arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 11 Feb 2015

Transcription

1 A Mechanism for Fair Distribution of Resources with Application to Sponsored Search Evgenia Christoforou IMDEA Networks Institute Universidad Carlos III, Madrid, Spain Antonio Fernández Anta IMDEA Networks Institute, Madrid, Spain Agustín Santos IMDEA Networks Institute, Madrid, Spain arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 11 Feb 215 ABSTRACT There is a rapid shift of advertisement from the traditional media to the Internet. A large portion of the traffic created by publicity is due to search engines through sponsored search. Advertisers pay the search engine to show their content, usually in order to get traffic to their own websites (where they may even feature more publicity). Search engines provide limited space for publicity (i.e. slots) for each keyword search. Since the demand is high they are conducting auctions to determine the advertisers for each keyword search. Designing an auction mechanism one must specify how to assign bidders to goods (or vice versa) and how to set the price for each good won in the auction. This work proposes a new auction mechanism were the slots are distributed among the advertisers depending on how much each advertiser values appearing in a keyword search slot at a specific time. The proposed approach makes payment to the search engine independent of these values. In particular, we propose that payments take the form of a flat fee. We show that this auction mechanism fairly distributes resources (or goods, e.g., slots) in an online fashion, based on the users declared preferences, while being socially efficient. While the main motivation for this work was sponsored search, the proposed mechanism can be used in general for the fair distribution of resources in an online fashion among a set of users. Hence, we refer to this mechanism as Fair and Efficient Distribution of Resources (FEDoR). FEDoR can be used even when the auction is done in a distributed fashion (i.e., without central authority), and it provides fairness, social efficiency and incentive compatibility. Essentially, letting the search engine adjust its revenue through the flat fee paid by the advertisers, FEDoR allows it to achieve the maximum gain while being competitive in the search engines market. Categories and Subject Descriptors F.1.2 [Modes of Computation]: Online Computation; J.4 [SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE]: [Economics]; K.6.2 [Installation Management ]: [Pricing and resource allocation]; H.3.4 [Systems and Software]: [Performance evaluation (efficiency and effectiveness)] SIGMETRICS 215 Portland, Oregon USA General Terms Algorithms, Design, Performance, Reliability, Theory Keywords Fair resource distribution, mechanism design, linking mechanism, sponsored search 1. INTRODUCTION Sponsored search [8] is a vital source of income for search engines (i.e., Google, Yahoo!, Bing, etc.). With the term sponsored search we are referring to the commercialization of the available advertising space each time a user performs a keyword search in a search engine. Due to the limited space in a search result, and in order not to affect the user experience, the space for advertisements is restricted. Hence, sponsored search often takes the form of auctions for the advertisement space available in a keyword search. In the framework of sponsored search auctions we have two agents. On the one hand, we have the advertisers (bidders/players), that have to carefully select the search engine, keywords, time frame, and geographical location where they want their ads to be placed. The goal of the advertisers is to have as much quality traffic to their websites as possible, while staying on budget. On the other hand, we have the search engine (seller), that wants to maximize her revenue without compromising the user experience with too many or irrelevant ads. Thus, the search engine wants to have a mechanism to auction ad spaces (slots) that provides her high revenues at the same time that it is easy to understand and has attractive properties for the advertisers. A desirable property of this mechanism is to be incentive compatible (i.e., the best strategy for the advertisers is to bid their true values). Advertisers may value a slot based on different metrics, like the cost per mille impressions (CPM, the cost for the advertisement appearing a thousand time in a specific keyword search), the cost per click (CPC, how much she values a click of a user), or the cost per action (CPA, how much she values a user actually making a transaction on her website). Hence, depending on the goal of the advertiser, an auction mechanism may be more or less appealing to her. In general terms, an online auction mechanism addresses two questions in its design: (1) how to allocate bidders to auctioned goods (e.g., slots) and (2) what price each bidder pays for the good. The most straightforward type of auction is the generalized fist price auction (GFP), were the ith highest bidder gets the ith best good, and pays the amount of her bid to the seller. In the generalized second price auction (GSP) [5] the ith highest bidder gets the ith best

2 good, but pays to the seller the bid of the (i+1)st highest bidder. In the Vickrey-Clark-Groves auction (VCG) [3] the ith highest bidder gets the ith best good, but pays the externality that she imposes on the other bidders by winning that slot. The auction mechanism of Google [1] is a GSP auction that also takes into account a quality score" [2]. Part of that quality score is the click through rate (CTR) that a specific advertiser will obtain if she gets a specific slot. In this case, the allocation mechanism and the payment of the bidder that wins a slot is obtained by multiplying her bid by the CTR of that slot. In this work we have modeled the CTR as a weight of the importance of each slot or good and we assume that it is the same for all bidders. From a game theory perspective, sponsored search auctions can be considered as repeated games. Hence, a strategic behavior that arise from the dynamic nature of the problem may appear. For example we can have bid rotation, where bidders collude in order to take turns in winning the auction. This is an unwanted behavior for the seller since it lowers her revenue. On top of that, vindictive bidding can