arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 8 Jul 2008

Transcription

1 General Aucton Mechansm for Search Advertsng Gagan Aggarwal S. Muthukrshnan Dávd Pál Martn Pál July 3, 2008 arxv: v1 [cs.gt] 8 Jul 2008 Abstract In sponsored search, a number of advertsng slots s avalable on a search results page, and have to be allocated among a set of advertsers competng to dsplay an ad on the page. Ths gves rse to a bpartte matchng market that s typcally cleared by the way of an automated aucton. Several aucton mechansms have been proposed, wth varants of the Generalzed Second Prce (GSP) beng wdely used n practce. There s a rch body of work on bpartte matchng markets that bulds upon the stable marrage model of Gale and Shapley and the assgnment model of Shapley and Shubk. Ths lne of research offers deep nsghts nto the structure of stable outcomes n such markets and ther ncentve propertes. In ths paper, we model advertsng auctons n terms of an assgnment model wth lnear utltes, extended wth bdder and tem specfc maxmum and mnmum prces. Aucton mechansms lke the commonly used GSP or the well-known Vckrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) can be nterpreted as smply computng a bdderoptmal stable matchng n ths model, for a sutably defned set of bdder preferences, but our model ncludes much rcher bdders and preferences. We prove that n our model the exstence of a stable matchng s guaranteed, and under a non-degeneracy assumpton a bdder-optmal stable matchng exsts as well. We gve a fast algorthm to fnd such matchng n polynomal tme, and use t to desgn truthful mechansm that generalzes GSP, s truthful for proft-maxmzng bdders, correctly mplements features lke bdder-specfc mnmum prces and poston-specfc bds, and works for rch mxtures of bdders and preferences. Our man techncal contrbutons are the exstence of bdder-optmal matchngs and (group) strategyproofness of the resultng mechansm, and are proved by nducton on the progress of the matchng algorthm. 1 Introducton Internet advertsng s a prme example of a matchng market: a number n of advertsers (bdders) are competng for a set ofkadvertsng slots (tems) offered for sale by a content publsher or a search engne. Internet advertsng and sponsored search auctons have attracted wde attenton n the academc lterature, and there are several papers dscussng varous aspects of prcng ad slots and allocatng them to nterested advertsers. Classcal matchng market models nclude the stable marrage model of Gale and Shapley [14] and the assgnment model of Shalpley and Shubk [24]. For these models and many of ther extensons, we have a good understandng of the structure of ther stable outcomes ( equlbra ) and ther ncentve propertes. We take advantage of exstng body of work on stable matchngs and apply t to sponsored search. We observe that exstng aucton mechansms for sponsored search, most notably, varants of Generalzed Second Prce (GSP) and Vckrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG), merely compute a stable matchng n a sutably defned model. We make ths model explct, and propose a new aucton mechansm that ncludes the exstng mechansms as specal cases. The model s flexble enough to allow for bdder and poston specfc mnmum and maxmum Google, Inc., 1600 Amphtheatre Pkwy, Mountan Vew, CA, gagana@google.com Google, Inc., 76 Nnth Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY, muthu@google.com Davd R. Cherton School of Computer Scence, Unversty of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. dpal@cs.uwaterloo.ca. Work done durng summer 2007 nternshp at Google New York. Google, Inc., 76 Nnth Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY, mpal@google.com 1

2 prces, as well as dfferent values for dfferent slots. Much of the exstng lterature does not address these features (lke mnmum prces) that are mportant n practce. Beyond that, our model of bdder preferences allows for a wder range of bdder behavors than ust proft maxmzaton (.e. we do not assume that the bdder s payoff s quas-lnear n payment). As an example, a bdder who desres to wn the hghest slot possble subect to the constrant that hs prce be at most m (for some parameter m) s clearly not maxmzng proft, but can be expressed n our model. It s mportant for us to nclude such bdders n order to correctly model the varants of GSP aucton whch have not been prevously analyzed; t also happens that the basc GSP mechansm s truthful for such class of bdders. Our proposed aucton mechansm solcts bdder preferences from each bdder and then smply computes a bdder-optmal stable matchng gven those preferences. The mechansm s truthful (and even group strategyproof f money transfers among players are not permtted). On the algorthmc sde, we show how to compute the allocaton and prces correspondng to a bdder-optmal stable matchng n tme O(nk 3 ), where n s the number of bdders and k s the number of slots to sell. Our algorthm s an extenson of the Hungaran algorthm for fndng maxmum-weght matchngs n bpartte graphs. The dea of the algorthm s smple, although some attenton to detal s requred to ensure correctness, and the algorthm has to be made fast enough for search advertsng. Our proofs of exstence of bdder-optmal matchngs as well as proof of a key lemma establshng truthfulness of our aucton mechansm follow by nducton on the executon of the matchng algorthm. 2 Related Work Matchng Markets. The marrage model of Gale and Shapley [14] and the assgnment model of Shapley and Shubk [24] are two standard models n the theory of matchng markets. In the marrage model, a set I of men and a set J of women s gven, where each man and woman s endowed wth a ranked lst of members of the opposte sex. Men and women are to be matched n a one to one fason. A matchng s consdered stable f there s no man and a woman who would smultaneously prefer each other to ther respectve assgned partners. A stable matchng s guaranteed to exst, and the deferred acceptance algorthm can be used to fnd t. The stable matchng found by ths algorthm s man-optmal, n that every man prefers t to any other stable matchng. Moreover when usng the deferred acceptance algorthm, no man has an ncentve to msreport hs true preference order [22]. The assgnment model [24], (see also [21, 9]) dffers n that each player derves a certan value from beng matched to each person of the opposte sex, and sde payments between partners are allowed. The goal of each player s to maxmze hs or her payoff whch s the sum of partner s value and monetary payment (postve or negatve negatve) from the partner. The set of stable outcomes s non-empty by a lnear programmng argument. In fact, each stable outcome corresponds to a maxmum-weght matchng, and player payoffs correpond to dual varables of the maxmum matchng LP. A man-optmal outcome s guaranteed to exst, and ts allocaton and prces are dentcal to the VCG mechansm for maxmum weght matchngs [19, 6]. Many varatons and extensons of each model have been studed; see the monograph [23] for a nce overvew. Payoff functons that are not necessarly lnear n the payment were consdered by [8, 9, 4, 5]. Even n such generalty, there exsts a man-optmal stable matchng [8], and n a man-optmal aucton mechansm, t s weakly domnant for each bdder to reveal hs true utlty (payoff) functon. These results requre the utlty functons to be contnuous, strctly monotone and defned on the whole range (, + ), and therefore are not drectly applcable n our settng. Kelso and Crawford [17] and others have proposed a many to one varant n whch frms may hre multple workers. Recently, Fushge and Tamura [13] proposed a very general many to many model wth lnear utlty functons n whch each worker can engage multple frms, and allow lower and upper bounds to be placed on the range of payments allowed between any par of players. Under an assumpton on the payoff functons called M concavty, they gve a proof of exstence of a stable outcome and gve an algorthm to fnd t. 2

3 The model consdered n ths paper s an assgnment model wth lnear payoffs. It s a specal case of the model of Fushge and Tamura [13], n that we assume one to one matchng of bdders to tems. In addton to non-emptness, we show that the set of stable matchngs n our model has a bdder-optmal element, and prove that an aucton mechansm based on bdder-optmal matchngs s truthful and present an effcent algorthm. Fushge and Tamura [13] show exstence of a stable matchng n ther very general model by runnng an algorthm somewhat smlar to ours, but do not gve any results on bdder-optmalty or truthfulness. Sponsored Search Auctons. Flavors of the Generalzed Second Prce (GSP) aucton are the domnant vehcles for sellng ads on the nternet. In ts basc form, GSP solcts a numerc bd from each advertser, orders them n decreasng order of bds, and assgns slots to the frst up to k bdders n ths order. Each bdder s requred to pay a prce equal to the bd of the next bdder n the orderng (or a mnmum prce f ths s the last bdder). In a per-clck GSP, each bdder pays only n the event that hs ad s clcked on. In a per-mpresson GSP, the advertser pays each tme her ad s dsplayed. It has been observed that although t s not truthful for proft maxmzng bdders, the per-clck GSP mechansm does have a Nash equlbrum (under some assumptons on the structure of clck probabltes across dfferent postons) that s effcent and ts resultng prces are equal to VCG prces; see [11, 2]. A varant of GSP n whch the bdder can specfy the lowest (maxmum) acceptable poston has been proposed n [3], whch also has a Nash equlbrum equvalent to a sutably defned VCG aucton. Even-Dar et al. [12] show that a Nash equlbrum of GSP exsts even f mnmum prces are bdder-specfc, but that equlbrum s no longer related to a naturally defned VCG outcome. One reason GSP works well n practce s that n most stuatons, bdders unversally agree that hgher slots are preferable to lower slots. Wth ncreasngly complex web page layouts and ncreasngly sophstcated advertsers ths assumpton may become less vald over tme. Features lke Google s Poston Preference am to rectfy ths by allowng advertsers to only bd for a specfed subset (range) of postons. The general class of VCG mechansms follows from works of Vckrey [26], Clarke [7] and Groves [16]. For an overvew of the VCG mechansm appled to sponsored search, see e.g. [1, 2]. VCG s a very natural mechansm and s truthful for proft maxmzng bdders, but t s suffcently dfferent from GSP and bdders may fnd t dffcult to nterpret the prces they are charged. In secton 3 we descrbe the assgnment model wth mnmum and maxmum prces and state the man results. Secton 4 gves a descrpton of an algorthm to fnd a bdder-optmal stable matchng. Sectons 5.1 and 6 gve hgh level overvew of the proofs, wth the detals delegated to Appendx A and B. Appendx C.2 dscusses how current aucton mechansms for sonsored search ft n our model. 3 Assgnment Model wth Maxmum and Mnmum Prces Our model that we call the max-value model, conssts of the set I = {1,2,...,n} of bdders and the set J = {1, 2,..., k} of tems. We use letter to denote a bdder and letter to denote an tem. Each bdder has a value v, for each slot how much s that slot worth to her, and a maxmum prce m, she s able and wllng to pay for the slot. 1 In addton to bdder preferences, the seller may specfy for each tem a reserve or mnmum prce r,. For smplcty we assume that the mnmum prces are known to the bdders n advance. For each and each we assume that r, 0, v, 0, m, v,. If bdder s nterested n the slot he specfes m, r,. Otherwse, f bdder has no nterest n slot he specfes negatvem,. We denote byv,m,r then k matrces wth entres v,,m,,r, respectvely. We refer to the trple (v,m,r) as an aucton nstance or smply aucton. 1 To motvate why v, and m, mght be dfferent, consder buyng a house whose value to you s hgher than the amount of money your bank s wllng to lend you. Allowng the bdder to specfy both a value and a maxmum s also needed to model the GSP aucton. 3

4 u utlty of bdder v, v, r, (p, u ) v, m, r, m, v, p prce of slot Fgure 1: Matchng s stable whenever for each bdder I and each slot J the pont wth coordnates (p,u ) les outsde the gray regon. Stable Matchng. We formalze the noton of a matchng n the followng defntons. Defnton 1 (Matchng). A matchng s a trple (u,p,µ), where u = (u 1,u 2,...,u n ) s a non-negatve utlty vector, p = (p 1,p 2,...,p k ) s a non-negatve prce vector, and µ I J s a set of bdder-slot pars such that no slot and no bdder occurs n more than one par. If a par (,) µ, we say that bdder s matched to slot. We use µ() to denote the slot matched to a bdder, and µ() to denote to denote the bdder matched to a slot. Bdders and slots that do not belong to any par nµare sad to be unmatched. Defnton 2 (Feasble matchng). A matchng (u,p,µ) s sad to be feasble for an aucton (v,m,r), whenever for every (, ) µ, p [r,,m, ], (1) u +p = v,, (2) and for each unmatched bdder s u = 0 and for each unmatched slot sp = 0. Defnton 3 (Stable matchng). A matchng(u, p, µ) s stable for an aucton (v, m, r) whenever for each(, ) I J at least one of the followng nequaltes holds: u +p v,, (3) p m,, (4) u +r, v,. (5) A par (, ) I J whch does not satsfy any of the three nequaltes s called blockng. Geometrc nterpretaton of nequaltes (3), (4), (5) s explaned n Fgure 1. Note that f a bdder s not nterested n a slot, then (4) s trvally satsfed. A feasble matchng does not have to be stable, and a stable matchng does not have to be feasble. However, we wll be nterested n matchngs that are both stable and feasble, and n addton bdder-optmal. Defnton 4 (Bdder Optmalty). A stable, feasble matchng (u,p,u ) s bdder-optmal f for every stable feasble matchng (u,p,µ) and every bdder I we have u u. 4

5 Bdder Preferences. To study strategc behavor of bdders n an aucton, we need to model bdder s preferences. We assume that each bdder s ndfferent among varous outcomes as long as her assgned slot (f any) and payment s the same. Let us defne the utlty (payoff) of a bdder who s offered a slot at prce p as follows. If p m,, we set u = v p. If p > m,, we set u = 1. Ths payoff, nterpreted as a functon of the prce, s not contnuous at p = m,. If the bdder s unmatched (at zero prce), her payoff s 0. Gven a choce between slot 1 at prceq 1 m,1 and slot 2 at prcep 2 m,2, the bdder prefers the offer wth hgher payoff, and s ndfferent among offers that have the same payoff. In partcular, the bdder prefers to be not matched to beng matched to a slot at prce that exceeds her maxmum prce m. The bdder s ndfferent between beng matched wth payoff 0 and not beng matched. We call a bdder whose preferences can be descrbed by a vector of maxmum prces and values a max-value bdder. We pont out two classes of bdders that are of nterest. A proft maxmzng bdder only cares about the values v he can gan from each poston, and seeks to maxmze value of the tem receved mnus payment. For such bdder we can render the maxmum prce m neffectve by settng t tov. A maxmum prce bdder s parametrzed by a maxmum prce m he s wllng to pay. He seeks to get the lowest-ndex poston whose prce s less than or equal tom. A more detaled dscusson of ssues lke bdder types, ther relaton to aucton mechansms and dfferences between chargng per mpresson and per clck s deferred to Appendx. 3.1 Our Results Every aucton nstance n our model has a stable matchng by the result of [13]. We show that t also has a bdder-optmal matchng, and to gve an algorthm to fnd t. Theorem 5. If the aucton (v,m,r) s n a general poston, t has a unque bdder-optmal stable matchng. Ths matchng can be found n tmeo(nk 3 ). We defer the precse defnton of general poston to Defnton 13. In essence, any aucton (v,m,r) can be brought nto general poston by arbtrarly small (symbolc) perturbatons. In practce ths assumpton s easly removed by usng a consstent te-breakng rule. Consder the followng mechansm for auctonng off k tems to n bdders. The auctoneer (seller) sets an arbtrary mnmum prce r for each bdder-tem par. It then solcts vectors of maxmum prces m = (m 1,m 2,...,m k ) and values v = (v 1,v 2,...,v k ) from each bdder. Fnally, the auctoneer computes a bdder-optmal stable matchng (u,p,µ ) for the aucton nstance (m,v,r). It assgns each bdder the tem (f any) = µ () and charges hm prce p (or 0 f µ () = ). Let us call ths mechansm the Stable Matchng Mechansm. Our second techncal contrbutons to show that the Stable matchng Mechansm s truthful for max-value bdders. Theorem 6 (Truthfulness). In the Stable Matchng Mechansm, t s a (weakly) domnant strategy for each bdder to submt her true vectors v and m, as long as s preferences can be expressed n the max-value model. 4 An Algorthm to Compute a Bdder-Optmal Matchng We now descrbe algorthm STABLEMATCH that computes a feasble and stable matchng for a gven aucton nstance (v,m,r). Later n Secton 5 we show that the matchng s also bdder-optmal, as long as the aucton nstance s n a general poston (Defnton 13). The STABLEMATCH algorthm s an extenson of the well known Hungaran Method [27, 18] for computng a maxmum-weght matchng n a bpartte graph. The Hungaran Method s a prmal-dual algorthm that starts wth an empty matchng and repeatedly ncreases the sze of the matchng usng a maxmum-weght augmentng 5

