Simple Mechanisms for Welfare Maximization in Rich Advertising Auctions
Gagan Aggarwal, Kshipra Bhawalkar, Aranyak Mehta, Divyarthi Mohan, Alexandros Psomas
Abstract
Internet ad auctions have evolved from a few lines of text to richer informational layouts that include images, sitelinks, videos, etc. Ads in these new formats occupy varying amounts of space, and an advertiser can provide multiple formats, only one of which can be shown. The seller is now faced with a multi-parameter mechanism design problem. Computing an efficient allocation is computationally intractable, and therefore the standard Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) auction, while truthful and welfare-optimal, is impractical. In this paper, we tackle a fundamental problem in the design of modern ad auctions. We adopt a Myersonian'' approach and study allocation rules that are monotone both in the bid and set of rich ads. We show that such rules can be paired with a payment function to give a truthful auction. Our main technical challenge is designing a monotone rule that yields a good approximation to the optimal welfare. Monotonicity doesn't hold for standard algorithms, e.g. the incremental bang-per-buck order, that give good approximations to knapsack-like'' problems such as ours. In fact, we show that no deterministic monotone rule can approximate the optimal welfare within a factor better than (while there is a non-monotone FPTAS). Our main result is a new, simple, greedy and monotone allocation rule that guarantees a approximation. In ad auctions in practice, monotone allocation rules are often paired with the so-called Generalized Second Price (GSP) payment rule, which charges the minimum threshold price below which the allocation changes. We prove that, even though our monotone allocation rule paired with GSP is not truthful, its Price of Anarchy (PoA) is bounded. Under standard no overbidding assumption, we prove a pure PoA bound of and a Bayes-Nash PoA bound of . Finally, we experimentally test our algorithms on real-world data.
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.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- Auctions with LLM SummariesAvinava Dubey, Zhe Feng, Rahul Kidambi, Aranyak Mehta et al.KDD 2024 · 3 citations
- Mechanism Design via the Interim RelaxationKshipra Bhawalkar, Marios Mertzanidis, Divyarthi Mohan, Alexandros PsomasNeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
Related papers
- Equilibria in Auctions with Ad TypesHadi Elzayn, Riccardo Colini-Baldeschi, Brian Lan, Okke SchrijversWWW 2022 · 6 citations
- Efficiency of Non-Truthful Auctions in Auto-bidding: The Power of RandomizationChristopher Liaw, Aranyak Mehta, Andrés PerlrothWWW 2023 · 14 citations
- Auction Design in an Auto-bidding Setting: Randomization Improves Efficiency Beyond VCGAranyak MehtaWWW 2022 · 41 citations
- Utility Maximizer or Value Maximizer: Mechanism Design for Mixed Bidders in Online AdvertisingHongtao Lv, Zhilin Zhang, Zhenzhe Zheng, Jinghan Liu et al.AAAI 2023 · 10 citations
- Non-uniform Bid-scaling and Equilibria for Different Auctions: An Empirical StudyYuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Vahab Mirrokni, Yifeng Teng et al.WWW 2024 · 4 citations