appear. In the case of GSP for example, the bidder that is one position below another bidder can increase her bidding in order to make the bidder above pay more (especially if there are budget constrains this strategy can be really harmful). As it was stated in [13], the online nature of sponsored search auctions complicates the computation of an efficient allocation. This work proposes a generic auction mechanism where (as usual) advertisers express how much they value a slot in a specific keyword search. One important assumption we make is that the bids of the advertisers are expressed as independent uniform values between and 1 (we refer the reader to Section 6). Hence the issue of the different valuations (i.e., CPM, CPC,CPA) is alleviated. Then, the goal of our mechanism is to fairly distribute the slots among the bidders over the course of the online sponsored auction for the specific keyword (in a certain time interval). Moreover, while ensuring the fair distribution of resources, the mechanism aims at maximizing the social utility. The mechanism uses a flat fee as the payment scheme, while in each auction it allocates the first slot to the bidder with the highest bid, the second slot to the bidder with the second highest bid, etc. We formally show that the mechanism is fair, and that it is also social efficient under the constraint of fairness. For this reason we call our mechanism Fair and Efficient Distribution of Resources (FEDoR). FEDoR is a mechanism that not only can be easily understood by the bidder (e.g., compared to VCG), but it also provides a sense of fairness to the bidders, making them more prone to participate in the sponsored auction. Due to its unique design, the bidder has no incentives to apply any of the strategic behaviours we mentioned above. From the seller s side, the fact that advertisers pay a flat fee allows the adjustment of her revenue. This can also provide a higher revenue than with other schemes, making her competitive with respect to other sellers in the market. Previous Related Work. As stated by McAfee and McMillan [12], an auction is a market institution with an explicit set of rules determining resource allocation prices on the basis of bids from the market participants. Among the most commonly known auctions types [9,12] are the English auction, where players openly bid against each other, always increasing their bids (that is why this auction is also called open ascending price auction). There is also the Dutch auction, also named open descending price auction because the auctioneer begins with an initial price that is decreased until some player is willing to pay the price. In the sealed-bid firstprice auction all players bid simultaneously without knowing the other players bids, and the players with the highest bid pays her declared price. The Vickrey auction (or sealed-bid second-price auction) is identical to the previous auction with the difference that the player with the highest bid pays the price declared by the player with the second highest bid. As seen, an auction can be categorized in many ways: open or sealed bid, first price auctions or second price auctions, etc. Regarding the number of goods auctioned, it can be a single good auction or a multi-unit auction. If it is a multi-unit auction, goods can be identical or not, can be sold in a single round or over sequential rounds, and goods can be complements (i.e., the value of a second good obtained that is complement of the first one obtained increases). Multi-unit auctions can be classified as uniform price auctions or discriminatory price auctions. In uniform price auctions there is a fix amount of k highest bids that win the auction and winners pay the same amount; bidder also declare the units of good they desire. In our setting we are assuming a multi-unit, sealed-bid, sequential auction, with k 1 goods auctioned at each round, and where auctioned goods are not complements. When the players (bidders) in an auction know how much they value a good, and this information is only known to them, this describes a situation of private values [9], which is the case in this work. Online auctions are a special category of auctions that are held over the Internet. This implies that the physical limitations of traditional auctions such as geographic location, time, or limited number of participants are eliminated. A fair amount of this online auction market is held by online ad auctions, meaning auctions that are run by search engines as a tool for sponsored search [8]. As we said above, by the term sponsored search we refer to the framework of paid advertisement in search engines. The advertisements appearing after specific key search terms (i.e., keywords) on search engines are not randomly assigned. In fact a whole infrastructure is hidden behind them. On the one hand there are the search engines competing for the advertisers and on the other hand there are the advertisers competing with each other for appearing in search results of specific keywords. According to [8] the basic elements of sponsored search are the provider (advertiser), provider content, provider bids, search engine, search engine review process, search engine user interface, search engine tracking and searchers. The content produced in a search engine after a keyword search is called sponsored listing. Search engines are continually running auctions to sell the ad slots after specific keywords are typed by the users of the search engine. The bids placed by the advertisers to claim a slot in keywords may vary in the nature of the good for which they are bidding. They may be biding for the ad to be shown to a thousand users (CPM), or bidding the payment each time a users clicks their ad (CPC), or the payment each time a user redirects to their website and performs an action (CPA). In addition to the nature of the good, the quality of the advertisement in the keywords search has to be evaluated. Google [2], among other quality measures, has established the click-through rate (CTR) as a measure to express the relevance of an advertisement matching the keywords. It is defined as the number of times the ad is clicked compared to the number of times it is displayed. Usually, ads placed higher in a webpage have a higher CTR for each advertiser [15] and hence advertisers prefer bidding for the highest positions.

