Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3618260.3649688acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Strategic Budget Selection in a Competitive Autobidding World

Published: 11 June 2024 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    We study a game played between advertisers in an online ad platform. The platform sells ad impressions by first-price auction and provides autobidding algorithms that optimize bids on each advertiser's behalf, subject to advertiser constraints such as budgets. Crucially, these constraints are strategically chosen by the advertisers. The chosen constraints define an "inner" budget-pacing game for the autobidders. Advertiser payoffs in the constraint-choosing "metagame" are determined by the equilibrium reached by the autobidders. Advertiser preferences can be more general than what is implied by their constraints: we assume only that they have weakly decreasing marginal value for clicks and weakly increasing marginal disutility for spending money. Nevertheless, we show that at any pure Nash equilibrium of the metagame, the resulting allocation obtains at least half of the liquid welfare of any allocation and this bound is tight. We also obtain a 4-approximation for any mixed Nash equilibrium or Bayes-Nash equilibria. These results rely on the power to declare budgets: if advertisers can specify only a (linear) value per click or an ROI target but not a budget constraint, the approximation factor at equilibrium can be as bad as linear in the number of advertisers.

    References

    [1]
    Gagan Aggarwal, Ashwinkumar Badanidiyuru, and Aranyak Mehta. 2019. Autobidding with constraints. In Web and Internet Economics: 15th International Conference, WINE 2019, New York, NY, USA, December 10–12, 2019, Proceedings 15. 17–30.
    [2]
    Airbnb. 2023. Smart Pricing.
    [3]
    Yeganeh Alimohammadi, Aranyak Mehta, and Andres Perlroth. 2023. Incentive Compatibility in the Auto-bidding World. Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation.
    [4]
    Amazon. 2023. Adjust pricing quickly and automatically.
    [5]
    Yossi Azar, Michal Feldman, Nick Gravin, and Alan Roytman. 2017. Liquid price of anarchy. In Algorithmic Game Theory: 10th International Symposium, SAGT 2017, L’Aquila, Italy, September 12–14, 2017, Proceedings. 3–15.
    [6]
    Moshe Babaioff, Richard Cole, Jason Hartline, Nicole Immorlica, and Brendan Lucier. 2021. Non-Quasi-Linear Agents in Quasi-Linear Mechanisms. In 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021). 185, 84.
    [7]
    Santiago Balseiro, Yuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab Mirrokni, and Song Zuo. 2021. Robust auction design in the auto-bidding world. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34 (2021), 17777–17788.
    [8]
    Santiago Balseiro, Anthony Kim, Mohammad Mahdian, and Vahab Mirrokni. 2017. Budget management strategies in repeated auctions. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. 15–23.
    [9]
    Santiago Balseiro, Haihao Lu, and Vahab Mirrokni. 2020. Dual mirror descent for online allocation problems. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 613–628.
    [10]
    Santiago R Balseiro, Yuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab S Mirrokni, and Song Zuo. 2021. The landscape of auto-bidding auctions: Value versus utility maximization. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 132–133.
    [11]
    Santiago R Balseiro and Yonatan Gur. 2019. Learning in repeated auctions with budgets: Regret minimization and equilibrium. Management Science, 65, 9 (2019), 3952–3968.
    [12]
    Santiago R Balseiro, Haihao Lu, and Vahab Mirrokni. 2023. The best of many worlds: Dual mirror descent for online allocation problems. Operations Research, 71, 1 (2023), 101–119.
    [13]
    C. Borgs, J. Chayes, N. Immorlica, M. Mahdian, and A. Saberi. 2005. Multi-unit auctions with budget-constrained bidders. In Proc. 6th ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce.
    [14]
    Christian Borgs, Jennifer T. Chayes, Nicole Immorlica, Kamal Jain, Omid Etesami, and Mohammad Mahdian. 2007. Dynamics of bid optimization in online advertisement auctions. In 16thInternational World Wide Web Conference. 531–540.
    [15]
    Ioannis Caragiannis and Alexandros A Voudouris. 2016. Welfare guarantees for proportional allocations. Theory of Computing Systems, 59 (2016), 581–599.
    [16]
    Ioannis Caragiannis and Alexandros A Voudouris. 2018. The efficiency of resource allocation mechanisms for budget-constrained users. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 681–698.
    [17]
    Matteo Castiglioni, Andrea Celli, Alberto Marchesi, Giulia Romano, and Nicola Gatti. 2022. A unifying framework for online optimization with long-term constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35 (2022), 33589–33602.
    [18]
    Xi Chen, Christian Kroer, and Rachitesh Kumar. 2021. The Complexity of Pacing for Second-Price Auctions. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 318–318.
    [19]
