Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTowards Better Models of Externalities in Sponsored Search Auctions
121
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Paolo Serafino
Publication date
2016
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Sponsored Search Auctions (SSAs) arguably represent the problem at the intersection of computer science and economics with the deepest applications in real life. Within the realm of SSAs, the study of the effects that showing one ad has on the other ads, a.k.a. externalities in economics, is of utmost importance and has so far attracted the attention of much research. However, even the basic question of modeling the problem has so far escaped a definitive answer. The popular cascade model is arguably too idealized to really describe the phenomenon yet it allows a good comprehension of the problem. Other models, instead, describe the setting more adequately but are too complex to permit a satisfactory theoretical analysis. In this work, we attempt to get the best of both approaches: firstly, we define a number of general mathematical formulations for the problem in the attempt to have a rich description of externalities in SSAs and, secondly, prove a host of results drawing a nearly complete picture about the computational complexity of the problem. We complement these approximability results with some considerations about mechanism design in our context.
rate research
Read More
In this work we investigate the strategic learning implications of the deployment of sponsored search auction mechanisms that obey to fairness criteria. We introduce a new class of mechanisms composing a traditional Generalized Second Price auction (GSP) with different fair division schemes to achieve some desired level of fairness between two groups of Bayesian strategic advertisers. We propose two mechanisms, $beta$-Fair GSP and GSP-EFX, that compose GSP with, respectively, an envy-free up to one item (EF1), and an envy-free up to any item (EFX) fair division scheme. The payments of GSP are adjusted in order to compensate the advertisers that suffer a loss of efficiency due the fair division stage. We prove that, for both mechanisms, if bidders play so as to minimize their external regret they are guaranteed to reach an equilibrium with good social welfare. We also prove that the mechanisms are budget balanced, so that the payments charged by the traditional GSP mechanism are a good proxy of the total compensation offered to the advertisers. Finally, we evaluate the quality of the allocations of the two mechanisms through experiments on real-world data.
In this study, we apply reinforcement learning techniques and propose what we call reinforcement mechanism design to tackle the dynamic pricing problem in sponsored search auctions. In contrast to previous game-theoretical approaches that heavily rely on rationality and common knowledge among the bidders, we take a data-driven approach, and try to learn, over repeated interactions, the set of optimal reserve prices. We implement our approach within the current sponsored search framework of a major search engine: we first train a buyer behavior model, via a real bidding data set, that accurately predicts bids given information that bidders are aware of, including the game parameters disclosed by the search engine, as well as the bidders KPI data from previous rounds. We then put forward a reinforcement/MDP (Markov Decision Process) based algorithm that optimizes reserve prices over time, in a GSP-like auction. Our simulations demonstrate that our framework outperforms static optimization strategies including the ones that are currently in use, as well as several other dynamic ones.
Consider a cost-sharing game with players of different contribution to the total cost: an example might be an insurance company calculating premiums for a population of mixed-risk individuals. Two natural and competing notions of fairness might be to a) charge each individual the same price or b) charge each individual according to the cost that they bring to the pool. In the insurance literature, these general approaches are referred to as solidarity and actuarial fairness and are commonly viewed as opposites. However, in insurance (and many other natural settings), the cost-sharing game also exhibits externalities of size: all else being equal, larger groups have lower average cost. In the insurance case, we analyze a model with externalities of size due to a reduction in the variability of losses. We explore how this complicates traditional understandings of fairness, drawing on literature in cooperative game theory. First, we explore solidarity: we show that it is possible for both groups (high and low risk) to strictly benefit by joining an insurance pool where costs are evenly split, as opposed to being in separate risk pools. We build on this by producing a pricing scheme that maximally subsidizes the high risk group, while maintaining an incentive for lower risk people to stay in the insurance pool. Next, we demonstrate that with this new model, the price charged to each individual has to depend on the risk of other participants, making naive actuarial fairness inefficient. Furthermore, we prove that stable pricing schemes must be ones where players have the anti-social incentive of desiring riskier partners, contradicting motivations for using actuarial fairness. Finally, we describe how these results relate to debates about fairness in machine learning and potential avenues for future research.
A mediator is a well-known construct in game theory, and is an entity that plays on behalf of some of the agents who choose to use its services, while the rest of the agents participate in the game directly. We initiate a game theoretic study of sponsored search auctions, such as those used by Google and Yahoo!, involving {em incentive driven} mediators. We refer to such mediators as {em for-profit} mediators, so as to distinguish them from mediators introduced in prior work, who have no monetary incentives, and are driven by the altruistic goal of implementing certain desired outcomes. We show that in our model, (i) players/advertisers can improve their payoffs by choosing to use the services of the mediator, compared to directly participating in the auction; (ii) the mediator can obtain monetary benefit by managing the advertising burden of its group of advertisers; and (iii) the payoffs of the mediator and the advertisers it plays for are compatible with the incentive constraints from the advertisers who do dot use its services. A simple intuition behind the above result comes from the observation that the mediator has more information about and more control over the bid profile than any individual advertiser, allowing her to reduce the payments made to the auctioneer, while still maintaining incentive constraints. Further, our results indicate that there are significant opportunities for diversification in the internet economy and we should expect it to continue to develop richer structure, with room for different types of agents to coexist.
Search auctions have become a dominant source of revenue generation on the Internet. Such auctions have typically used per-click bidding and pricing. We propose the use of hybrid auctions where an advertiser can make a per-impression as well as a per-click bid, and the auctioneer then chooses one of the two as the pricing mechanism. We assume that the advertiser and the auctioneer both have separate beliefs (called priors) on the click-probability of an advertisement. We first prove that the hybrid auction is truthful, assuming that the advertisers are risk-neutral. We then show that this auction is superior to the existing per-click auction in multiple ways: 1) It takes into account the risk characteristics of the advertisers. 2) For obscure keywords, the auctioneer is unlikely to have a very sharp prior on the click-probabilities. In such situations, the hybrid auction can result in significantly higher revenue. 3) An advertiser who believes that its click-probability is much higher than the auctioneers estimate can use per-impression bids to correct the auctioneers prior without incurring any extra cost. 4) The hybrid auction can allow the advertiser and auctioneer to implement complex dynamic programming strategies. As Internet commerce matures, we need more sophisticated pricing models to exploit all the information held by each of the participants. We believe that hybrid auctions could be an important step in this direction.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
