Risk-Averse and Optimistic Advertiser Incentive Compatibility in Auto-bidding
Christopher Liaw, Wennan Zhu
Abstract
The rise of auto-bidding in online advertising has created new challenges for ensuring advertiser incentive compatibility, particularly when advertisers delegate bidding to agents with high-level constraints. One challenge in defining incentive compatibility is the multiplicity of equilibria. After advertisers submit their reports, it is unclear what the result will be and one only has knowledge of a range of possible results. Nevertheless, Alimohammadi et al. [4] proposed a notion of Auto-bidding Incentive Compatibility (AIC) which serves to highlight that standard auctions may not incentivize truthful reporting of these constraints. However, their definition of AIC is very stringent as it requires that the worst-case outcome of an advertiser's truthful report is at least as good as the best-case outcome of any of the advertiser's possible deviations. Indeed, they show that both First-Price Auction (FPA) and Second-Price Auction (SPA) are not AIC. Moreover, the AIC definition precludes having ordinal preferences on the possible constraints that the advertiser can report. In this paper, we introduce two refined and relaxed concepts: Risk-Averse Autobidding Incentive Compatibility (RAIC) and Optimistic Auto-bidding Incentive Compatibility (OAIC). RAIC (OAIC) stipulates that truthful reporting is preferred if its least (most) favorable equilibrium outcome is no worse than the least (most) favorable equilibrium outcome from any misreport. This distinction allows for a clearer modeling of ordinal preferences for advertisers with differing attitudes towards equilibrium uncertainty. We demonstrate that SPA satisfies both RAIC and OAIC. Furthermore, we show that SPA also meets these conditions for two advertisers when they are assumed to employ uniform bidding strategies. These findings provide new insights into the incentive properties of SPA in auto-bidding environments, particularly when considering advertisers' perspectives on equilibrium selection. From the auto-bidders' perspective, the primary objective is to identify optimal bidding strategies that maximize a specific goal while adhering to advertiser constraints [1, 7] . From the auction design standpoint, research can be categorized into several areas: the existence and computational complexity
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on10
- Robust Auction Design in the Auto-bidding WorldSantiago R. Balseiro, Yuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab S. Mirrokni et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 95 citations
- Towards Efficient Auctions in an Auto-bidding WorldYuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab S. Mirrokni, Song ZuoWWW 2021 · 87 citations
- Auction Design for ROI-Constrained BuyersNegin Golrezaei, Ilan Lobel, Renato Paes LemeWWW 2021 · 55 citations
- Auction Design in an Auto-bidding Setting: Randomization Improves Efficiency Beyond VCGAranyak MehtaWWW 2022 · 41 citations
- Multi-channel Autobidding with Budget and ROI ConstraintsYuan Deng, Negin Golrezaei, Patrick Jaillet, Jason Cheuk Nam Liang et al.ICML 2023 · 34 citations
Related papers
- Efficiency of Non-Truthful Auctions in Auto-bidding: The Power of RandomizationChristopher Liaw, Aranyak Mehta, Andrés PerlrothWWW 2023 · 14 citations
- Platform Competition in the Autobidding WorldGagan Aggarwal, Andrés Perlroth, Ariel Schvartzman, Mingfei ZhaoWWW 2026 · 4 citations
- Characterization of Incentive Compatibility of an Ex-ante Constrained PlayerBonan Ni, Pingzhong TangAAAI 2022 · 1 citation
- A Data-Driven Metric of Incentive CompatibilityYuan Deng, Sébastien Lahaie, Vahab S. Mirrokni, Song ZuoWWW 2020 · 18 citations
- No-Regret Algorithms in non-Truthful Auctions with Budget and ROI ConstraintsGagan Aggarwal, Giannis Fikioris, Mingfei ZhaoWWW 2025 · 13 citations
