IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/dyngam/v14y2024i5d10.1007_s13235-023-00550-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Strongly Group Strategyproof and Shill Resistant Bargaining Mechanism for Fog Resource Pricing

Author

Listed:
  • Kwang Mong Sim

Abstract

Whereas there are group strategyproof mechanisms for a variety of problems, to date, group strategyproof bargaining has not been studied. Although shill bidding is widely studied in auctions, there is currently no work that analyzes the effect of shills on bargaining mechanisms. This paper validates that Sim’s agent-based fog bargaining (AFB) mechanism is both 1) strongly group strategyproof (i.e., it is more robust than existing group strategyproof mechanisms) and 2) shill resistant. Since Internet-based agents can coordinate themselves to shade (respectively, mark up) resource prices, bargaining mechanisms that are resistant to coordinated price shading (respectively, markup) by coalitions of agents are crucial in price bargaining between fog node owners and Internet-connected device owners. Mathematical proofs validate that the AFB mechanism is strongly group strategyproof because on top of satisfying the commonly adopted condition of group strategyproofness, i.e., coordinated price shading (respectively, markup) by coalitions of agents that results in the strict gain of some agent will also result in the strict loss of another agent, it also satisfies two additional stronger conditions that 1) there is no collusive surplus from coordinated price shading (respectively, markup) and 2) every agent cannot increase his/her utility by joining a coalition. Given the ease for agents to fake identities in the Internet, shill resistance is another critically important property of fog bargaining mechanisms. Mathematical evidence validates that coordinated price shading (respectively, markup) by coalitions with shills is not feasible in the AFB mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Kwang Mong Sim, 2024. "A Strongly Group Strategyproof and Shill Resistant Bargaining Mechanism for Fog Resource Pricing," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 1238-1267, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:dyngam:v:14:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s13235-023-00550-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s13235-023-00550-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13235-023-00550-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13235-023-00550-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bulow, Jeremy & Klemperer, Paul, 1996. "Auctions versus Negotiations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 180-194, March.
    2. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, September.
    3. Indranil Chakraborty & Georgia Kosmopoulou, 2004. "Auctions with shill bidding," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(2), pages 271-287, August.
    4. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
    5. Kwang Mong Sim, 2023. "An Incentive-Compatible and Computationally Efficient Fog Bargaining Mechanism," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 62(4), pages 1883-1918, December.
    6. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    7. Mailath, George J. & Zemsky, Peter, 1991. "Collusion in second price auctions with heterogeneous bidders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 467-486, November.
    8. von Ungern-Sternberg, Thomas, 1988. "Cartel Stability in Sealed Bid Second Price Auctions," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 351-358, March.
    9. Ruth Martínez & Jordi Massó & Alejdanro Neme & Jorge Oviedo, 2004. "On group strategy-proof mechanisms for a many-to-one matching model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(1), pages 115-128, January.
    10. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2016. "Group Strategy-Proofness in Private Good Economies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(4), pages 1073-1099, April.
    11. Kosmopoulou, Georgia & De Silva, Dakshina G., 2007. "The effect of shill bidding upon prices: Experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 291-313, April.
    12. William Phan, 2019. "Efficient and incentive compatible exchange of real-time information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 205-242, March.
    13. Marc S. Robinson, 1985. "Collusion and the Choice of Auction," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 141-145, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hagen, Martin, 2023. "Collusion-proof mechanisms for multi-unit procurement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 281-298.
    2. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2016. "Group Strategy-Proofness in Private Good Economies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(4), pages 1073-1099, April.
    3. Aoyagi, Masaki, 2003. "Bid rotation and collusion in repeated auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 79-105, September.
    4. Waehrer, Keith, 1999. "Asymmetric private values auctions with application to joint bidding and mergers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 437-452, April.
    5. Che, Yeon-Koo & Condorelli, Daniele & Kim, Jinwoo, 2018. "Weak cartels and collusion-proof auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 398-435.
    6. Marshall, Robert C. & Marx, Leslie M., 2007. "Bidder collusion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 374-402, March.
    7. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    8. Olga Gorelkina, 2018. "Collusion via Information Sharing and Optimal Auctions," Working Papers 20182, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    9. Yuen Leng Chow & Isa E. Hafalir & Abdullah Yavas, 2015. "Auction versus Negotiated Sale: Evidence from Real Estate Sales," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 432-470, June.
    10. Florencia Gabrielli, 2014. "Econometrics of First Price Auctions: a Survey of the Theoretical and Applied Literature," Económica, Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, vol. 60, pages 77-118, January-D.
    11. Bose, Subir & Daripa, Arup, 2017. "Shills and snipes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 507-516.
    12. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Reserve Prices in Auctions as Reference Points," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 637-653, April.
    13. Alan Kirman & Sonia Moulet, 2008. "Impact de l'organisation du marché: Comparaison de la négociation de gré à gré et des enchères descendantes," Working Papers halshs-00349034, HAL.
    14. Klijn Flip, 2019. "Constrained Allocation of Projects to Heterogeneous Workers with Preferences over Peers," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-9, January.
    15. Biran, Omer, 2011. "Core stable bidding rings in independent private value auctions with externalities," MPRA Paper 32164, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Omer Biran, 2013. "Strategic collusion in auctions with externalities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 117-136, July.
    17. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Zhang, Wenzhang, 2022. "Collusion enforcement in repeated first-price auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(4), November.
    19. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2020. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 237-258, March.
    20. Loyola, Gino, 2008. "On bidding markets: the role of competition," UC3M Working papers. Economics we083318, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:dyngam:v:14:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s13235-023-00550-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.