The Winner’s Curse in Dynamic Forecasting of Auction Data: Empirical Evidence from eBay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: Dynamic forecasting models in auctions have fallen short on two dimensions: (i) the lack of an equilibrium model for final bids and (ii) the lack of a winner’s curse (i.e., a tendency to overpay conditional on winning the auction) adjustment to allow bidders to account for a common value component in the auction item. In this paper, we develop a methodology to accurately predict equilibrium stage bids from the initial bidding dynamics and quantify the impact of the winner’s curse. This methodology allows us to conduct policy simulations to optimize auction design parameters. Methodology/Results: Dynamic auctions typically have a stage of high exploratory activity, followed by an inactivity period, and then an equilibrium stage of last-minute bids with sharp jumps. With a Kalman filter approach, we use exploratory stage bids to predict an auction item’s valuation distribution. We feed this prediction into an equilibrium model and apply item-specific adjustments for winner’s curse, bidder heterogeneity, and inactivity period. We use the resulting equilibrium model to predict the equilibrium stage bids. Our methodology improves the forecast of equilibrium stage bids by 11.33%, on average, compared with a state-of-the-art benchmark. This improvement is even higher (18.99%) for common value auctions. We also find that (i) significantly more (respectively, fewer) bidders internalize the winner’s curse in common value (respectively, private value) auctions; (ii) bidders in common value auctions decrease their bids by 6.03% because of the winner’s curse; and (iii) the inactivity period has a lesser impact on the equilibrium stage bids in private value auctions. Managerial implications: Our proposed methodology is intended to facilitate the need in academia and practice for real-time bid predictions that encompass different levels of the common value component in auctions. Using our methodology, auction platforms can support their choice of minimum bid increment policies and decide how to allocate resources across different auctions to mitigate the adverse effects of the winner’s curse. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1165 .
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".