If you recommend a product to me and I buy it, how much should you be paid by the seller? And if your sole interest is to maximize the amount paid to you by the seller for a sequence of recommendations, how should you recommend optimally if I become more inclined to ignore you with each irrelevant recommendation you make? Finding an answer to these questions is a key challenge in all forms of marketing that rely on and explore social ties; ranging from personal recommendations to viral marketing. In the first part of this paper, we show that there can be no pricing mechanism that is “truthful” with respect to the seller, and we use solution concepts from coalitional game theory, namely the Core, the Shapley Value, and the Nash Bargaining Solution, to derive provably “fair” prices for settings with one or multiple recommenders. We then investigate pricing mechanisms for the setting where recommenders have different “purchase arguments”. Here we show that it might be beneficial for the recommenders to withhold some of their arguments, unless anonymity-proof solution concepts, such as the anonymity-proof Shapley value, are used. In the second part of this paper, we analyze the setting where the recommendee loses trust in the recommender for each irrelevant recommendation. Here we prove that even if the recommendee regains her initial trust on each successful recommendation, the expected total profit the recommender can make over an infinite period is bounded. This can only be overcome when the recommendee also incrementally regains trust during periods without any recommendation. Here, we see an interesting connection to “banner blindness”, suggesting that showing fewer ads can lead to a higher long-term profit.
In typical literature on sponsored search auctions @cite_1 @cite_16 it is assumed that the web search engine is optimizing its expected profit and that its expected profit for showing a particular ad is the ad's click-through-rate (CTR) multiplied by the price the advertiser will be charged when her ad gets clicked. Usually, only a single round is considered or, when there are budget constraints @cite_6 @cite_3 , the CTRs are assumed to be during the duration of the game. If, however, it is assumed that CTRs drop for ads for each unsuccessful advertisement shown then, in the long run, this puts more emphasis on showing ads with high CTR, regardless of how much their advertisers can be charged for a single click. Although different objective functions for the search engine have been considered @cite_6 , the setting of profit maximization with trust decay has not been studied and we deem this an interesting area for future work.
@cite_3 @cite_16 @cite_1 @cite_6
2036920264 2513944453 2108808125 2138043622
Sponsored search has been proven to be a successful business model, and sponsored search auctions have become a hot research direction. There have been many exciting advances in this field, especially in recent years, while at the same time, there are also many open problems waiting for us to resolve. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of sponsored search auctions in hopes of helping both industry practitioners and academic researchers to become familiar with this field, to know the state of the art, and to identify future research topics. Specifically, we organize the article into two parts. In the first part, we review research works on sponsored search auctions with basic settings, where fully rational advertisers without budget constraints, preknown click-through rates (CTRs) without interdependence, and exact match between queries and keywords are assumed. Under these assumptions, we first introduce the generalized second price (GSP) auction, which is the most popularly used auction mechanism in the industry. Then we give the definitions of several well-studied equilibria and review the latest results on GSP’s efficiency and revenue in these equilibria. In the second part, we introduce some advanced topics on sponsored search auctions. In these advanced topics, one or more assumptions made in the basic settings are relaxed. For example, the CTR of an ad could be unknown and dependent on other ads; keywords could be broadly matched to queries before auctions are executed; and advertisers are not necessarily fully rational, could have budget constraints, and may prefer rich bidding languages. Given that the research on these advanced topics is still immature, in each section of the second part, we provide our opinions on how to make further advances, in addition to describing what has been done by researchers in the corresponding direction. In real-time display advertising, ad slots are sold per impression via an auction mechanism. For an advertiser, the campaign information is incomplete --- the user responses (e.g, clicks or conversions) and the market price of each ad impression are observed only if the advertiser's bid had won the corresponding ad auction. The predictions, such as bid landscape forecasting, click-through rate (CTR) estimation, and bid optimisation, are all operated in the pre-bid stage with full-volume bid request data. However, the training data is gathered in the post-bid stage with a strong bias towards the winning impressions. A common solution for learning over such censored data is to reweight data instances to correct the discrepancy between training and prediction. However, little study has been done on how to obtain the weights independent of previous bidding strategies and consequently integrate them into the final CTR prediction and bid generation steps. In this paper, we formulate CTR estimation and bid optimisation under such censored auction data. Derived from a survival model, we show that historic bid information is naturally incorporated to produce Bid-aware Gradient Descents (BGD) which controls both the importance and the direction of the gradient to achieve unbiased learning. The empirical study based on two large-scale real-world datasets demonstrates remarkable performance gains from our solution. The learning framework has been deployed on Yahoo!'s real-time bidding platform and provided 2.97 AUC lift for CTR estimation and 9.30 eCPC drop for bid optimisation in an online A B test. We introduce an exploration scheme aimed at learning advertiser click-through rates in sponsored search auctions with minimal effect on advertiser incentives. The scheme preserves both the current ranking and pricing policies of the search engine and only introduces one set of parameters which control the rate of exploration. These parameters can be set so as to allow enough exploration to learn advertiser click-through rates over time, but also eliminate incentives for advertisers to alter their currently submitted bids. When advertisers have much more information than the search engine, we show that although this goal is not achievable, incentives to deviate can be made arbitrarily small by appropriately setting the exploration rate. Given that advertisers do not alter their bids, we bound revenue loss due to exploration. We analyze the problem of designing a truthful pay-per-click auction where the click-through-rates (CTR) of the bidders are unknown to the auction. Such an auction faces the classic explore exploit dilemma: while gathering information about the click through rates of advertisers, the mechanism may loose revenue; however, this gleaned information may prove valuable in the future for a more profitable allocation. In this sense, such mechanisms are prime candidates to be designed using multi-armed bandit techniques. However, a naive application of multi-armed bandit algorithms would not take into account the strategic considerations of the players -- players might manipulate their bids (which determine the auction's revenue) in a way as to maximize their own utility. Hence, we consider the natural restriction that the auction be truthful. The revenue that we could hope to achieve is the expected revenue of a Vickrey auction that knows the true CTRs, and we define the truthful regret to be the difference between the expected revenue of the auction and this Vickrey revenue. This work sharply characterizes what regret is achievable, under a truthful restriction. We show that this truthful restriction imposes statistical limits on the achievable regret -- the achievable regret is Θ(T2 3), while for traditional bandit algorithms (without the truthful restriction) the achievable regret is Θ(T1 2) (where T is the number of rounds). We term the extra T1 6 factor, the price of truthfulness'.