6 path. STABLEMATCH works the same way, except that t s desgned to handle events correpondng to reachng mnmum and maxmum prces. STABLEMATCH starts wth an empty matchng (u (0),p (0),µ (0) ) whch s defned as follows. Utlty of each bdder su (0) = B, whereb s a large enough number, such thatb > max{v, (,) I J}. Prce of each slot s p (0) = 0. There are no matched pars,.e. µ (0) =. In each teraton, STABLEMATCH fnds an augmentng path, and updates the current matchng(u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) to the next matchng(u (t+1),p (t+1),µ (t+1) ). The algorthm stops when no more updates can be made, and outputs the current matchng(u (T),p (T),µ (T) ) at the end of the last teraton. We now descrbe an teraton n more detal. To do so, we ntroduce the concept of an update graph. Defnton 7 (Update graph). Gven an aucton (v,m,r), the update graph for a matchng (u,p,µ) s a drected weghted bpartte multgraph wth partte sets I and J { 0 }, where 0 s the dummy slot. The update graph conssts of fve types of edges. For each bdder and each slot J there s a forward edge from to wth weght u +p v,, f p [r,,m, ); a backward edge from towth weght v, u p, f (,) µ, a reserve-prce edge from to wth weght u +r, v,, f u +r, > v, and m, > r,, a maxmum-prce edge from to wth weght u +m, v,, f u +m, > v, and m, > r,, a termnal edge from to 0 wth weght u f u > 0. An alternatng path n the update graph starts wth an unmatched bdder vertex 0 wth u 0 > 0, follows a sequence of forward and backward edges, and ends wth a reserve-prce, maxmum-prce or termnal edge. We place the restrcton that all vertces of the alternatng path must be dstnct, wth the possble excepton that the last vertex s allowed to appear once agan along the path. The weght w(p) of an alternatng path P s the sum of weghts of ts edges. Let (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) be a matchng and G (t) be the correspondng update graph. A sngle teraton of the STABLEMATCH algorthm conssts of the followng steps. 1. If there s no alternatng path, stop and output the current matchng. Otherwse, let P be an alternatng path n G (t) of mnmum weght. Letw (t) (P) denote ts weght, and let P = ( 0, 1, 1, 2, 2,..., l, l, l+1 ) for somel Let d (t) ( 0,y) be the length of the shortest path n G (t) from 0 to any vertex y, usng only forward and backward edges. If a vertex y s not reachable from 0,d (t) ( 0,y) =. 3. Compute utlty updates for each bdder I. The vector u (t+1) gves the fnal utltes for the teraton. ( ) u (t+1) = u (t) max w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,), 0 (6) 4. Compute prce updates for each slot J. p (t+) ( ) = p (t) +max w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,), 0 (7) The fnal prces p (t+1) are equal to p (t+) wth one excepton. In case the last edge of P s a reserve-prce edge, we set the prce of slot l+1, the last vertex of P to be p (t+1) = max(p (t+),r l, l+1 ). 5. Update the assgnment µ (t) along the alternatng path P to obtan the new assgnment µ (t+1). 6

