IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v102y2017icp583-623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computational analysis of perfect-information position auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Thompson, David R.M.
  • Leyton-Brown, Kevin

Abstract

After experimentation with other designs, major search engines converged on weighted, generalized second-price auctions (wGSPs) for selling keyword advertisements. Theoretical analysis is still not able to settle the question of why they found this design preferable to other alternatives. We approach this question in a new way, adopting an analytical paradigm we dub “computational mechanism analysis.” Specifically, we sample position auction games from a given distribution, encode them in a computationally efficient representation language, compute their Nash equilibria, and calculate economic quantities of interest. We considered seven widely studied valuation models from the literature and three position auction variants. We found that wGSP consistently showed the best ads of any position auction, measured both by social welfare and expected number of clicks. In contrast, we found that revenue was extremely variable across auction mechanisms and was highly sensitive to equilibrium selection, the preference model, and the valuation distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Thompson, David R.M. & Leyton-Brown, Kevin, 2017. "Computational analysis of perfect-information position auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 583-623.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:102:y:2017:i:c:p:583-623
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2017.02.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825617300350
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2017.02.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Glenn Ellison, 2011. "Position Auctions with Consumer Search," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(3), pages 1213-1270.
    2. Benjamin Edelman & Michael Ostrovsky & Michael Schwarz, 2007. "Internet Advertising and the Generalized Second-Price Auction: Selling Billions of Dollars Worth of Keywords," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 242-259, March.
    3. Govindan, Srihari & Wilson, Robert, 2003. "A global Newton method to compute Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 65-86, May.
    4. Varian, Hal R., 2007. "Position auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1163-1178, December.
    5. Jiang, Albert Xin & Leyton-Brown, Kevin & Bhat, Navin A.R., 2011. "Action-Graph Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 141-173, January.
    6. G. van der Laan & A. J. J. Talman & L. van der Heyden, 1987. "Simplicial Variable Dimension Algorithms for Solving the Nonlinear Complementarity Problem on a Product of Unit Simplices Using a General Labelling," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 377-397, August.
    7. Talman, A.J.J. & van der Laan, G. & Van der Heyden, L., 1987. "Variable dimension algorithms for solving the nonlinear complementarity problem on a product of unit simplices using general labelling," Other publications TiSEM fbe9ae2f-e01d-4eef-944c-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Porter, Ryan & Nudelman, Eugene & Shoham, Yoav, 2008. "Simple search methods for finding a Nash equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 642-662, July.
    9. Gomes, Renato & Sweeney, Kane, 2014. "Bayes–Nash equilibria of the generalized second-price auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 421-437.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pengfei Liu, 2021. "Balancing Cost Effectiveness and Incentive Properties in Conservation Auctions: Experimental Evidence from Three Multi-award Reverse Auction Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 417-451, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiang, Albert Xin & Leyton-Brown, Kevin, 2015. "Polynomial-time computation of exact correlated equilibrium in compact games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 347-359.
    2. Hummel, Patrick, 2016. "Position auctions with dynamic resizing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 38-46.
    3. Jiang, Albert Xin & Leyton-Brown, Kevin & Bhat, Navin A.R., 2011. "Action-Graph Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 141-173, January.
    4. Fei Long & Kinshuk Jerath & Miklos Sarvary, 2022. "Designing an Online Retail Marketplace: Leveraging Information from Sponsored Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 115-138, January.
    5. Porter, Ryan & Nudelman, Eugene & Shoham, Yoav, 2008. "Simple search methods for finding a Nash equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 642-662, July.
    6. Avi Goldfarb, 2014. "What is Different About Online Advertising?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 115-129, March.
    7. Caragiannis, Ioannis & Kaklamanis, Christos & Kanellopoulos, Panagiotis & Kyropoulou, Maria & Lucier, Brendan & Paes Leme, Renato & Tardos, Éva, 2015. "Bounding the inefficiency of outcomes in generalized second price auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 343-388.
    8. Thomas Blake & Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large‐Scale Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 155-174, January.
    9. Tilman B?rgers & Ingemar Cox & Martin Pesendorfer & Vaclav Petricek, 2013. "Equilibrium Bids in Sponsored Search Auctions: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 163-187, November.
    10. Sam Ganzfried, 2020. "Fast Complete Algorithm for Multiplayer Nash Equilibrium," Papers 2002.04734, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    11. Mark Armstrong & Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Paying for Prominence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 368-395, November.
    12. Nicolás Figueroa & Vasiliki Skreta, 2011. "Optimal allocation mechanisms with single-dimensional private information," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 15(3), pages 213-243, September.
    13. Burguet, Roberto & Caminal, Ramon & Ellman, Matthew, 2015. "In Google we trust?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 44-55.
    14. Patrick Hummel, 2018. "Hybrid mechanisms for Vickrey–Clarke–Groves and generalized second-price bids," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 331-350, March.
    15. Ken Heyer & Carl Shapiro & Jeffrey Wilder, 2009. "The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division, 2008–2009," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 35(4), pages 349-367, December.
    16. Pollock, Rufus, 2008. "Is Google the next Microsoft? Competition, Welfare and Regulation in Internet Search," MPRA Paper 8885, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Susan Athey & Michael Luca, 2019. "Economists (and Economics) in Tech Companies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 209-230, Winter.
    18. Emanuele Tarantino, 2012. "A Note on Vertical Search Engines’ Foreclosure," Chapters, in: Joseph E. Harrington Jr & Yannis Katsoulacos (ed.), Recent Advances in the Analysis of Competition Policy and Regulation, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    20. Alexandre Cornière & Greg Taylor, 2014. "Integration and search engine bias," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(3), pages 576-597, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Computational mechanism analysis; Position auctions; Sponsored search; Compact game representations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • C88 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Other Computer Software
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:102:y:2017:i:c:p:583-623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.