Formal Verification of Diffusion Auctions

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.08765
• Title: Formal Verification of Diffusion Auctions
• Authors: Rustam Galimullin (University of Bergen, Norway), Munyque Mittelmann (CNRS, LIPN, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, France), Laurent Perrussel (IRIT, Université Toulouse Capitole, France)
• Classification: cs.GT (Game Theory), cs.LO (Logic in Computer Science)
• Publication Time/Conference: AAAI 2026
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08765v1

Abstract

Diffusion auctions enable sellers to leverage underlying social networks to expand participation and increase potential revenue. Specifically, sellers can incentivize auction participants to propagate auction information through the network. Although numerous variants of such auctions have been studied in recent literature, formal verification and strategic reasoning perspectives remain unexplored. This paper makes three key contributions: (1) introducing a logical formalization framework that captures diffusion dynamics and their strategic dimensions; (2) providing model checking procedures that enable verification of properties such as Nash equilibria and pave the way for checking the existence of seller strategies; (3) establishing computational complexity results for the proposed algorithms.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

In traditional auction theory and mechanism design, the set of participants is typically fixed and socially independent (i.e., the underlying social network among agents is not considered). However, sellers can leverage buyers' social networks to promote auctions. Larger markets may contain participants with higher valuations, thereby increasing social welfare or seller revenue.

Problem Significance

1. Participant Incentive Paradox: Buyers, as competitors, lack motivation to invite additional participants, as this increases competition and reduces their probability of acquiring the auctioned item.
2. Diffusion Auction Mechanisms: By providing incentives to buyers such that they benefit from inviting neighbors, mechanisms ensure that buyers' new utility after spreading auction information is no lower than their original utility.
3. Unexplored Domain: Strategic behavior and formal verification in multi-seller competitive scenarios remain unstudied.

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Existing diffusion auction research primarily focuses on single-seller scenarios and economic properties (e.g., incentive compatibility, optimality).
2. Lack of formal analysis of strategic behavior in multi-seller competitive environments.
3. Absence of systematic verification frameworks to check properties of these mechanisms.

Research Motivation

This paper presents the first logic-based formal verification approach for diffusion auctions, combining ideas from social network logic, dynamic epistemic logic (DEL), coalition logic (CL), and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL), providing powerful tools for specification and verification of diffusion auctions.

Core Contributions

1. Logical Formalization Framework: Introduces n-seller diffusion incentive logic L_n and its strategic variant SL_n, capable of capturing the dynamics of auction information diffusion and strategic dimensions.
2. General Mechanism Model: Proposes a diffusion auction mechanism model (DAM) sufficiently general to capture multiple mechanism types.
3. Model Checking Algorithms: Provides model checking procedures for L_n and SL_n with complexities P and PSPACE-complete, respectively.
4. Strategy Existence Problem: Formalizes and solves the strategy existence problem, proving it to be NP-complete.
5. Expressiveness Analysis: Proves that SL_n is strictly more expressive than L_n, but can be converted equivalently on finite mechanisms.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The paper studies formal verification problems in multi-seller diffusion auctions where:

• Input: n sellers selling copies of the same item, with buyers connected through a social network.
• Dynamic Process: Sellers incentivize direct neighbors (buyers) to invite their friends to join the auction.
• Objective: Verify mechanism properties (e.g., Nash equilibria) and check the existence of seller strategies.

Logical Language Design

L_n Language Definition

Syntax:

φ := α | (z₁t₁ + ... + zₘtₘ) ≥ z | ¬φ | (φ ∧ φ) | □φ | [σ₁:β₁,...,σₙ:βₙ]φ | ♡γ

Core Constructs:

1. Nominals α ∈ Nom: refer to specific agents
2. Linear Inequalities: express utility relations, e.g., ut_α ≥ 3
3. Friend Modality □φ: all friends of the current agent satisfy φ
4. Concurrent Diffusion Modality σ:βφ: φ holds after seller σᵢ incentivizes buyer βᵢ
5. Allocation Operator ♡γ: agent γ obtains the item

SL_n Strategic Extension

Adds coalition modality:

⟨[C]⟩φ := seller coalition C has a strategy such that φ holds 
           regardless of how other sellers act

Semantics:

M,a ⊨ ⟨[C]⟩φ iff ∃βC∀βS\C: M,a ⊨ ⟨σC:βC⟩⊤ and M,a ⊨ [σC∪σS\C:βC∪βS\C]φ

Mechanism Model Architecture

Market Network Definition

An n-seller market network M = (Agt, F, Bdg, V, I, N):

• Agt = B ∪ S: set of buyers and sellers
• F: Agt → 2^B: symmetric and irreflexive friendship relation
• Bdg: Agt → Q⁺∪{0}: budget of each agent
• V: B → Q⁺∪{0}: buyer valuations for the item
• I: B × S → Q⁺∪{0}: incentives sellers are willing to pay to buyers
• N: naming function mapping names to agents

Diffusion Auction Mechanism (DAM)

M = (M, P, Pay, U):

• P: Agt → {0,1}: allocation function (who obtains the item)
• Pay: B → Q⁺∪{0}: payment function
• U: Agt → Q⁺∪{0}: utility function

The specific definitions of these functions are not fixed, making the model general and capable of accommodating multiple mechanism types.

Mechanism Update Rules

When seller σᵢ incentivizes buyer βᵢ:

1. If σᵢ offers the highest incentive and has sufficient budget
2. All friends of βᵢ join σᵢ's auction: F^Upd(s) = F(s) ∪ {b | b ∈ F(N(βᵢ))}
3. Budget adjustments:
   • Bdg^Upd(s) = Bdg(s) - I(N(βᵢ), s)
   • Bdg^Upd(N(βᵢ)) = Bdg(N(βᵢ)) + I(N(βᵢ), s)

Technical Innovations

1. Dynamic Social Network Modeling: First application of DEL's model update ideas to auction diffusion, where social network structure changes dynamically with seller actions.
2. Hybrid Logic Techniques: Uses nominals to precisely refer to specific agents, supporting expressions like "agent α's utility increases."
3. Concurrent Incentive Operations: Models simultaneous actions of multiple sellers through σ₁:β₁,...,σₙ:βₙ, using • to enable sequential execution.
4. Linear Inequality Integration: Borrows from probabilistic reasoning and resource-bounded epistemic logic to express utility and budget constraints.
5. Coalition Strategy Operators: Inspired by CL/ATL but adapted to dynamic models, capturing strategic capabilities in competitive environments.

Experimental Setup

Example Mechanism: SMF Auction

The paper uses single-item multi-unit first-price (SMF) auction as a running example:

Allocation Function Definition:

1. For each seller sᵢ, construct an ordered set of buyer valuations participating in its auction (from high to low)
2. Refine the set: sᵢ = sᵢ \ {sⱼ(1) | 0 < j < i} (remove buyers who already obtained items)
3. If sᵢ is non-empty, the highest bidder obtains the item: P(a) = 1 for V(a) = sᵢ(1)

Payment and Utility:

• Buyer payment: Pay(a) = V(a)
• Buyer utility: U(a) = Bdg(a) - V(a)·P(a)
• Seller utility: U(sᵢ) = V(a) + Bdg(sᵢ) (where a is the winner)

Case Analysis

Case 1: Single Seller Scenario (Figure 2)

• Seller s with budget 5, buyers a,b,c,d with valuations 1,2,9,10 respectively
• Initial state: M,a ⊨ (ut_σ = 7) ∧ ♡β (β wins, seller utility 7)
• After incentivizing α: M,a ⊨ ⟨α⟩(ut_σ = 9 ∧ ♡γ) (γ joins and wins, utility increases to 9)
• Cannot proceed further: M,a ⊨ ¬⟨α⟩⟨γ⟩(ut_σ > 9) (insufficient budget to reach richest buyer)

Case 2: Dual Seller Competition (Figure 3)

• Two sellers s₁,s₂ each with budget 1, six buyers
• Initial: ut_σ₁ = 2 ∧ ut_σ₂ = 2
• Coordinated diffusion σ₁:δ, σ₂:γ: both sellers' utilities increase (to 3 and 4)
• Competitive diffusion σ₁:α, σ₂:γ: s₁ surpasses s₂ by incentivizing α to invite high-valuation buyer b

Experimental Results

Main Complexity Results

Theorem 1: L_n Model Checking Complexity

Conclusion: For finite DAMs with polynomially computable P, Pay, U functions, L_n model checking is in P.