7 We have not specfed how should the set of assgnment edges be updated. Before we do that, let us state two nvarants mantaned by STABLEMATCH. (A1) The matchng (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) s stable for the aucton (v,m,r). (A2) For every matched par (,) µ (t), u (t) and p (t) satsfy (1) and (2). An mportant consequence of nvarant (A1) s that forward edges have non-negatve weght. Indeed, t can be easly checked that a forward edge wth a negatve weght would be blockng par. Invarant (A2) guarantees that backward edges have zero weght. Smlarly, nvarant (A2) mples that the weght of every backward edge must be zero. Fnally, each reserve-prce, maxmum-prce and termnal edges has non-negatve weght by defnton. Lemma 8. All edge weghts n each update graph G (t) are non-negatve. Wth non-negatve edge weghts, sngle-source shortest paths can be computed usng Dkstra s algorthm n tme proportonal to the square of the number of vertces reachable from the source. Snce no unmatched vertex s reachable from any other vertex, there are at most 2k reachable vertces at any tme, thus the shortest alternatng path P and dstances d (t) ( 0,y) can be computed n tme O(k 2 ). Fnally, let us deal wth updatng the assgnment µ. Snce the alternatng path alternates between usng forward (.e. non-matchng) and backward (.e. matchng) edges, a natural move s to remove all the matchng edges of P and replace them by non-matchng edges of P. Care must be taken however to take nto account the specal nature of the last edge of P as well as the fact that the last vertex of P may be vsted twce. We consder three cases: Case 1: P ends wth a termnal edge,.e. l+1 s the dummy slot. Flp matchng and non-matchng edges along the whole length of P. Bdder l ends up beng unmatched, and for x = 0,1,...,l 1, bdder x wll be matched to slot x+1. Case 2: P ends wth a maxmum-prce edge. Consder two subcases: (a) l+1 = l. Ths means that the prce bdder l was matched to reached hs maxmum prce. Flp matchng an non-matchng edges along P. Ths leaves bdder l unmatched, and for x = 0,1,...,l 1bdder x s matched wth slot x+1. (b) Otherwse, the maxmum prce was reached on a non-matchng edge. Keep the matchng unchanged. That s, µ (t+1) = µ (t). Case 3: P ends wth a reserve-prce edge. Ths s the most complex case. Consder three subcases: (a) Item l+1 s unmatched n µ (t). Ths case ncreases the sze of the matchng. For x = 0,1,...,l, match bdder x wth slot x+1. (b) Item l+1 s matched n µ (t) and the reserve prce r l, l+1 offered by bdder l does not exceed the current prce p (t+) l+1 of the slots. Keep the matchng unchanged, that s, µ (t+1) = µ (t). (c) Item l+1 s matched n µ (t) to some bdder l+1 and r l, l+1 > p (t+) l+1. If P s a path, that s, f P does not vst slots l twce, we smply unmatch bdder l+1, and flp matchng and non-matchng edges ofp. (Ths keeps the sze of the matchng the same, as bdder 0 gets matched and bdder l+1 unmatched.) If P vsts l+1 twce, t must be that l+1 = d for some d. Note that t s not the case that d = l, snce ths would mean that l was matched to l+1. Ths s mpossble because the reserve prce on ths edge has been reached ust now. Ths way, the end of P forms a cycle wth at least 2 bdders and 2 slots. We flp the matchng and non-matchng edges along the cycle, but leave the rest ofp untouched. Ths leaves bdder x matched to slot x+1, for x = d,d+1,...,l. 7

8 5 Analyss In ths secton we show that the STABLEMATCH algorthm from Secton 4 computes a bdder-optmal stable matchng for any aucton nstance (v, m, r) n general poston. Invarants (A1) and (A2) clamed n the prevous secton are enough to show that the resultng matchng s feasble and stable. We prove these nvarants and establsh a few new ones n Appendx A.1. Lemma 9. The matchng (u (T),p (T),µ (T) ) computed by the STABLEMATCH algorthm s feasble and stable. Proof. Stablty follows drectly from nvarant (A1). Feasblty follows from nvarant (A2) and the fact that snce there are no alternatng paths, t must be that u (T) = 0 for every unmatched bdder. Runnng Tme. The number of teratons s bounded by O(nk) n Lemma 10 below (see proof n Appendx A.2). Snce each teraton can be mplemented n tmeo(k 2 ), ths gves us overall runnng tmeo(nk 3 ). Lemma 10. STABLEMATCH fnshes after at most n(2k + 1) teratons. 5.1 Bdder Optmalty Whle the matchng returned by STABLEMATCH s always stable and feasble, t may not be bdder-optmal. As the followng example shows, a bdder-optmal matchng does not always exst. Example 11. Consder the case of a sngle slot and two bdders wth dentcal maxmum bds. There are two stable matchngs. In each matchng, the slot s allocated to one of the bdders at maxmum prce. Each matchng s preferred by one bdder over the other, hence there s no matchng preferred by both of them. Ths example s degenerate n that the maxmum bds of both bdders are the same. However t turns out that except for such degenerate cases, a bdder-optmal matchng always exsts and STABLEMATCH wll fnd t. We make ths precse n the followng two defntons. Defnton 12 (Aucton graph). The aucton graph of an aucton (v, m, r) s a drected weghted bpartte multgraph wth partte sets I and J { 0 }, where 0 s the dummy slot. The aucton graph contans fve types of edges. For each bdder and each slot J there exst a forward edge from to wth weght v,, a backward edge from towth weght v,, a reserve-prce edge from to wth weght r, v,, a maxmum-prce edge from to wth weght m, v,, a termnal edge from to 0 wth weght 0. Defnton 13 (General Poston). An aucton (v,m,r) s n general poston f for every bdder, no two alternatng walks n the aucton graph that start at bdder, follow alternatng forward and backward edges and end wth a dstnct edge that s ether a reserve-prce, maxmum-prce or termnal edge, have the same weght. Any aucton (v, m, r) can be brought nto general poston by a symbolc perturbaton. In the algorthm mplementaton, ths can be acheved by breakng tes lexcographcally by the dentty of the fnal edge of the walk. All we need now to prove Theorem 5 s the followng lemma, proof of whch appears n Appendx A.3. Lemma 14. Let (v,m,r) be an aucton n general poston, and let (u,p,µ ) be any feasble stable matchng. Then n any teraton t of STABLEMATCH, we have that u u(t) for all I and p p(t) for all J. 8

