skip to main content
research-article

Polyhedral Clinching Auctions and the AdWords Polytope

Published:30 June 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A central issue in applying auction theory in practice is the problem of dealing with budget-constrained agents. A desirable goal in practice is to design incentive compatible, individually rational, and Pareto optimal auctions while respecting the budget constraints. Achieving this goal is particularly challenging in the presence of nontrivial combinatorial constraints over the set of feasible allocations.

Toward this goal and motivated by AdWords auctions, we present an auction for polymatroidal environments satisfying these properties. Our auction employs a novel clinching technique with a clean geometric description and only needs an oracle access to the submodular function defining the polymatroid. As a result, this auction not only simplifies and generalizes all previous results, it applies to several new applications including AdWords Auctions, bandwidth markets, and video on demand. In particular, our characterization of the AdWords auction as polymatroidal constraints might be of independent interest. This allows us to design the first mechanism for Ad Auctions taking into account simultaneously budgets, multiple keywords and multiple slots.

We show that it is impossible to extend this result to generic polyhedral constraints. This also implies an impossibility result for multiunit auctions with decreasing marginal utilities in the presence of budget constraints.

References

  1. Zoë Abrams. 2006. Revenue maximization when bidders have budgets. In Proceedings of SODA. 1074--1082. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Gagan Aggarwal, S. Muthukrishnan, Dávid Pál, and Martin Pál. 2009. General auction mechanism for search advertising. In Proceedings of WWW. 241--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Saeed Alaei, Kamal Jain, and Azarakhsh Malekian. 2010. Walrasian equilibrium for unit demand buyers with non-quasi-linear utilities. CoRR abs/1006.4696.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Aaron Archer and Éva Tardos. 2001. Truthful mechanisms for one-parameter agents. In Proceedings of FOCS. 482--491. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Itai Ashlagi, Mark Braverman, Avinatan Hassidim, Ron Lavi, and Moshe Tennenholt. 2010. Position auctions with budgets: Existence and uniqueness. B.E. J. Theoret. Econ. Adv. 10, 1, DOI:10.2202/1935-1704/648.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Lawrence M. Ausubel. 1997. An efficient ascending-bid auction for multiple objects. Amer. Econ. Rev. 94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jean-Pierre Benoit and Vijay Krishna. 2001. Multiple-object auctions with budget constrained bidders. Rev. Econ. Stud. 68, 1, 155--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sayan Bhattacharya, Vincent Conitzer, Kamesh Munagala, and Lirong Xia. 2010a. Incentive compatible budget elicitation in multiunit auctions. In Proceedings of SODA. 554--572. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sayan Bhattacharya, Gagan Goel, Sreenivas Gollapudi, and Kamesh Munagala. 2010b. Budget constrained auctions with heterogeneous items. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'10). 379--388. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1806689.1806742 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sushil Bikhchandani, Sven de Vries, James Schummer, and Rakesh V. Vohra. 2011. An ascending vickrey auction for selling bases of a matroid. Oper. Res. 59, 2, 400--413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Christian Borgs, Jennifer T. Chayes, Nicole Immorlica, Mohammad Mahdian, and Amin Saberi. 2005. Multi-unit auctions with budget-constrained bidders. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 44--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Yang Cai, Constantinos Daskalakis, and S. Matthew Weinberg. 2012. Optimal multi-dimensional mechanism design: Reducing revenue to welfare maximization. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'12), 130--139. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2012.88 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ioannis Caragiannis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, Christos Kaklamanis, and Maria Kyropoulou. 2011. On the Efficiency of Equilibria in Generalized Second Price Auctions. In Proceedings of EC'11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Shuchi Chawla, David L. Malec, and Azarakhsh Malekian. 2011. Bayesian mechanism design for budget-constrained agents. In Proceedings the 12th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-11). 253--262. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1993574.1993613 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yeon-Koo Che and Ian Gale. 1998. Standard auctions with financially constrained bidders. Rev. Econ. Stud. 65, 1, 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Riccardo Colini-Baldeschi, Monika Henzinger, Stefano Leonardi, and Martin Starnberger. 2012. On multiple keyword sponsored search auctions with budgets. In Proceedings of ICALP (2). 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nikhil R. Devanur, Bach Q. Ha, and Jason D. Hartline. 2013. Prior-free auctions for budgeted agents. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 287--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Peerapong Dhangwatnotai. 2011. Multi-keyword sponsored search. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Shahar Dobzinski, Ron Lavi, and Noam Nisan. 