Proof Sketch (Algorithm 1):

1. Check dynamic modality σ:βψ: verify whether the seller incentivizes a buyer in its auction with sufficient budget
2. Identify the seller offering the highest incentive (lexicographic order breaks ties)
3. Update mechanism: F^(σ:β), Bdg^(σ:β)
4. Recursively check ψ
5. Complexity analysis: mechanism update size O(|M|²), |φ| recursive calls, overall polynomial time

Theorem 2: Strategy Existence Problem

Problem Definition: Given a finite mechanism M and target φ∈L_n, does there exist a finite sequence of concurrent incentives ⟨σ:β⟩* such that M,s ⊨ ⟨σ:β⟩*φ?

Conclusion: NP-complete

Proof:

• NP Upper Bound: Sequence length is bounded by budget to be polynomial; can guess and verify in P time
• NP Hardness: Reduction from 3-SAT
  • Construct mechanism M_Ψ: agents correspond to clauses (bᵢ), literals (cᵢⱼ,ₗ), atoms (dᵢ), truth values (tᵢ,fᵢ)
  • Hierarchical structure: s → bᵢ → cᵢⱼ,ₗ → dᵢ → eᵢⱼ → {tᵢ,fᵢ}
  • Target formula φ_Ψ encodes 3-SAT constraints
  • Incentive sequences correspond to truth assignments

Theorem 3: SL_n and L_n Expressiveness

Conclusion 1: For finite mechanism M,a and φ∈SL_n, there exists ψ∈L_n such that M,a ⊨ φ ⟺ M,a ⊨ ψ

Conversion: t(⟨C⟩φ) = ⋁{βC} ⋀{βS\C} (⟨σC:βC⟩⊤ ∧ σC∪σS\C:βC∪βS\Ct(φ))

Conclusion 2: SL_n is strictly more expressive than L_n (Theorem 4)

Counterexample: ⟨σ⟩♢γ ∈ SL₁ has no equivalent L_n formula

• Construct two mechanisms M₁,M₂ with different incentives for buyer β (2 vs 1)
• β is not in name(φ) but ⟨σ⟩ quantifies over all buyer names
• M₁,s ⊭ ⟨σ⟩♢γ (insufficient budget) but M₂,s ⊨ ⟨σ⟩♢γ
• Any L_n formula φ behaves identically on both mechanisms

Theorem 5: SL_n Model Checking Complexity

Conclusion: PSPACE-complete

Proof:

• PSPACE Upper Bound (Algorithm 2):
  • For ⟨C⟩ψ, enumerate buyer choices for coalition C (|B|^|C| possibilities)
  • For each choice, enumerate choices for other sellers (|B|^|S\C| possibilities)
  • Depth-first search with space complexity O(|φ|·|M|²)
• PSPACE Hardness: Reduction from QBF
  • Construct M_Ψ: 2n+1 agents (s, a⁰ᵢ,a¹ᵢ, b⁰ᵢ,b¹ᵢ)
  • a⁰ᵢ,b⁰ᵢ model pᵢ=false, a¹ᵢ,b¹ᵢ model pᵢ=true
  • Formula φ_Ψ encodes quantifier alternation: ⟨σ⟩ corresponds to ∀, ⟨σ⟩ corresponds to ∃
  • Guard fixed_k ensures first k atoms are assigned

Nash Equilibrium Verification

One-step Nash equilibrium can be expressed as:

φ ∧ ⋀ᵢ₌₁ⁿ ⋀_{γ∈Nom_M} ⟨σ₁:β₁,...,σᵢ:γ,...,σₙ:βₙ⟩(ut_σᵢ ≤ mᵢ)

where φ := ⟨σ:β⟩⋀_{1≤i≤n} ut_σᵢ = mᵢ

Generalization to k-step NE: verify that no seller can increase utility through unilateral deviation within k steps.

