pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.10080 · v1 · pith:EDBBLXPEnew · submitted 2019-07-23 · 💰 econ.TH · cs.GT· math.OC

Optimal auctions for networked markets with externalities

Benjamin Heymann , Alejandro Jofr\'e This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 16:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH cs.GTmath.OC
keywords optimal auctionsnetworked marketsexternalitieselectricity marketspiecewise linear costsprocurement auctionsmarket power
0
0 comments X

The pith

An optimal procurement mechanism extends from two-agent linear costs to multi-agent piecewise linear costs for a large class of externalities.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends a mechanism for optimal auctions in simplified two-agent markets with linear costs to more general settings with multiple agents and piecewise linear costs. It demonstrates that the approach applies to many types of network externalities and includes an algorithm for determining the best allocation. This is relevant for electricity markets where transmission losses allow producers to exercise market power by bidding above their costs. The result offers a theoretical benchmark against which real-world auction mechanisms can be compared for their efficiency.

Core claim

We show that the methodology for designing optimal mechanisms in two-agent linear-cost markets works for a finite number of agents with piecewise linear cost functions and a large class of externalities. We also provide an algorithm to solve the principal allocation problem. This provides a benchmark to assess the sub-optimality of mechanisms used in practice.

What carries the argument

The extension of the two-agent linear-cost optimal mechanism to handle piecewise linear costs and general externalities in networked markets.

If this is right

  • The mechanism optimally reduces producers' margins to the benefit of society in the presence of transmission losses.
  • It applies to procurement auctions in markets with quadratic transmission losses.
  • An algorithm computes the optimal allocation for the principal under these conditions.
  • Practical mechanisms can be evaluated against this optimal benchmark for sub-optimality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same extension logic might apply to other network-effect markets such as transportation or communication networks.
  • Numerical simulations on specific network graphs could verify scalability of the algorithm.
  • If the class of externalities is characterized precisely, it could guide which real markets fit the benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The externalities must belong to the class where the two-agent linear-cost mechanism extends without fundamental change.

What would settle it

Finding an externality outside the class where the extended mechanism is no longer optimal or where the algorithm fails to find the correct allocation.

read the original abstract

Motivated by the problem of market power in electricity markets, we introduced in previous works a mechanism for simplified markets of two agents with linear cost. In standard procurement auctions, the market power resulting from the quadratic transmission losses allows the producers to bid above their true values, which are their production cost. The mechanism proposed in the previous paper optimally reduces the producers' margin to the society's benefit. In this paper, we extend those results to a more general market made of a finite number of agents with piecewise linear cost functions, which makes the problem more difficult, but simultaneously more realistic. We show that the methodology works for a large class of externalities. We also provide an algorithm to solve the principal allocation problem. Our contribution provides a benchmark to assess the sub-optimality of the mechanisms used in practice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends prior results on optimal mechanisms for two-agent procurement auctions with linear costs to finite-agent settings with piecewise-linear production costs. It identifies a class of externalities (piecewise-linear functions satisfying a monotonicity condition derived from the two-agent case) for which the two-agent methodology extends, and supplies a dynamic-programming algorithm for the principal allocation problem whose correctness is established by induction on the number of agents. The work is motivated by reducing market power arising from quadratic transmission losses in electricity markets and positions the result as a benchmark for evaluating practical mechanisms.

Significance. If the extension holds, the paper supplies a constructive benchmark for assessing the sub-optimality of mechanisms used in networked markets with externalities, particularly electricity procurement. The dynamic-programming formulation together with an inductive correctness argument constitutes a verifiable algorithmic contribution that strengthens the result's applicability in mechanism design.

minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the methodology 'works for a large class of externalities' would be more informative if it briefly indicated the monotonicity condition on piecewise-linear externalities that defines the class; the full text supplies the definition, but the abstract leaves the scope imprecise.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, recognition of the algorithmic contribution via dynamic programming with inductive correctness, and the recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments appear in the report, so we have no points requiring response or manuscript changes at this time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation of prior two-agent mechanism; extension via new algorithm is independent

full rationale

The abstract references the authors' prior work on the two-agent linear-cost mechanism, but the central claims—the extension to finite agents under piecewise-linear costs for a specified class of externalities and the dynamic-programming algorithm—are supported by new definitions, a monotonicity condition, and an inductive correctness proof on the number of agents. These elements constitute independent mathematical content that does not reduce to the self-cited inputs by construction. No load-bearing step equates a prediction or uniqueness result to a fitted parameter or prior self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about cost functions and externality structure that are stated but not derived in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Agent cost functions are piecewise linear
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the setting that makes the problem more realistic.
  • domain assumption Externalities belong to a class compatible with the prior two-agent mechanism
    Invoked when the abstract claims the methodology works for a large class without further specification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5659 in / 1219 out tokens · 21556 ms · 2026-05-24T16:49:09.102065+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Escobar, A. Jofr´ e, Monopolistic competition in electricity networks with resistance losses, Economic theory 44 (1) (2010) 101–121

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    J. F. Escobar, A. Jofr´ e, Equilibrium analysis of electricity auctions, Department of Economics Stanford University

    work page

  3. [3]

    Figueroa, A

    N. Figueroa, A. Jofr´ e, B. Heymann, Cost-minimizing regulations for a wholesale electricity market

    work page

  4. [4]

    R. B. Myerson, Optimal auction design, Mathematics of operations research 6 (1) (1981) 58–73

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    Heymann, A

    B. Heymann, A. Jofr´ e, Mechanism design and auctions for electricity network (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Aussel, R

    D. Aussel, R. Correa, M. Marechal, Electricity spot market with transmission losses, Management 9 (2) (2013) 275–290

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    E. J. Anderson, P. Holmberg, A. B. Philpott, Mixed strategies in discriminatory divisible-good auctions, The RAND Journal of Economics 44 (1) (2013) 1–32

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    X. Hu, D. Ralph, Using epecs to model bilevel games in restructured electricity markets with locational prices, Operations research 55 (5) (2007) 809–827

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Masset, R

    E. Altman, T. Boulogne, R. El-Azouzi, T. Jim´ enez, L. Wynter, A survey on networking games in telecommunications, Computers and Operations Research 33 (2) (2006) 286–311. doi:10.1016/j. cor.2004.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2006

  10. [10]

    Babaioff, E

    M. Babaioff, E. Pavlov, N. Nisan, Mechanisms for a Spatially Distributed Market, Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) 66

    work page

  11. [11]

    Cho, Competitive Equilibrium in a Radial Network, The RAND Journal of Economics 34 (3) (2003) 438

    I.-K. Cho, Competitive Equilibrium in a Radial Network, The RAND Journal of Economics 34 (3) (2003) 438. doi:10.2307/1593740

    work page doi:10.2307/1593740 2003

  12. [12]

    Laffont, D

    J.-J. Laffont, D. Martimort, The theory of incentives: the principal-agent model, Princeton univer- sity press, 2009

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Krishna, Auction theory, Academic press, 2009

    V. Krishna, Auction theory, Academic press, 2009

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Roughgarden, Twenty lectures on algorithmic game theory, Cambridge University Press, 2016

    T. Roughgarden, Twenty lectures on algorithmic game theory, Cambridge University Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Nisan, Introduction to mechanism design (for computer scientists), Algorithmic game theory 209 (2007) 242

    N. Nisan, Introduction to mechanism design (for computer scientists), Algorithmic game theory 209 (2007) 242

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    R. J. Aumann, S. Hart, Handbook of game theory with economic applications, Vol. 2, Elsevier, 1992. 25

    work page 1992

  17. [17]

    D. M. Topkis, Supermodularity and complementarity, Princeton university press, 1998

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    Gibbons, Game theory for applied economists, Princeton University Press, 1992

    R. Gibbons, Game theory for applied economists, Princeton University Press, 1992

    work page 1992

  19. [19]

    J. R. Correa, N. Figueroa, On the planner’s loss due to lack of information in bayesian mechanism design, in: Algorithmic Game Theory, Springer, 2009, pp. 72–84

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Palma-Benhke, A

    R. Palma-Benhke, A. Philpott, A. Jofr´ e, M. Cort´ es-Carmona, Modelling network constrained eco- nomic dispatch problems, Optimization and Engineering 14 (3) (2013) 417–430. doi:10.1007/ s11081-012-9203-5

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    R. T. Rockafellar, R. J.-b. Wets, Variational analysis

    work page

  22. [22]

    R. T. Rockafellar, Lagrange Multipliers and Optimality, SIAM Review 35 (2) (1993) 183–238. doi:10.1137/1035044

    work page doi:10.1137/1035044 1993

  23. [23]

    Berge, Topological Spaces: including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces, and convexity, 1997

    C. Berge, Topological Spaces: including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces, and convexity, 1997

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    Bagnoli, T

    M. Bagnoli, T. Bergstrom, Log-concave probability and its applications, Economic theory 26 (2) (2005) 445–469

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

    Laffont, J

    J.-J. Laffont, J. Tirole, The dynamics of incentive contracts, Econometrica: Journal of the Econo- metric Society (1988) 1153–1175

    work page 1988

  26. [26]

    Grant, S

    M. Grant, S. Boyd, Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs, in: V. Blondel, S. Boyd, H. Kimura (Eds.), Recent Advances in Learning and Control, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Springer-Verlag Limited, 2008, pp. 95–110

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    Grant, S

    M. Grant, S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1 (Mar. 2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Barab´ asi, R

    A.-L. Barab´ asi, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, science 286 (5439) (1999) 509–512

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    R. K. Sundaram, A first course in optimization theory, Cambridge university press, 1996. Appendix A. Proof of Lemma 5 Proof. By definition X(a1 . . . ak−1, b, ak+1 . . . aN)− X(a1 . . . ak−1, c, ak+1 . . . aN) = V (a1 . . . b . . . aN)− V (a1 . . . c . . . aN) +∑ j̸=k aj[Qj(a1 . . . b . . . aN)− Qj(a1 . . . c . . . aN)] +bQk(a1 . . . b . . . aN)− cQk(a1 . ....

    work page 1996