3 The auctions that take place in sponsored search are sealed bid, multi-unit auctions. Historically, the first auctions appearing in sponsored search were generalized first price auctions (GFP) meaning that the bidder was paying the seller the amount that she was bidding, and bids were arranged in descending order being assigned to the analogous slots in descending order of visibility. This initial auction mechanism had several shortcomings, like bidding-war cycles [4]. Hence the interest was moved to second-price auctions, where the payment of the bidder does not depend on her own bid. A second-price auction is the famous Vickrey-Clark-Groves (VCG) auction, where the bidder pays the externality that she imposes with her presence on her competitors. VCG has good theoretical properties such as truth-telling as an equilibrium dominant strategy. One of the main weaknesses of VCG [3] is that it provides low seller revenue, while there is non-monotonicity in the seller s revenues in the set of bidders and the amounts bid. On top of that, from the advertisers perspective, the payment system is difficult to be understood. The generalized second-price auction mechanism (GSP) was introduced as a more comprehensible mechanism that achieves a larger seller revenue [5]. Its shortcoming, though, is that it has not an equilibrium in dominant strategies, and truth telling is not an equilibrium. The payment system of the auction is fairly simple: the bidder pays the bid of the competitor that has bidden immediately below her. One of the basic properties when designing an auction is the efficient allocation of goods; goods will be assigned to players that valued them the most. Usually, when analyzing repeated auctions [17] analysis is done for one auction over one keyword. Bidders bid infinitely for the slots, and the equilibrium is defined as a state where bidders do not want to change their bids because they want to pay the minimum amount to maintain the ranking they have. This ex-post locally envy-free equilibrium was studied by Edelman et al. [5]. A variety of works have analyzed the most commonly known auction mechanisms for slot allocation. In their work Edelman et al. [5] study the mechanism used by Yahoo! and Google (i.e., GSP). They analyze a game of complete information in the case that the bids of the players are stable, and a game of incomplete information, and show how the system converges to a stable state. In the stable game of complete information, they define the category of locally envy-free equilibria. They also showed that GSP is not a truthful mechanism. But for the latter game they showed that a unique equilibrium exist that has good properties. In addition, the authors provide a nice distinction between GSP and VCG. In his work, Lahaie [11] also studied a polished versions of the auction mechanisms currently used by Yahoo! and Google, but he focused on the difference between the 2 allocation rules used by each of the search engines. His analysis was based on incentives, efficiency, and revenue properties. He considered a setting of incomplete information where players have stable bids, and showed that for none of the two allocation rules GSP is truthful. In the work of Feng et al. [6] a variety of ranking mechanisms are presented and compared based on revenue. All the above approaches examined auction mechanisms where allocating a player to a slot was depended not only on the bid but also on the method of ranking. This work has been inspired by the work of Santos et al. [16]. In that work, a fair collaborative system was designed and analyzed. More precisely, in that work a set of players has a common interest in the execution of a set of tasks. Executing a task comes with a different cost for each player. Every time a task has to be executed, players declare their cost for computing the task. The mechanism provides a fair way of optimal allocation (total cost is minimized), without using any payment. When a new task appears, it is assigned to the most suitable player. The authors assume that selfish players may exist, that try to avoid executing tasks in order to increase their benefit. The proposed mechanism is called QPQ. It uses the concept of linking mechanisms [7], where instead of offering incentives or payments to the players to declare their true values, it limits the players responses to a probability distribution known to the mechanism designer. However, unlike the linking mechanisms, QPQ does not assume that the probability distribution of the players costs is known. In addition, the presence of non-rational players is assumed. In our work, instead of tasks, we have a set of goods (i.e., slots) that we want to be fairly allocated among the players. The difference here is that players wish to receive the good. In addition, in this work we assume that instead of one, k non-identical goods are assigned to the n players each time. Our work focuses on fair allocation of goods to players (i.e., even distribution of slots) while maximizing the social utility, the sum of all players utility (i.e., achieving social efficiency [1]). Rahman et al. [14] focus on P2P systems, and propose an alternative approach to resource allocation that achieves fairness and efficiency on effort-based incentives, as opposed to contribution or outputbased incentives. This work is somehow related to ours by the fact that we also consider that fairness is not proportional to the bids that players bid, but in our work no incentives are necessary to achieve efficiency. In addition, unlike the work of Rahman et al. [14], we give analytical proofs of the properties of our mechanism. Contributions. In this paper we propose an auction mechanism called FEDoR for distributed allocation of slots or online goods in general. The mechanism uses as a payment a flat participation fee and slots are allocated to the highest bidders at each round. Our contributions are as follows: We analytically show that the FEDoR mechanism guarantees fairness, which means that every player will receive the ith best slot, for every i, the same number of times in expectation. We prove that the mechanism is socially efficient, in the sense that the social utility (the total valuation of the goods assigned) is maximized, subject to the fairness property. We show that being honest and announcing the real valuation of the goods at every round maximizes the expected utility (value of goods received) of a player. This means that the mechanism is truthful. We experimentally compare FEDoR with VCG and GSP, under our assumption that the private values of the players are independent and uniform between and 1. The results show that, by appropriately adjusting the flat fee, the mechanism designer can tune the desired utility for the seller and advertiser, unlike in the static approach of VCG and GSP. Additionally, experimental results go hand by hand with our analytical results asserting the truthfulness and social efficiency properties. Moreover, experiments compare the performance in terms of utility between FEDoR, VCG, and GSP; showing that with FEDoR the utility of the honest players is independent of the percentage cheaters or their cheating behavior, while in VCG and GSP is dependent.

4 The rest of paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we formally present our model and notation used throughout the document. In Section 3 we present our algorithmic mechanism. Section 4 presents an analysis of FEDoR, formally proving its properties. Section 5 provides experimental results of FEDoR in different scenarios and compares it with the VCG and GSP mechanisms. Finally in Section 6 we provide a discussion on our mechanisms assumptions and present future work. 2. MODEL We start with some common mechanism design concepts and definitions. We consider a game with n risk-neutral players (or bidders). The set of players is N = {1, 2,..., n}. Players are participating in the game in order to obtain one of k slots, where 1 k < n. The relative value of the jth slot is given by its weight w j. We assume that slots are sorted by decreasing weight, i.e., w 1 w 2 w k. The outcome set of the game played is the set D of all k-permutations of N (i.e., all posible permutations of the subsets of N of size k). Hence, the outcome d = (d 1, d 2,..., d k ) D is the ordered list of players to whom the slots will be allocated, so that the player d i will receive the ith slot (whose weight is w i). As usual in these types of games, each player privately observes her preferences over the alternatives in D before the collective choice in the game is made. This is modeled by assuming that player i privately observes a parameter θ i, which determines her preferences. (For instance, in sponsored search, θ i would be the value player i assigns to the keyword.) We say that θ i is the player type, for every player i. The set of all possible types of player i is Θ i. We denote by θ = (θ 1, θ 2,..., θ n) the vector of player types. The set of all possible vectors is Θ = Θ 1 Θ 2... Θ n. We denote by θ i the vector obtained by removing θ i from θ. We denote by Π = (Θ) 1 the set of all probability distributions over Θ. It is assumed that there is a common prior distribution π Π that is shared by all the players. We denote by π i (Θ i) the marginal probability of θ i. We define π i(θ i θ i) as the conditional probability distribution of θ i given θ i. In this work we assume that the player types are normalized, in the sense that Θ i = [, 1], for every player i. Moreover, for every player i the marginal probability π i of θ i is also normalized as the uniform continuous distribution in the interval [, 1]. Finally, we assume that all distributions π i are independent, i.e., π( θ i) = π i( ). Players preferences over outcomes are represented by a utility function u i(d, θ i) R defined over all d D and θ i Θ i. In this paper the utility function is defined as u i(d, θ i) = θ i k j=1 wjδ id j, i N, d D, where δ ab is the Kronecker delta. We assume that the set of outcomes D, the set of players N, the type sets in Θ, the common prior distribution π Π, and the utility functions u i are common knowledge for all the players. Similarly, the game rules defined by the mechanism used are also common knowledge. However, the specific type θ i observed by player i belongs to her private information. 1 In general, We denote by (S) the set of all probability distributions over some set S. Algorithm 1 FEDoR Mechanism (code for player i) Observe type θ i Choose type ˆθ i using probability distribution σ i ( θ i ) (player i s strategy) Broadcast the type ˆθ i (this is the bid of player i) Wait to receive the reported types ˆθ from all the players in N foreach x N do if GoF _Test(ˆθ x) then v x ˆθ x else v x Pseudorandom(ˆθ x ) Choose outcome d D with g f (d v) = 1 (there is only only one such d) if (i = d j ) then player i receives the jth slot A strategy for the player i is a map σ i : Θ i (Θ i), where σ i(ˆθ i θ i) is the conditional probability that the player reports ˆθ i when her true type is θ i. A strategy σ i is truthful (and we say that the player is honest) if, for every pair (ˆθ i, θ i), σ i(ˆθ i θ i) = 1 if ˆθ i = θ i and otherwise. As usually done, we will use ˆθ i to denote the reported type, and θ i the actual type. In the paper we assume the availability of a goodness of fit test, that can test whether a value (a reported type in our case) is a sample from a uniform distribution in [, 1]. Hence, GoF _Test(ˆθ i) is true if and only if ˆθ i is a uniform random sample. In this paper, we search for a mechanism Θ, g, where g : ˆΘ (D) is the decision function. With this function, g(d ˆθ) is the conditional probability that the mechanism decides d D when the players report ˆθ. The mechanism must be without utility transfers (payments) and satisfy the following properties. Fairness. Every player i (honest or not) has the same probability of getting the jth slot, for every j. I.e., g(d ˆθ) = g(d ˆθ), i, i N, j [1, k]. :d j =i :d j =i Truthfulness. The strategy that maximizes the utility of a player i is to be honest. I.e., E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d θ i, ˆθ i)] E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d ˆθ)], i N. Social Efficiency. If all players are honest, the social utility is maximized. I.e., E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d θ)] i N E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d ˆθ) σ 1, σ 2,..., σ n], i N for any set of strategies σ i, i N. 3. THE FEDoR MECHANISM The FEDoR mechanism we propose for the problem of fair distribution of resources is presented in Algorithm 1. The algorithm describes the steps that a generic player i executes. As can be seen, in every instance of the game (every auction), a player i observes its type θ i. Then, applying its strategy σ i, the player chooses a type ˆθ i that will be reported as the player s bid. These bids are gossiped

5 among all players, so that all of them end with the same vector of reported types ˆθ. As mentioned, we will assume the existence of a perfect goodness-of-fit test GoF _Test( ), which is used to determine whether the reported type ˆθ x is a uniform random sample in [, 1], for every player x. If not, the reported type is replaced in the vector v of bids by a pseudorandom value uniform in [, 1] derived from the rest of reported types ˆθ x. Since all players apply the same goodness-of-fit test to the same value ˆθ x, and the same pseudorandom function to the same vector ˆθ x, they all assign the same value to v x. As a result, the same vector v is obtained by each player, which contains the bids of the players that passed the test and the generated values for those that did not. The distribution of slots (outcome of the mechanism) is then done by applying the decision function g f ( ) of the FEDoR mechanism. When invoked with the vector v, this function returns probability 1 for only one possible outcome vector d D. For the rest of outcomes it returns. Particularly, it returns 1 only for an outcome vector d = (i 1, i 2,..., i k ) that satisfies that v i1 v i2 v ik, and v ik v i, i N \ {i 1, i 2,..., i k }. Among the vectors that satisfy this property, it chooses the smallest vector in lexicographical order. It is easy to observe that this deterministically selects exactly one outcome d D. It is important to notice that the algorithm is the same for all players and that it is based on information known by all of them. Therefore, no central entity is required to apply the FEDoR mechanism. 4. ANALYSIS In this section we show that the FEDoR mechanism satisfies the three desired properties described in Section 2, namely fairness, truthfulness, and social efficiency. We start by proving the latter. We start showing that FEDoR is socially efficient if all players are honest. Using this lemma it is possible to prove the property of social efficiency. THEOREM 1 (SOCIAL EFFICIENCY). For any mechanism Θ, g and strategies σ i, i N, it holds that E[ u i(d, θ i)g f (d θ)] E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d ˆθ) σ 1,..., σ n]. i N i N PROOF. Assume the claim is not true, and hence there is a mechanism Θ, g and strategies σ i, i N, such that E[ u i(d, θ i)g f (d θ)] < E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d ˆθ) σ 1,..., σ n]. i N i N Then, let us define a new mechanism Θ, g as follows. g (d θ) =... g(d ˆθ) σ 1 (ˆθ 1 θ 1 )... σ n(ˆθ n θ n)dˆθ ndˆθ n 1... dˆθ 1. The decision function g ( ) assigns the same probability to each possible outcome d as the combination of the strategies σ i( ) and the decision function g( ). Thus, E[ u i (d, θ i )g f (d θ)] < E[ u i (d, θ i )g(d ˆθ) σ 1,..., σ n] i N i N = E[ u i (d, θ i )g (d θ)], i N contradicting Lemma 1. We will now start proving the truthfulness property of the FEDoR mechanism. Let us denote by E[Ûi σ1,..., σn] the expected utility of player i under the FEDoR mechanism when players follow strategy σ i, i N. LEMMA 1. There is no mechanism Θ, g such that E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d θ)] > E[ u i(d, θ i)g f (d θ)]. i N i N PROOF. Assume the claim is not true. Then, there is a mechanism Θ, g such that E[ u i(d, θ i)g(d θ)] > E[ u i(d, θ i)g f (d θ)]. i N i N This means that there is at least one θ such that u i(d, θ i)g f (d θ). i N u i(d, θ i)g(d θ) > i N Let d x = (x 1, x 2,..., x k ) be an outcome that maximizes i N ui(dx, θi). Then, i N ui(dx, θi) i N ui(d, θi)g(d θ). On the other hand, let g f (d f θ) = 1 for d f = (i 1, i 2,..., i k ). By the definition of u i, this means that k j=1 θx j wj > k j=1 θi wj. j However, this is not possible, since w 1 w 2 w k, and the values θ ij are the largest values in θ in decreasing order, i.e., θ i1 θ i2 θ ik. Hence, the mechanism Θ, g does not exist. LEMMA 2. For any non empty set of players S N, the total expected utility of the players in S does not depend on the strategies of the rest of players. PROOF. We start by proving that the expected utility of a player i does not depend on the strategy of another player h i. In particular, we will show that E[Ûi σx, x N] = E[Ûi σx, x h; h honest], i.e., that the utility of i does not depend on whether h is honest or not, which implies the former statement. For every player x N, let f x(v x, θ x) be the density function of the pairs of values (v x, θ x), where θ x is the type observed by player x and v x is the entry corresponding to x in the vector v used to decide in FEDoR (see Algorithm 1). If the strategy σ x( ) induces a uniform distribution on the reported types ˆθ x (recall that θ x does follow a uniform distribution), then the values v x will always be the declared types (bid) ˆθ x. Otherwise, the GoF test will always fail and v x will be pseudorandom values generated from the rest of declared values. In any case, the values v x are uniformly distributed, and the function f x is independent from the rest of functions f i, i x. Moreover, the marginal distributions of f x(v x, θ x) must also be uniform. Let us consider any player i S. The expected utility E[Ûi σx,

6 x N] of the player can then be computed as u i(d θ i)g f (d v)f 1(v 1, θ 1) f n(v n, θ n) } {{ } 2n dv 1 dv ndθ 1 dθ n = u i(d θ i)g f (d v)f 1(v 1, θ 1) }{{} 2n 1 f h 1 (v h 1, θ h 1 )f h+1 (v h+1, θ h+1 ) f n(v n, θ n) f h (v h, θ h )dθ h dv 1 dv ndθ 1 dθ h 1 dθ h+1 dθ n = u i(d θ i)g f (d v)f 1(v 1, θ 1) }{{} 2n 1 f h 1 (v h 1, θ h 1 )f h+1 (v h+1, θ h+1 ) f n(v n, θ n) dv 1 dv ndθ 1 dθ h 1 dθ h+1 dθ n. The first equality follows from the independence of f h from the other f j. The last equality follows from the fact that f h(v h, θ h )dθ h = 1, from the uniform marginal distribution of f h with respect to θ h. Now, applying a change of variable, we can replace in the above expression v h by θ h, resulting after reordering in E[Ûi σx, x N] = } {{ } 2n 1 u i(d θ i)g f (d v h, θ h ) f 1(v 1, θ 1) f h 1 (v h 1, θ h 1 )f h+1 (v h+1, θ h+1 ) f n(v n, θ n)dv 1 dv h 1 dθ h dv h+1 dv ndθ 1 dθ n = E[Ûi σx, x h; h honest]. This property can now be applied iteratively for every player h / S, showing that the expected utility of i S is independent of the strategy of the players in S. Summing over all the players in S the claim of the lemma is proved. THEOREM 2 (TRUTHFULNESS). The strategy that maximizes the utility of a player i is to be honest. I.e., E[Ûi σx, x N] E[Ûi σx, x i; i honest]. PROOF. Assume for contradiction that the claim is not true. Then, there are strategies σ x, x N such that E[Ûi σx, x N] > E[Ûi σx, x i; i honest]. (1) From Lemma 2 we have the following identities (the third one uses linearity of expectations). E[Ûi σx, x N] = E[Ûi σi; x is honest, x i] (2) E[Ûi σx, x i; i honest] = E[Ûi all players are honest] (3) E[ Û h σ i; x is honest, x i] = E[ Û h all players are honest] (4) h i h i However, this contradicts Theorem 1. We concentrate now in the fairness property. It is worth noting that, either because the player reports types that are uniformly distributed, or because it does not do so and they are replaced by uniforma pseudorandom values, the values v i of the vector v used to distribute the slots are independent random samples form a uniform distribution [, 1]. Hence the following theorem. THEOREM 3 (FAIRNESS). Every player i (honest or not) has the same probability 1/n of getting the jth slot, for every j. PROOF. Since the elements of the vector v are independent uniform samples as mentioned, ( the ) probability that the value v i is the n 1 jth largest in v is (1 v j 1 i) j 1 v n j i. Then the probability that a player i has the jth largest value in v, given that v i takes values uniformly between and 1 is ( ) n 1 j 1 (1 v i) j 1 v n j i dv i = 1 n Finally, we will analyze the expected utility of the players depending on their strategy. In the utility values obtained it is not included the flat fee that we assume will be paid by the player to participate in the auctions. This fee can be simply subtracted from the utility presented here to obtain the actual utility. We start by presenting the expect utility of an honest player. Observe that the utility obtained is independent from the strategies of the rest of players. THEOREM 4. The expected utility of an honest player i is E[Ûi σx, x i; i honest] = kj=1 w j (n j+1). This value is n(n+1) independent from the strategies σ x, x i. PROOF. Since i is honest, she reports her true type θ i, which follows a uniform distribution. Hence, it holds that v i = θ i. As in the proof of Theorem ( 3, the ) probability that the type θ i is the jth n 1 largest value is (1 θ j 1 i) j 1 θ n j i. Then, the expected utility can be computed as = k w j j=1 θ i ( n 1 j 1 E[Ûi σx, x i; i honest] ) (1 θ i) j 1 θ n j i dθ i = j i=1 wj(n j + 1) n(n + 1) Replacing equations 2 and 3 in 1, we obtain E[Ûi σi; x is honest, x i] > E[Ûi all players are honest]. Which added to 4 yields E[ h N Û h σ i; x is honest, x i] > E[ h N Û h all players are honest]. We now find the utility of a player i that is not honest, but she reports values that are not uniform (and hence the goodness-of-fit test always fails) or she reports types ˆθ i that are uniform but independent of her true types θ i. Observe that this theorem does not consider the case when the types reported are uniform and somehow correlated with the real types.

7 THEOREM 5. The expected utility of a dishonest player i that reports non uniform types or types independent of her true normalized uniform distribution is E[Ûi σx, x N] = k 1 2n j=1 wj. PROOF. In this case, the value v i used to distribute the slots follow a uniform distribution that is independent of the actual type θ i of player i. Hence, = k w j θ i j=1 ( n 1 j 1 ) E[Ûi σx, x N] (1 v i) j 1 v n j i dv idθ i = 1 2n k w j. j=1 5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS We have complemented our theoretical results with experiments, in order to empirically show the potential and performance of FEDoR. This experimental section is divided into two parts. In Section 5.1 we compare the properties and performance of FEDoR with GSP, a widely used auction mechanism, and the celebrated VCG mechanism, in a scenario where only honest players exist (and with a perfect GoF test). In this section we want to compare the FEDoR mechanism first in an idealized scenario (despite the fact that GSP is not a truthful mechanism). The second part (Section 5.2) assumes different scenarios where cheating (i.e., dishonest) players exist. (The modeling of cheating behavior has been done with different probability distributions.) In addition we no longer assume that the GoF test used is perfect, and evaluate the impact of this fact. Under these assumptions, we show experimentally that FEDoR is truthful and socially efficient. We also compare its performance in terms of utility with the other two mechanism, GSP and VCG. Unless otherwise stated, our results have been obtained by running 1 experiments of 1 rounds (auctions) each. The number of participating players has been nine and the number of slots assumed has been k = 3. The weights signed to the slots has been w 1 = 3, w 2 = 2, w 3 = 1. Recall that honest players are considered the ones that reveal their true valuation for the set of slots. Cheater players are the ones declaring a different valuation from their actual valuation on the set of slots. All players private valuations follow a uniform distribution in the interval [, 1]. 5.1 Performance with Honest Players We have conducted experiments that compare the utilities of the seller and of players obtained by the FEDoR mechanism with the utilities obtained by the classical mechanisms GSP and VCG (with externality). To do so, we have simulated the three mechanisms in two sets of experiments. In the first set there are 9 players and the number of slots k is varied from 1 to 8 and weight for each slot values in decreasing order from k to 1. In the second set, the number of slots is fixed to k = 3 and the number of players is varied from 4 to 9. All players are honest in the experiments and the GoF test used is perfect. The results obtained are presented in Figure 1, where we plot the utility achieved by one of the players (all players are honest and follow a uniform distribution) against the utility of the seller. In the case of FEDoR, we plot the utility values assuming that the same flat fee is paid by every player, so that the utility of the seller is simply this flat fee multiplied by the number of players. The utility of a player, on the other hand, is the value she assigns to the slots she gets (which is essentially the value given in Theorem 4) minus the flat fee. In Figure 1(a) it can be observed that the utilities are the same for VCG and GSP in the case of auctioning one slot. When the number of slots increases, the utility of the seller is greater with GSP than with VCG, while on the other hand the utility of the player is greater with VCG than with GSP. The utilities with the FEDoR mechanism, on its hand, form a line that is a function of the flat fee players pay. It is worth to observe that all the points that correspond to GSP and VCG utilities are on the FEDoR line, which means that with the appropriate value of flat fee FEDoR can achieve the same seller and player utililites as GSP and VCG. Moreover, the advantage of FEDoR, as it is shown in Figure 1(a), is that the flat fee provides a tradeoff between seller and player utilities, and allows to chose any point in the lines shown in the figure. Hence, FEDoR has an adjustable performance that can be changed depending on the needs of the seller. In Figure 1(b) we make similar observations and derive the same conclusions. Again the utilities of GSP and VCG lie on the FEDoR line, and the utilities with FEDoR can be tuned with the flat fee. In addition, we notice that when the number of players increases, their utility decreases in all three mechanism. On the contrary, the utility of the seller increases in all three mechanism when the number of player increases. 5.2 Performance in the Presence of Cheating Players The results of Figure 1 are obtained assuming a perfect GoF test, for comparison reasons with the other mechanisms and following the analysis. In order to examine what is the overhead that a nonperfect (real) GoF test can impose we have chosen as an appropriate GoF test the Kologorov-Smirnov (KS) test. Figure 2 demonstrates that the KS test is a good test for our mechanism. In this figure we evaluate the impact of the history length in the accuracy of the test. The history length is the number of values the test keeps as a reference to decide if the presented new value belongs to a uniform distribution or not. Notice that, in all three graphs of Figure 2, in the case where the player has a uniform distribution, as the history length gets smaller, the number of false positives increases. In addition to that, we have checked what happens in the case when the player cheats with a distribution that may resemble (or not) the uniform distribution. We have chosen the beta distributions with different parameter and a normal distribution. As you can see from the plots in Appendix A (especially Figure 5), with a beta distribution and a large β parameter, the player can approximate the uniform behavior, and thus it is difficult for the KS test to identify a cheater. Notice that in all three graphs of Figure 2, as the length of the history test decreases, the percentage of true positives decreases. For different values on the upper bound threshold of the p.value (which decides the acceptance of a value based on the history), we have noticed that using a p.value <.1 is a good balance between having large percentage of true positives and not having too many false positives. For example, for a history length of 1 rounds (which is a value that does not give a great overhead to the mechanism), in Figure 2(a), where p.value <.5, the true positives are close to 75%; in Figure 2(b), where p.value <.1, the true positives are close to 82%; while in Figure 2(c), where the p.value <.2, the true positives are close to 95% while the false positive are much higher than in the other scenarios (close to 2%). Hence, selecting 1 rounds as the history of the mechanism, provides a good performance and is large enough if we compare it with the 1 rounds that our scenarios execute as part of the online auction process. In the rest of the section we will run experiments with a his-

8 (a) (b) Figure 1: Comparing FEDoR with VCG and GSP in the mean utility of seller and player per auction. The values for FEDoR form a line in each experiment, since the utilities of seller and players can be tuned with the flat fee. The values for VCG and GSP always lie on the corresponding FEDoR line. Plots represent the mean utility per auction of the seller and one player over 1 rounds of execution and 1 experiments. (a) Scenarios with 9 player and the number of slots increasing from 1 (leftmost line) to 8 (rightmost line). (b) Scenarios with 3 slots and the players decreasing from 9 (line with largest slope) to 4 (line with smallest slope). (a) (b) (c) Figure 2: The percentage of positives with the KS test as a function of the history length of the KS test: (a) the upper bound threshold of the p.value of the KS test is.5, (b) the upper bound threshold of the p.value of the KS test is.1, (c) the upper bound threshold of the p.value of the KS test is.2. From bottom to top the lines represent the behavior in a scenario with no cheaters, cheaters bidding values with a beta distribution where β =.9, cheaters bidding values with a beta distribution where β =.7, and cheaters bidding values with a normal distribution (µ =.5, σ =.15). tory length of 1 and KS test with p.value <.1. Before actual auctions are run, the history buffer is filled with 1 values, so the results are not affected by history s transient states. We investigate now the utility of the honest players and cheaters in a variety of different scenarios, while having the KS test as our GoF test. In this study we assume that the players pay no flat fee. We have shown analytically (assuming a perfect GoF test) that the best strategy for each player is to be honest. Our experimental results come to assert this even in the case where the GoF is not perfect. From Figure 3(a), the utility of the honest player is greater than the cheater in all scenarios considered. Independently of the behavior of the rest of the players, the mean utility of the honest player is around the same value of 54. There is no cheating strategy that will give a higher utility. Especially in scenarios C and G where the player cheats with a beta (where parameter is β =.9) indeed the cheaters increase their mean utility by roughly around 5 units but still the mean utility of the honest player is around 15 units higher. This also proves the efficiency of the KS test for p.value <.1 and history length 1. The horizontal (blue) line in Figure 3(a) represents the value of utility as it is calculated from the analytical part. Notice that the analytical value is quite close to the experimental with the single exception of the player cheating with beta, where β =.9. Going one step further now we compare the utility of players when FEDoR is used with the cases where VCG and GSP are used. As Figure 3 shows, the honest player has always a larger utility compared with the utility of the cheating player in all scenarios considered, and in all mechanisms. However, in some scenarios the

9 (a) (b) (c) Figure 3: The utility of an honest player compared to a cheating player in different scenarios: (a) Using the FEDoR mechanism, for p.value<.1 and history lenght 1 (the blue line represents the analytical utility values). (b) Using the VCG mechanism. (c) Using the GSP mechanism. The left box for each mechanism (marked A) represents the distribution of the utility of an honest player in a scenario where all 9 players are honest following a uniform. Right top box represents the utility of honest players that follow a uniform distribution in scenarios B-J. Left bottom box represents the utilities of cheating players with the distributions defined in scenarios B-J. Scenarios are as follows, B: 8 honest players and one cheater with normal distribution (µ =.5, σ =.15), C: 8 honest players and one cheater with beta distribution with β =.9, D: 8 honest players and one cheater with beta distribution with β =.7, E: 8 honest players and one cheater with a random uniform distribution (different from its own distribution of values), F: 6 honest players and 3 cheaters with random uniform distributions, G: 6 honest players and 3 cheaters with beta distributions (β =.9), H: 6 honest players and 3 cheaters with beta distributions (β =.7), I: 6 honest players and 3 cheaters with normal distributions (µ =.5, σ =.15), J: 5 honest players, 1 cheater with random uniform distribution, 1 cheater with beta distribution (β =.9), 1 cheater with beta distribution (β =.7), and 1 cheater with normal distribution (µ =.5, σ =.15), which is the one represented in the plot. (a) (b) (c) Figure 4: The social utility in different scenarios: (a) Using the FEDoR mechanism, for p.value<.1 and history lenght 1 (b) Using the VCG mechanism. (c) Using the GSP mechanism. The scenarios A to J are the same as in Figure 3. distance between the utility of a cheater and an honest player is very small (see, e.g., scenario H in Figure 3(b)). It is also interesting to notice is that in FEDoR in scenario A, where all players are honest, the utility of the player is maximized compared to the honest players in the rest of the scenarios. This is not the case for the other two mechanisms (see scenario I for both VCG and GSP). The utility of an honest player with VCG and GSP can vary significantly depending on the scenario. In any case, it is always around 11 for VCG and 7 for GSP. Comparing with FEDoR, the utility of an honest player with the latter is up to four times larger than those with VCG and GSP. This is due to the fact that in our experiments we assumed that the flat fee of the player is zero. As we showed though in Figure 1, the flat fee is something that can be adjusted to match the desired utility of the player (or the seller). Finally, from Figure 4 (a) we see that the social utility is maximized in FEDoR when all players are truthful (scenario A compared with the rest of scenarios). This does not hold for the other two mechanisms. As you can see from Figure 4 (b) and (c) scenarios B and I (where dishonest players cheat with normal distribution µ =.5, σ =.15) have greater social utility than scenario A where they are all honest. We can also notice that the social utility in FEDoR is up to four times larger than those of GSP and VCG (but, of course, we are assuming no flat fee). 6. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK While FEDoR is a mechanism with several interesting features, there are some issues that are worth discussing about it. FEDoR assumes that the bids of the players follow a uniform distribution. Although this might seem as a constraint, if the real bids do not follow such a distribution, they can be transformed by using the PIT transformation, as proposed by Santos et al. [16]. Additionally, having all players paying the same flat fee, while players with a higher budget could claim a larger amount of goods may look like a limitation of the FEDoR. An easy approach to solve this is allowing a player with a higher budget to participate with more than one identity. As a consequence, she will be increasing the amount of

10 goods that she will receive, proportionally to the number of identities. As this work proposes an alternative way in viewing auction mechanism, several possible future directions appear. One question is what happens if not all the players are interested in the set of goods/slots auctioned in a round. With the current mechanism, the players are always bidding for receiving a slot, and they have no means of indicating their disinterest in certain goods/slots. Another aspect that we will be considering in the future is that some players might have correlated preferences between certain sets of goods/slots in the same or different auctions. Finally, an interesting future direction is on the scenario of sponsored search. Throughout the paper we have assumed that the weight (typically representing the clickthrough rate, CTR) for each slot is the same for all players. In practical applications such as in Adworks of Google [2] each advertiser has a personal CTR estimation based on the slot and the quality of his advertisement (i.e., according to the relevance between keyword and advertisement). Thus our current mechanism should be adjusted appropriately to deal with this extension. A particularly challenging part of this extension comes with FEDoR being applied in a distributed setting. In that event a scheme must be designed in order for the CTR of the players to be kept private from the rest of the players. D. Epema, and H. Sips. Improving efficiency and fairness in p2p systems with effort-based incentives. In Communications (ICC), 21 IEEE International Conference on, pages 1 5. IEEE, 21. [15] M. Richardson, E. Dominowska, and R. Ragno. Predicting clicks: estimating the click-through rate for new ads. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages ACM, 27. [16] A. Santos, A. Fernández Anta, and L. López Fernández. Quid Pro Quo: a mechanism for fair collaboration in networked systems. PloS one, 8(9):e66575, 213. [17] H. R. Varian. Position auctions. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(6): , REFERENCES [1] Google. google adwords. [2] Google. how are ads ranked [3] L. M. Ausubel and P. Milgrom. The lovely but lonely vickrey auction. Combinatorial auctions, pages 17 4, 26. [4] B. Edelman and M. Ostrovsky. Strategic bidder behavior in sponsored search auctions. Decision support systems, 43(1): , 27. [5] B. Edelman, M. Ostrovsky, and M. Schwarz. Internet advertising and the generalized second price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 25. [6] J. Feng, H. K. Bhargava, and D. M. Pennock. Implementing sponsored search in web search engines: Computational evaluation of alternative mechanisms. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(1): , 27. [7] M. O. Jackson and H. F. Sonnenschein. The linking of collective decisions and efficiency. manuscript, California Institute of Technology, 23. [8] B. J. Jansen and T. Mullen. Sponsored search: an overview of the concept, history, and technology. International Journal of Electronic Business, 6(2): [9] V. Krishna. Auction theory. Academic press, 29. [1] V. Krishna and M. Perry. Efficient mechanism design. vcg2.pdf. [11] S. Lahaie. An analysis of alternative slot auction designs for sponsored search. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages ACM, 26. [12] R. P. McAfee and J. McMillan. Auctions and bidding. Journal of economic literature, 25(2): , [13] N. Nisan. Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, 27. [14] R. Rahman, M. Meulpolder, D. Hales, J. Pouwelse,

11 APPENDIX A. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF DIS- TRIBUTION TYPES In this section we give a visual representation of what the different distributions look like, as shown in Figures 5-9. When players decide to cheat declaring values that resemble a beta distribution with β =.9 and are correlated with her true uniform distribution values as in Figure 5, it is more difficult to be caught by the KS test. As you can notice, the distribution is almost uniform having a slightly higher density for high values (bids). Hence in order for the KS test to be able to identify such behavior the history length and the upper bound for the p.value should be higher. Figure 7: Different distributions and the correlation of the declared values of a player with her true value: Player following a beta distribution with β =.7 correlated with her true values that follow a uniform distribution. Figure 5: Different distributions and the correlation of the declared values of a player with her true value: Player following a beta distribution with β =.9 correlated with her true values that follow a uniform distribution. Figure 8: Different distributions and the correlation of the declared values of a player with her true value: Player following a beta distribution with β =.7 not correlated with her true values that follow a uniform distribution. Figure 6: Different distributions and the correlation of the declared values of a player with her true value: Player following a beta distribution with β =.9 not correlated with her true values that follow a uniform distribution. Figure 9: Different distributions and the correlation of the declared values of a player with her true value: Player following a random distribution with her true values that follow a uniform distribution.