skip to main content
10.1145/1526709.1526742acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

General auction mechanism for search advertising

Published:20 April 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

In sponsored search, a number of advertising slots is available on a search results page, and have to be allocated among a set of advertisers competing to display an ad on the page. This gives rise to a bipartite matching market that is typically cleared by the way of an automated auction. Several auction mechanisms have been proposed, with variants of the Generalized Second Price (GSP) being widely used in practice. There is a rich body of work on bipartite matching markets that builds upon the stable marriage model of Gale and Shapley and the assignment model of Shapley and Shubik. This line of research offers deep insights into the structure of stable outcomes in such markets and their incentive properties. In this paper, we model advertising auctions in terms of an assignment model with linear utilities, extended with bidder and item specific maximum and minimum prices. Auction mechanisms like the commonly used GSP or the well-known Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) can be interpreted as simply computing a bidder-optimal stable matching in this model, for a suitably defined set of bidder preferences, but our model includes much richer bidders and preferences. We prove that in our model the existence of a stable matching is guaranteed, and under a non-degeneracy assumption a bidder-optimal stable matching exists as well. We give an algorithm to find such matching in polynomial time, and use it to design truthful mechanism that generalizes GSP, is truthful for profit-maximizing bidders, correctly implements features like bidder-specific minimum prices and position-specific bids, and works for rich mixtures of bidders and preferences. Our main technical contributions are the existence of bidder-optimal matchings and strategyproofness of the resulting mechanism, and are proved by induction on the progress of the matching algorithm.

References

  1. Gagan Aggarwal. Privacy Protection and Advertising in a Networked World. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Gagan Aggarwal, Ashish Goel, and Rajeev Motwani. Truthful auctions for pricing search keywords. In ACM Conf on Electronic commerce, pages 1--7, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Gagan Aggarwal, S. Muthukrishnan, and Jon Feldman. Bidding to the top: VCG and equilibria of position-based auctions. In WAOA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ahmet Alkan. Existence and computation of matching equilibria. European Journal of Political Economy, 5(2-3):285--296, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ahmet Alkan and David Gale. The core of the matching game. Games and Economic Behavior, 2(3):203--212, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sushil Bikhchandani and Joseph M. Ostroy. From the assignment model to combinatorial auctions. In Combinatorial Auctions. MIT Press, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Edward H. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11(1):17--33, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. G. Demange and D. Gale. The strategy structure of two-sided matching markets. Econometrica, 53(4):873--888, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Gabrielle Demange, David Gale, and Marilda Sotomayor. Multi-item auctions. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4):863--872, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gabrielle Demange, David Gale, and Marilda Sotomayor. A further note on the stable matching problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 16:217--222, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Benjamin Edelman, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz. Internet advertising and the generalized second price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. American Economic Review, 97(1):242--259, March 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Eyal Even-Dar, Jon Feldman, Yishay Mansour, and S. Muthukrishnan. On the effect of minimum prices on position auctions. WINE, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Satoru Fujishige and Akihisa Tamura. A two-sided discrete-concave market with possibly bounded side payments: An approach by discrete convex analysis. Mathematics of Operations Research, 32(1):136--155, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. David Gale and Lloyd S. Shapley. College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Monthly, 69(1):9--15, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. David Gale and Marilda Sotomayor. Some remarks on the stable marriage problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 11:223--232, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Theodore Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 41(4):617--631, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. J. A. S. Kelso and V. P. Crawford. Job matching, coalition formation, and gross substitutes. Econometrica, 50:1483--1504, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Harold W. Kuhn. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Logistics Quarterly, 2:83--97, 1955.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Herman B. Leonard. Elicitation of honest preferences for the assignment of individuals to positions. Journal of Political Economy, 91:461--479, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Noam Nisan, Tim Roughgarden, Eva Tardos, and Vijay V. Vazirani, editors. Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Septermber 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Quinzii. Core and competitive equilibria with indivisibilities. International Journal of Game Theory, 13(1):41--60, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Alvin E. Roth. The economics of matching: Stability and incentives. Mathematics of Operations Research, 7(4):617--628, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Alvin E. Roth and Marilda A. Oliveira Sotomayor. Two-sided matching: A study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lloyd S. Shapley and Martin Shubik. The assignment game i: The core. Intl J. of Game Theory, 1(1):111--130, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Hal R. Varian. Position auctions. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. William Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J.of Finance, 16(1):8--37, 1961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_algorithm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. General auction mechanism for search advertising

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WWW '09: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web
      April 2009
      1280 pages
      ISBN:9781605584874
      DOI:10.1145/1526709

      Copyright © 2009 IW3C2 org

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 April 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader