MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147536718

Strategic bidding in a Combinatorial Clock auction: The 700 MHz Canadian auction

2016· article· en· W3147536718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchSpace (University of Auckland) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingMultiunit auctionEauctionBusinessProxy bidVickrey auctionCombinatorial auctionReverse auctionAuction theoryAdvertisingComputer scienceMicroeconomicsEconomicsMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data provided by Industry Canada this paper seeks to understand what strategic bidding is in the 2014 700-MHz Canadian auction. The auction format is known as Combinatorial Clock. Its design seeks to induce truthful bidding, that is, a bidder is expected to bid in a way that at each round of the Clock Rounds stage her utility is maximised, and expected to reveal her true valuation for each bundle that make up her final bid in the Combinatorial stage. The Combinatorial Clock auction is an innovative auction design which aims to overcome some of the problems evidenced in the application of the Simultaneous Ascending auction, a format that has been widely popular for assigning radio spectrum to commercial providers of mobile communications services over the last 20 years. The paper uses publicly available data from the auction by Industry Canada. By focusing on the longest of the three auction stages, the Clock Rounds, it examines the evolution of several auction indexes as a means to devise an approach to understand bidders’ strategic behaviour. It also uses a Revealed Preference theory framework to test whether bidders bidding was consistent with utility maximisation. When it is not, the paper analyses evidence to support claims of strategic behaviour.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchSpace (University of Auckland)Same topicAuction Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207