    George Christodoulou, Alkmini Sgouritsa, and Bo Tang. 2015. On the efficiency of the proportional allocation mechanism for divisible resources. In Algorithmic Game Theory: 8th International Symposium, SAGT 2015, Saarbrücken, Germany, September 28-30, 2015. Proceedings 8. 165–177.
    [20]
    Vincent Conitzer, Christian Kroer, Debmalya Panigrahi, Okke Schrijvers, Nicolas E Stier-Moses, Eric Sodomka, and Christopher A Wilkens. 2022. Pacing Equilibrium in First Price Auction Markets. Management Science.
    [21]
    Vincent Conitzer, Christian Kroer, Eric Sodomka, and Nicolas E Stier-Moses. 2022. Multiplicative pacing equilibria in auction markets. Operations Research, 70, 2 (2022), 963–989.
    [22]
    Yuan Deng, Mohammad Mahdian, Jieming Mao, Vahab Mirrokni, Hanrui Zhang, and Song Zuo. 2023. Efficiency of the Generalized Second-Price Auction for Value Maximizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03105.
    [23]
    Yuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab Mirrokni, Hanrui Zhang, and Song Zuo. 2022. Efficiency of the first-price auction in the autobidding world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10650.
    [24]
    Yuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab Mirrokni, and Song Zuo. 2021. Towards efficient auctions in an auto-bidding world. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 3965–3973.
    [25]
    Shahar Dobzinski and Renato Paes Leme. 2014. Efficiency guarantees in auctions with budgets. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. 392–404.
    [26]
    Expedia. 2023. Find our lowest price on your next flight with Price Tracking.
    [27]
    Giannis Fikioris and Éva Tardos. 2023. Liquid welfare guarantees for no-regret learning in sequential budgeted auctions. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 678–698.
    [28]
    Jason Gaitonde, Yingkai Li, Bar Light, Brendan Lucier, and Aleksandrs Slivkins. 2023. Budget Pacing in Repeated Auctions: Regret and Efficiency Without Convergence. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). 251, 52.
    [29]
    Negin Golrezaei, Patrick Jaillet, Jason Cheuk Nam Liang, and Vahab Mirrokni. 2023. Pricing against a Budget and ROI Constrained Buyer. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 9282–9307.
    [30]
    Google. 2023. About automated bidding.
    [31]
    John Richard Hicks. 1975. Value and capital: An inquiry into some fundamental principles of economic theory. OUP Catalogue.
    [32]
    Hopper. 2023. How do Price Predictions work with Hopper?
    [33]
    Yoav Kolumbus and Noam Nisan. 2022. Auctions between regret-minimizing agents. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 100–111.
    [34]
    Yoav Kolumbus and Noam Nisan. 2022. How and why to manipulate your own agent: On the incentives of users of learning agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35 (2022), 28080–28094.
    [35]
    Juncheng Li and Pingzhong Tang. 2022. Auto-bidding Equilibrium in ROI-Constrained Online Advertising Markets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06107.
    [36]
    Christopher Liaw, Aranyak Mehta, and Andres Perlroth. 2022. Efficiency of non-truthful auctions under auto-bidding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03630.
    [37]
    Pinyan Lu and Tao Xiao. 2015. Improved efficiency guarantees in auctions with budgets. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 397–413.
    [38]
    Brendan Lucier, Sarath Pattathil, Aleksandrs Slivkins, and Mengxiao Zhang. 2023. Autobidders with budget and roi constraints: Efficiency, regret, and pacing dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13306.
    [39]
    Aranyak Mehta. 2022. Auction design in an auto-bidding setting: Randomization improves efficiency beyond vcg. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 173–181.
    [40]
    Aranyak Mehta and Andres Perlroth. 2023. Auctions without commitment in the auto-bidding world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07312.
    [41]
    Meta. 2023. About Meta Bid Strategies.
    [42]
    Microsoft. 2023. Automated bidding.
    [43]
    W. Vickrey. 1961. Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders. J. of Finance, 16 (1961), 8–37.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    STOC 2024: Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 2024
    2049 pages
    ISBN:9798400703836
    DOI:10.1145/3618260
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 11 June 2024

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. liquid welfare
    2. metagame
    3. price of anarchy
    4. sequential auction

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    STOC '24
    Sponsor:
    STOC '24: 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 24 - 28, 2024
    BC, Vancouver, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 101
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)101
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)85
    Reflects downloads up to 09 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media