2008. Multi-unit auctions with budget limits. In Proceedings of FOCS. 260--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Shahar Dobzinski and Renato Paes Leme. 2013. Efficiency guarantees in auctions with budgets. CoRR abs/1304.7048.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Danny Dolev, Dror G. Feitelson, Joseph Y. Halpern, Raz Kupferman, and Nathan Linial. 2012. No justified complaints: On fair sharing of multiple resources. In Proceedings of ICTS. 68--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paul Dütting, Monika Henzinger, and Ingmar Weber. 2013. Sponsored search, market equilibria, and the Hungarian Method. Inf. Process. Lett. 113, 3, 67--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Benjamin Edelman, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz. 2007. Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. Amer. Econ. Rev. 97, 1, 242--259. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282807780323523Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jon Feldman, S. Muthukrishnan, Evdokia Nikolova, and Martin Pál. 2008. A truthful mechanism for offline ad slot scheduling. In Proceedings of SAGT. 182--193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Amos Fiat, Stefano Leonardi, Jared Saia, and Piotr Sankowski. 2011. Single valued combinatorial auctions with budgets. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 223--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Gagan Goel, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Renato Paes Leme. 2012. Polyhedral clinching auctions and the adwords polytope. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference (STOC'12). 107--122. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2213977.2213990 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Gagan Goel, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Renato Paes Leme. 2013. Clinching auction with online supply. In Proceedings of SODA. 605--619. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Gagan Goel, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Renato Paes Leme. 2014. Clinching auctions beyond hard budget constraints. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC'14). 167--184. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2600057.2602851 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. L. Graham, E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, and A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan. 1979. Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Ann. Discrete Math. 4, 287--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Isa E. Hafalir, R. Ravi, and Amin Sayedi. 2012. A near Pareto optimal auction with budget constraints. Games Econ. Behav. 74, 2, 699--708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Satoru Iwata and James B. Orlin. 2009. A simple combinatorial algorithm for submodular function minimization. In Proceedings of SODA. 1230--1237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ron Lavi and Marina May. 2011. A note on the incompatibility of strategy-proofness and pareto-optimality in quasi-linear settings with public budgets. WINE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Brendan Lucier and Renato Paes Leme. 2011. GSP auctions with correlated types. In Proceedings of EC'11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Brendan Lucier, Renato Paes Leme, and Éva Tardos. 2011. On revenue in the generalized second price auction. In Proceedings of the Ad Auctions Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Colin J. H. McDiarmid. 1975. Rado's theorem for polymatroids. Math. Proce. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 78, 2, 263--281. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100051677Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. R. Myerson. 1981. Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6, 1, 58--73. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WS6-40417R4-179/2/f44ded75bd455529f12b470ea9cf2783 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Thành Nguyen and Éva Tardos. 2007. Approximately maximizing efficiency and revenue in polyhedral environments. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 11--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Thành Nguyen and Milan Vojnovic. 2011. The weighted proportional sharing mechanisms. In Proceedings of SIGMETRICS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. James B. Orlin. 2007. A faster strongly polynomial time algorithm for submodular function minimization. In Proceedings of IPCO. 240--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Renato Paes Leme and Éva Tardos. 2010. Pure and Bayes-Nash price of anarchy for generalized second price auctions. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Mallesh M. Pai and Rakesh Vohra. 2008. Optimal Auctions with Financially Constrained Bidders. Discussion papers. Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. A. Schrijver. 2003. Combinatorial Optimization - Polyhedra and Efficiency. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Hal R. Varian. 2006. Position auctions. Int. J. Indust. Org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Polyhedral Clinching Auctions and the AdWords Polytope

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Journal of the ACM
      Journal of the ACM  Volume 62, Issue 3
      June 2015
      263 pages
      ISSN:0004-5411
      EISSN:1557-735X
      DOI:10.1145/2799630
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 June 2015
      • Accepted: 1 April 2015
      • Revised: 1 January 2015
      • Received: 1 October 2013
      Published in jacm Volume 62, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader