In this paper, we study online double auctions, where multiple sellers and multiple buyers arrive and depart dynamically to exchange one commodity. We show that there is no deterministic online double auction that is truthful and competitive for maximising social welfare in an adversarial model. However, given the prior information that sellers are patient and the demand is not more than the supply, a deterministic and truthful greedy mechanism is actually 2-competitive, i.e. it guarantees that the social welfare of its allocation is at least half of the optimal one achievable offline. Moreover, if the number of incoming buyers is predictable, we demonstrate that an online double auction can be reduced to an online one-sided auction, and the truthfulness and competitiveness of the reduced online double auction follow that of the online one-sided auction. Notably, by using the reduction, we find a truthful mechanism that is almost 1-competitive, when buyers arrive randomly. Finally, we argue that these mechanisms also have a promising applicability in more general settings without assuming that sellers are patient, by decomposing a market into multiple sub-markets.
In this paper we present and evaluate a general framework for the design of truthful auctions for matching agents in a dynamic, two-sided market. A single commodity, such as a resource or a task, is bought and sold by multiple buyers and sellers that arrive and depart over time. Our algorithm, CHAIN, provides the first framework that allows a truthful dynamic double auction (DA) to be constructed from a truthful, single-period (i.e. static) double-auction rule. The pricing and matching method of the CHAIN construction is unique amongst dynamic-auction rules that adopt the same building block. We examine experimentally the allocative efficiency of CHAIN when instantiated on various single-period rules, including the canonical McAfee double-auction rule. For a baseline we also consider non-truthful double auctions populated with "zero-intelligence plus"-style learning agents. CHAIN-based auctions perform well in comparison with other schemes, especially as arrival intensity falls and agent valuations become more volatile. In this article, we study the problem of online market clearing where there is one commodity in the market being bought and sold by multiple buyers and sellers whose bids arrive and expire at different times. The auctioneer is faced with an online clearing problem of deciding which buy and sell bids to match without knowing what bids will arrive in the future. For maximizing profit, we present a (randomized) online algorithm with a competitive ratio of ln(pmax − pmin) p 1, when bids are in a range [pmin, pmax], which we show is the best possible. A simpler algorithm has a ratio twice this, and can be used even if expiration times are not known. For maximizing the number of trades, we present a simple greedy algorithm that achieves a factor of 2 competitive ratio if no money-losing trades are allowed. We also show that if the online algorithm is allowed to subsidize matches---match money-losing pairs if it has already collected enough money from previous pairs to pay for them---then it can actually be 1-competitive with respect to the optimal offline algorithm that is not allowed subsidy. That is, for maximizing the number of trades, the ability to subsidize is at least as valuable as knowing the future. We also consider objectives of maximizing buy or sell volume and social welfare. We present all of these results as corollaries of theorems on online matching in an incomplete interval graph.We also consider the issue of incentive compatibility, and develop a nearly optimal incentive-compatible algorithm for maximizing social welfare. For maximizing profit, we show that no incentive-compatible algorithm can achieve a sublinear competitive ratio, even if only one buy bid and one sell bid are alive at a time. However, we provide an algorithm that, under certain mild assumptions on the bids, performs nearly as well as the best fixed pair of buy and sell prices, a weaker but still natural performance measure. This latter result uses online learning methods, and we also show how such methods can be used to improve our “optimal” algorithms to a broader notion of optimality. Finally, we show how some of our results can be generalized to settings in which the buyers and sellers themselves have online bidding strategies, rather than just each having individual bids.