available before the contracts are designed, with that of an “audit‐based” approach, which relies on the information obtained after the fact. In our model, a single buyer (the Stackelberg leader) wishes to procure a package of products or services from various competing suppliers that possess private cost information. We allow for arbitrary cost and revenue functions and can incorporate multiple cost and revenue drivers. We show how the buyer can optimize her profit and at the same time coordinate the channel by using a contract scheme involving auctions, audits, and profit sharing. We also examine the behavior of this mechanism when the supplier can exert effort to reduce cost but the cost of effort cannot be verified. We propose several mechanisms for different precontract informational scenarios and compare their performance.     

Procurement with Reverse Auction and Flexible Noncompetitive Contracts

This article investigates a hybrid procurement mechanism that combines a reverse auction with flexible noncompetitive contracts. A buyer adopts such mechanism to procure multiple units of a product from a group of potential suppliers. Specifically, the buyer first offers contracts to some suppliers who, if accepting the contract, do not participate in the auction while committing to selling a unit to the buyer at the price of the subsequent auction. For the suppliers rejecting the offers, they can join the subsequent auction with the other suppliers to compete on the remaining units. When the buyer offers only one flexible noncompetitive contract, we find that the selected supplier may accept the offer regardless of whether he knows his exact cost information. Meanwhile, the buyer can benefit from offering such a contract, as opposed to solely conducting a regular reverse auction or offering a noncompetitive contract that does not allow suppliers declining offers to join the subsequent auction. Moreover, we find that the suppliers' information about their own costs has a significant impact on the buyer's decision. When the buyer makes multiple offers, we analyze the resulting game behavior of the selected suppliers and demonstrate that the buyer can benefit more than just offering one such contract. Therefore, the hybrid procurement mechanism can be mutually beneficial for both the buyer and the selected suppliers.     

不完全信息采购环境下的供应链协调问题： 拍卖机制的应用

本文研究了不完全信息采购环境下供应链的协调问题.拍卖不仅是一种价格确定机制,它也可以作为一种供应链协调的机制.文献已经证明拍卖机制对于参与方的收益及整条供应链的有效性具有显著影响.本文研究了当市场中存在n个供应商1个买者的情形下,拍卖环境满足独立私人值(IPV)条件、且市场反需求函数为对数函数时,批发价格拍卖、目录拍卖及二部合同拍卖为各方所产生的期望收入,并且证明了批发价格拍卖和目录拍卖不能实现渠道协调,而在拥有信息中介的二部合同拍卖机制下系统可以达到渠道协调.     

An Experimental Investigation of Procurement Auctions with Asymmetric Sellers

Electronic reverse auctions are a commonly used procurement mechanism. Research to date has focused on suppliers who are ex ante symmetric in that their costs are drawn from a common distribution. However, in many cases, a seller's range of potential costs depends on their own operations, location, or economies of scale and scope. Thus, understanding how different bidder types impact auction outcomes is key when designing an auction. This study reports the results of the first controlled laboratory experiment designed to compare prices between first‐price and second‐price procurement auctions for homogeneous goods when seller cost types are asymmetric and the number of bidders varies. The results indicate that first‐price auctions generate lower prices regardless of market composition. The results also reveal that first‐price auctions are at least weakly more efficient than second‐price auctions despite the theoretical prediction that the reverse should hold in asymmetric auctions. Post hoc analysis of individual bidders' behavior in first‐price auctions revealed evidence that bidders systematically underbid when their cost realizations were close to the lower bound. Furthermore, bidders adjust their behavior based on the type of the other bidders in the market in a manner inconsistent with theory. Consequently, adding a third bidder to a two‐bidder market is not advantageous to the buyer unless that third bidder is a low‐cost type.     

Split‐Award Procurement Auctions—Can Bayesian Equilibrium Strategies Predict Human Bidding Behavior in Multi‐Object Auctions?

We analyze if and when symmetric Bayes Nash equilibrium predictions can explain human bidding behavior in multi‐object auctions. We focus on two sealed‐bid split‐award auctions with ex ante split decisions as they can be regularly found in procurement practice. These auction formats are straightforward multi‐object extensions of the first‐price sealed‐bid auction. We derive the risk‐neutral symmetric Bayes Nash equilibrium strategies and find that, although the two auction mechanisms yield the same expected costs to the buyer, other aspects of the two models, including the equilibrium bidding strategies, differ significantly. The strategic considerations in these auction formats are more involved than in single‐lot first‐price sealed‐bid auctions, and it is questionable whether expected utility maximization can explain human bidding behavior in such multi‐object auctions. Therefore, we analyzed the predictive accuracy of our equilibrium strategies in the laboratory. In human subject experiments we found underbidding, which is in line with earlier experiments on single‐lot first‐price sealed‐bid auctions. To control for regret, we organize experiments against computerized bidders, who play the equilibrium strategy. In computerized experiments where bid functions are only used in a single auction, we found significant underbidding on low‐cost draws. In experiments where the bid function is reused in 100 auctions, we could also control effectively for risk aversion, and there is no significant difference of the average bidding behavior and the risk‐neutral Bayes Nash equilibrium bid function. The results suggest that strategic complexity does not serve as an explanation for underbidding in split‐award procurement auctions, but risk aversion does have a significant impact.