Validity

Some valid formulas in SL_n (inherited from CL):

1. ⟨C⟩φ → ⟨C∪D⟩φ (superset is at least as powerful)
2. ⟨∅⟩φ → ⟨S⟩φ (relationship between empty and full coalition)
3. ⟨C⟩(φ∧ψ) → ⟨C⟩φ (achieving two goals implies achieving single goal)

Related Work

Auction Logic

1. Bidding Languages: OR/XOR languages for expressing preferences in combinatorial auctions (Nisan 2000)
2. Auction Rule Representation: Lightweight formalization (Mittelmann et al. 2022)
3. Repeated Auction Strategies: Representation and reasoning (Belardinelli et al. 2022)
4. Bounded Rationality: Capturing bounded rationality in auctions (Mittelmann et al. 2021)
5. Strategy Logic: Using SL variants for mechanism design and synthesis (Mittelmann et al. 2023, 2025)
   • Note: General SL model checking has non-elementary complexity
6. Automated Verification: Formal verification of auction protocols (Garg et al. 2025; Caminati et al. 2015)

Innovation: First logical exploration of auction diffusion dynamics with non-fixed agent sets.

DEL and Social Network Logic

1. DEL: Models knowledge-changing events; this paper borrows model update ideas
2. Social Network Logic (SNL):
   • Information diffusion (Christoff & Hansen 2015; Baltag et al. 2019)
   • Social influence (Christoff et al. 2016)
   • Echo chambers (Pedersen et al. 2019)
3. Related Work: Post visibility and propagation on social networks (Galimullin & Pedersen 2024)
4. Hybrid Logic: Using nominals to refer to agents (Areces & ten Cate 2007)
5. Coalition Announcements: Coalition operators in DEL (Ågotnes & van Ditmarsch 2008)
   • Model checking complexity PSPACE-complete (Alechina et al. 2021)
6. Concurrent Games: Multi-step concurrent games using DEL modalities to modify models (Maubert et al. 2020)
7. Adding Arrows in Modal Logic (Areces et al. 2015)

Positioning: Combines SNL, DEL, and CL/ATL ideas, first applied to diffusion auction verification.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Proposes the first logic-based formal verification framework for diffusion auctions
2. L_n and SL_n can capture item allocation, utility changes, network locality properties, Nash equilibria, etc.
3. The logic is dynamic, enabling verification of properties after network modifications
4. Model checking complexity: L_n is P, SL_n is PSPACE-complete
5. Strategy existence problem is NP-complete
6. DAM definition is general, accommodating multiple auction types (provided function complexity does not exceed model checking complexity)

Limitations

1. Function Complexity Constraints: Requires P, Pay, U computation complexity not exceeding model checking complexity
   • L_n requires polynomial-time computability
   • SL_n requires polynomial-space computability
   • Excludes certain optimal allocation functions (e.g., NP-complete allocation in VCG)
2. Single Item Assumption: Current framework limited to single-item (multiple copies) auctions
3. Complete Information: Does not consider incomplete information and Bayesian analysis
4. Buyer Strategies: Primarily focuses on seller strategies; buyer strategy reasoning insufficiently explored
5. Finite Budget Assumption: Actual budgets may be more complex
6. Network Structure: Assumes friendship relations are symmetric and fixed (except for changes induced by diffusion)

Future Directions

1. Probabilistic Framework: Formal verification of incomplete information and Bayesian analysis (Huang et al. 2025)
2. Buyer Strategies: Consider buyer strategic behavior and reasoning
3. Axiomatization: Explore complete axiom systems for L_n and SL_n
4. Multi-item Auctions: Extension to combinatorial auction scenarios
5. Practical Applications: Verification on real social network data
6. Synthesis Problem: Automatic synthesis of mechanisms satisfying given properties

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Significant Theoretical Contributions

• Originality: First application of formal methods to diffusion auction verification, opening new research directions
• Theoretical Depth: Complete complexity analysis (P, NP-complete, PSPACE-complete)
• Expressiveness Analysis: Rigorously proves SL_n > L_n with conversion on finite mechanisms

2. Elegant Method Design

• Modular Design: L_n captures basic dynamics, SL_n adds strategic reasoning
• General Framework: DAM definition does not fix specific functions, applicable to multiple mechanisms
• Concise Syntax: Logical constructs are intuitive and easily express complex properties

3. Diverse Technical Innovations

• Cross-domain Fusion: Successfully combines DEL, SNL, CL/ATL ideas
• Dynamic Network Modeling: Elegantly handles dynamic changes in social networks
• Concurrent Operations: Unifies concurrent and sequential execution through •

4. Detailed Examples

• Provides rich running examples (single seller, dual seller competition)
• Case analysis clearly demonstrates logical expressiveness
• Formalization of economic concepts like Nash equilibrium is concrete and feasible

5. Complete Proofs

• Technical appendix contains detailed proofs of all theorems
• Reduction constructions (3-SAT, QBF) have pedagogical value
• Algorithm pseudocode is clear and implementable

Weaknesses

1. Missing Experimental Validation

• No Empirical Evaluation: No experiments on real or synthetic data
• Scalability Unknown: Algorithm performance on large-scale networks unclear
• Tool Implementation: No model checker implementation or open-source code provided

2. Limited Application Scenarios

• Single Item Restriction: Real e-commerce scenarios often involve multiple products
• Oversimplified Assumptions: Complete information, symmetric friendship too restrictive
• Incentive Model: Fixed incentive values may lack flexibility

3. Insufficient Buyer Behavior Modeling

• Buyers passively accept incentives, lacking active strategic reasoning
• Does not consider possible collusion among buyers
• Invitation decisions simplified to "invite all"

4. Complexity Cost

• SL_n's PSPACE-complete complexity limits practical applications
• NP-complete strategy existence problem unfriendly to large instances
• Approximation algorithms or heuristics unexplored

5. Shallow Economic Property Analysis

• While Nash equilibrium can be expressed, deeper analysis of other mechanism design properties lacking
• Incentive compatibility, individual rationality only mentioned, not thoroughly verified
• Insufficient dialogue with economics literature

Impact

Contribution to the Field

1. New Research Direction: Opens formal verification research line for diffusion auctions
2. Methodological Contribution: Demonstrates how to apply logical methods to dynamic network mechanism design
3. Theoretical Foundation: Provides solid formal foundation for subsequent research

Practical Value

1. Potential Applications: E-commerce platforms, social media advertising, viral marketing
2. Verification Tools: Can develop automated tools to check mechanism properties
3. Mechanism Design: Provides designers with specification language and verification means

Reproducibility

• Theory Reproducible: Definitions and proofs complete and clear
• Implementation Challenge: Requires model checker implementation, substantial effort
• Data Requirements: Needs social network data and auction parameters

Applicable Scenarios

Ideal Application Scenarios

1. Social E-commerce: Leveraging user social relationships to promote products
2. Referral Reward Systems: Users earn rewards for recommending friends
3. Crowdfunding Platforms: Projects spread through social networks
4. Online Advertising: Advertisers compete for social network users

Constraints

1. Network Scale: Medium-scale networks (due to complexity constraints)
2. Single Item Scenario: Current framework limitation
3. Complete Information: Requires knowledge of network structure and valuations
4. Rational Agents: Assumes agents are fully rational

Inapplicable Scenarios

1. Large-scale Networks: Millions of nodes in social networks
2. Complex Goods: Multi-attribute, customizable products
3. Dynamic Valuations: Valuations changing over time
4. Incomplete Information: Information asymmetry among agents

References

Core Citations

1. Zhao et al. (2018): Pioneering work on diffusion auctions
2. Li et al. (2022): Diffusion auction design
3. Pauly (2002): Coalition Logic foundations
4. Alur et al. (2002): Original ATL paper
5. van Ditmarsch et al. (2008): DEL textbook
6. Pedersen (2024): Social network logic survey
7. Mittelmann et al. (2023, 2025): Strategy logic verification for auctions

Related Directions

1. Mechanism Design: Nisan et al. (2007) - Algorithmic Game Theory
2. Auction Theory: Vickrey (1961), Clarke (1971), Groves (1973) - VCG mechanism
3. Model Checking: Clarke et al. (2018) - Handbook of Model Checking
4. Social Networks: Christoff & Hansen (2015), Baltag et al. (2019)

Summary

This paper is pioneering work in formal verification of diffusion auctions, providing a solid theoretical foundation for this emerging field through the introduction of L_n and SL_n logical systems. Main strengths lie in theoretical completeness, method generality, and technical innovation. However, the lack of empirical evaluation and consideration of large-scale practical applications are notable shortcomings. Future work incorporating real data validation, extension to multi-item scenarios, and development of efficient approximation algorithms would substantially enhance practical value. Overall, this is a high-quality theoretical paper making important contributions to cross-disciplinary research spanning mechanism design, logic, and social networks.