9 Proof of Theorem 5. Consder an aucton nstance (m, v, r) n general poston. The STABLEMATCH algorthm on ths nstance outputs a matchng u,p,µ that s stable and feasble by Lemma 9. Applyng Lemma 14 to the current matchng after the last teraton of the algorthm mples that u,p,µ s weakly preferred to any stable matchng by every bdder and hence s bdder-optmal. Runnng tme of the algorthm follows from Lemma Incentve Compatblty In ths secton we wll prove Theorem 6. A mechansm based on computng men-optmal stable matchng has been shown to be truth-revealng n several contexts. For the basc stable matchng problem wthout payments, a concse proof can be found n [20]. For the case of contnuous utltes, a proof was gven n [8]. Our proof for the max-value model mmcs the overall structure of ts predecessors. Frst, we show that there s no feasble matchng n whch every sngle bdder would be better off than n the bdder-optmal matchng. (Note that f an agent or set of agents were to successfully le about ther preferences, the mechansm would stll output a matchng that s feasble wth respect to the true preferences.) Ths property s known as weak Pareto optmalty of the bdder-optmal matchng. Lemma 15 (Pareto optmalty). Let(v,m,r) be an aucton n general poston and let(u,p,µ ) be the bdderoptmal matchng. Then for any matchng (u,p,µ) that s feasble for(v,m,r), there s at least one bdder I such that u u. Second, we show that every feasble matchng s ether stable, or has a blockng bdder-slot par that nvolves a bdder who s not better off n ths matchng than n the bdder-optmal matchng. Versons of the followng lemma appear n [15, 10, 23]. The orgnal statement n a model wthout money s attrbuted to J. S. Hwang. Lemma 16 (Hwang s lemma). Let (u,p,µ) be a matchng that s feasble for an aucton (v,m,r) n general poston and let (u,p,µ ) be the bdder-optmal matchng for that aucton. Let I + = { I u > u }. If I + s non-empty, then there exsts a blockng par (,) (I I + ) J. Proofs of Lemmas 15 and 16 appear n Appendx B. Theorem 6 drectly follows from Lemma 16. In fact, the lemma mples the followng stronger statement. Theorem 17. There s no way for a bdder or a coalton of bdders to manpulate ther bds n a way such that every bdder n the coalton would strctly beneft from the manpulaton. Proof. Suppose there s a coalton I + of bdders that can beneft from submttng false bds. Let (v,m,r) be an aucton that reflects the true preferences of all bdders, and let (v,m,r) be an aucton that reflects the falsfed bds. Note that v = v and m = m except for bdders I +. Let(u,p,µ) be the bdder-optmal stable matchng for the aucton (v,m,r). Frst observe that the matchng (u,p,µ) must be feasble for the true aucton (v,m,r). Ths s because for each bdder I I +, the feasblty constrants are the same n both auctons. For bdders I +, we need to verfy that p m, whenever (,) µ. Ths follows because the true bdder-optmal matchng(u,p,µ ) respects maxmum prces, and any outcome that respects maxmum prces s preferred over an outcome that doesn t. Snce (u,p,µ) s feasble, we can apply Lemma 16 and conclude that there s a par (,) wth I I + that s blockng for the aucton (v,m,r). 9

10 7 Conclusons We have successfully appled the theory of stable matchngs to sponsored search auctons. Several open questons reman. Fushge and Tamura [13] propose a general model n whch a worker can engage several frms and vce versa, of whch ours s a specal case. It would be nterestng to see f (and under what condtons) worker and frm-optmal equlbra exst, and whether our strategyproofness result carres through to ths very general model. Our max-value model assumes a constant exchange rate n that each dollar pad by the bdder s perceved as a dollar receved by the seller, ndependent of the dentty of the bdder and the tem. Suppose the payment s condtoned on some event (such as a user clckng or makng a purchase), as s common practce. At a mutually agreed (say) cost per clck, the total revenue estmated by the seller may not be equal to the total cost estmated by the buyer, f they have dfferent estmates of the probablty of a clck occurrng. Ths dscrepancy suggests that we ntroduce an exchange rate nto equatons (2) and (5). In such a model wth exchange rates, we do not know f a stable (let alone bdder optmal) matchng exsts, or how to fnd such matchng effcently. Exstence of bdder-optmal matchngs n our model has clear mplcatons on the exstence of Nash equlbra n (say) GSP auctons under varous assumptons on bdder valuatons / preferences. (For example, can the result of [12] be re-derved and extended by usng guaranteed exstence of bdder-optmal matchngs?) Acknowledgments: We would lke to thank Hal Varan, Adam Juda and anonymous referees for helpful comments and ponters to lterature. References [1] Gagan Aggarwal. Prvacy Protecton and Advertsng n a Networked World. PhD thess, Stanford Unversty, [2] Gagan Aggarwal, Ashsh Goel, and Raeev Motwan. Truthful auctons for prcng search keywords. In ACM Conf on Electronc commerce, pages 1 7, [3] Gagan Aggarwal, S. Muthukrshnan, and Jon Feldman. Bddng to the top: VCG and equlbra of postonbased auctons. In WAOA, [4] Ahmet Alkan. Exstence and computaton of matchng equlbra. European Journal of Poltcal Economy, 5(2-3): , [5] Ahmet Alkan and Davd Gale. The core of the matchng game. Games and Economc Behavor, 2(3): , [6] Sushl Bkhchandan and Joseph M. Ostroy. From the assgnment model to combnatoral auctons. In Combnatoral Auctons. MIT Press, [7] Edward H. Clarke. Multpart prcng of publc goods. Publc Choce, 11(1):17 33, [8] G. Demange and D. Gale. The strategy structure of two-sded matchng markets. Econometrca, 53(4): , [9] Gabrelle Demange, Davd Gale, and Marlda Sotomayor. Mult-tem auctons. Journal of Poltcal Economy, 94(4): ,

11 [10] Gabrelle Demange, Davd Gale, and Marlda Sotomayor. A further note on the stable matchng problem. Dscrete Appled Mathematcs, 16: , [11] Benamn Edelman, Mchael Ostrovsky, and Mchael Schwarz. Internet advertsng and the generalzed second prce aucton: Sellng bllons of dollars worth of keywords. Amercan Economc Revew, 97(1): , March [12] Eyal Even-Dar, Jon Feldman, Yshay Mansour, and S. Muthukrshnan. On the effect of mnmum prces on poston auctons. Unpublshed manuscrpt, [13] Satoru Fushge and Akhsa Tamura. A two-sded dscrete-concave market wth possbly bounded sde payments: An approach by dscrete convex analyss. Mathematcs of Operatons Research, 32(1): , [14] Davd Gale and Lloyd S. Shapley. College admssons and the stablty of marrage. Am Math Monthly, 69(1):9 15, [15] Davd Gale and Marlda Sotomayor. Some remarks on the stable marrage problem. Dscrete Appled Mathematcs, 11: , [16] Theodore Groves. Incentves n teams. Econometrca, 41(4): , [17] J. A. S. Kelso and V. P. Crawford. Job matchng, coalton formaton, and gross substtutes. Econometrca, 50: , [18] Harold W. Kuhn. The Hungaran method for the assgnment problem. Naval Logstcs Quarterly, 2:83 97, [19] Herman B. Leonard. Elctaton of honest preferences for the assgnment of ndvduals to postons. Journal of Poltcal Economy, 91: , [20] Noam Nsan, Tm Roughgarden, Eva Tardos, and Vay V. Vazran, edtors. Algorthmc Game Theory. Cambrdge Unversty Press, Septermber [21] M. Qunz. Core and compettve equlbra wth ndvsbltes. Internatonal Journal of Game Theory, 13(1):41 60, [22] Alvn E. Roth. The economcs of matchng: Stablty and ncentves. Mathematcs of Operatons Research, 7(4): , [23] Alvn E. Roth and Marlda A. Olvera Sotomayor. Two-sded matchng: A study n game-theoretc modelng and analyss. Cambrdge Unversty Press, [24] Lloyd S. Shapley and Martn Shubk. The assgnment game : The core. Intl J. of Game Theory, 1(1): , [25] Hal R. Varan. Poston auctons. Internatonal Journal of Industral Organzaton, [26] Wllam Vckrey. Counterspeculaton, auctons, and compettve sealed tenders. J.of Fnance, 16(1):8 37, [27] Wkpeda. algorthm. 11

12 A Analyss of STABLEMATCH Proofs of statements from Secton 5.1. A.1 Invarants We establsh several nvarants that hold throughout the executon of the STABLEMATCH algorthm. These wll be used as ngredents n the proof of Theorems. Besdes nvarants (A1) and (A2) ntroduced n Secton 4, we clam three more nvarants. (A3) Each unmatched slot has zero prce. (B1) f a bdder s nterested n slot and u (t) +m, = v,, then (,) µ (t). (B2) If a bdder s nterested n a slot and u (t) +r, = v,, then (,) µ (t) or p (t) r,. All the fve nvarants are proved by nducton on t. Invarants (B1) and (B2) are techncal and we omt ther proofs n ths verson of the paper. However, we use them n the nducton step to prove the frst three nvarants. Both (B1) and (B2) rely on the general poston assumpton. Proof of the nvarants. The base case, t = 0, s readly verfed. Invarant (A1) follows from that u (0) = B for all I, p (0) = 0 for all J, and hence (3) s satsfed. Invarants (A2) and (A3) hold trvally. Let us prove that (u (t+1),p (t+1),µ (t+1) ) satsfes (A3). Note that p (t+1) p (t). The slots matched n µ (t) reman matched nµ (t+1), at most one addtonal slot s matched nµ (t+1). The remanng slots are not reachable from 0 ng (t), snce for any such slot,p (t) = 0 and for any I,r, > 0 by the general poston assumpton, thus there s no forward edge to. Hence the prce of any such slot remans zero. Let us prove that (u (t+1),p (t+1),µ (t+1) ) satsfes (A1). We consder three cases for any par (,) I J: Case 1: p (t) [r,,m, ). (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) s stable by the nducton hypothess and hence u (t) +p (t) If d (t) ( 0,) w (t) (P), then u (t+1) = u (t) and p (t+1) p (t), thus u(t+1) and p (t+1) satsfy (3). On the other hand, f d (t) ( 0,) < w (t) (P), then v,. u (t+1) = u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)), (8) p (t+1) Snce from to there s a forward edge ng (t), We add (8) to (9), subtract (10), and we get that u (t+1) p (t+) p (t) +(w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)). (9) d (t) ( 0,) d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +p (t) v, ). (10) and p (t+1) satsfy (3). Case 2: p (t) m,. Snce p (t+1) p (t), (4) holds for p(t+1). (Ths case apples also f s not nterested n.) Case 3: p (t) < r, and s nterested n. (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) s stable by the nducton hypothess and hence u (t) satsfes (5). If d (t) ( 0,) w (t) (P), then u (t+1) = u (t) and hence u (t+1) also satsfes (5). On the other hand, f d (t) ( 0,) < w (t) (P), then u (t+1) We clam that n G (t) there s reserve-prce edge from to and thus = u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)). (11) w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +r, v, ). (12) 12

13 To prove the exstence of the reserve-prce edge we show that u (t) +r, > v,. The non-strct nequalty holds snce u (t) satsfes (5). The strctness follows snce, by the nducton hypothess, (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) satsfes (A2) and (B2). By subtractng (12) from (11) we get that u (t+1) satsfes (5). Frst, let us prove that (u (t+1),p (t+),µ (t) ) satsfes (A2). Consder any par (,) µ (t). In G (t) there s a backward edge from to. By nducton hypothess, (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) satsfes (A2) and hence the backward edge has zero weght. Hence d (t) ( 0,) = d (t) ( 0,). (13) Therefore, from the updates (6), (7) follows u (t+1) If w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,), then p (t+) = p (t) +p (t+) = u (t) +p (t) and hence (1) remans to hold. and thus (2) remans satsfed by p (t+). On the other hand, f w (t) (P) > d (t) ( 0,), then by the update (7) for prces p (t+) We also clam that there exsts maxmum-prce edge from to and thus = p (t) +(w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)). (14) w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +m, v, ). (15) To prove the exstence of the maxmum-prce edge we show that u (t) + m, > v,. The non-strct nequalty holds sncep (t) m, and thusu (t) +m, u (t) +p (t) = v, snce by the nducton hypothess(u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) satsfes (A2). Strctness follows snce, by the nducton hypothess, (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) satsfes (B1). Summng (13), (15), (14) and cancelng common terms gves p (t+) (u (t) + p (t) v, ) + m, = m,, whereu (t) +p (t) v, = 0 follows from the nducton hypothess. Hence, snce p (t+) p (t) r,, (2) remans to hold for p (t+). Fnally, let us prove that (u (t+1),p (t+1),µ (t+1) ) satsfes (A2). For any par (,) µ (t) µ (t+1) we have already done t, sncep (t+1) = p (t+). It remans to consder pars nµ (t+1) \µ (t). LetP = ( 0, 1, 1,..., l, l, l+1 ) be the alternatng path used to obtan µ (t+1) from µ (t). Any par (,) µ (t+1) \µ (t) s an edge lyng P and has the form (,) = ( x, x+1 ). We consder two cases. Case 1: x < l. In ths case (,) = ( x, x+1 ) s a forward edge and has weght u (t) +p (t) v,, and snce t les on a mnmum-weght path, d (t) ( 0,) = d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +p (t) v, ). (16) Snce w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,) and w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,), the updated quanttes are The equalty (1) for u (t+1) Let us verfy that p (t+1) u (t+1) p (t+1) = u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)), (17) = p (t) +(w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)). (18) and p (t+1) follows by summng (17), (18) and subtractng (16). satsfes (2). Snce (,) s a forward edge, p (t) [r,,m, ). By the nducton hypothess (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) s stable, thus u (t) + p (t) v,, hence u (t) + m, > v, and consequently n G (t) there s a maxmum-prce edge from to of weght u (t) +m, v,. Therefore w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)+u (t) +m, v,. (19) 13

14 We add (18) to (19) and from that we subtract (16), we cancel common terms and we have p (t+1) m,. The verfcaton of (2) forp (t+1) s fnshed by observng that p (t+1) p (t) r,. Case 2: x = l. Snce we assume that (,) = ( l, l+1 ) belongs to µ (t+1) \µ (t), t can be nether a termnal edge nor a maxmum-prce edge, and thus t must be a reserve-prce edge and has weght u (t) +r, v,. By the same argument p (t+) Subtractng the two equatons shows that u (t+1) A.2 Proof of Lemma 10 r,, hence p (t+1) = r, and clearly satsfes (2). Observe that u (t+1) = u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)), w (t) (P) = d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +r, v, ). and p (t+1) satsfy (1). Proof of Lemma 10. Consder the number of edges n the update graph. Intally, the graph G (0) has at most nk reserve-prce, nk maxmum-prce and n termnal edges. We clam that n each teraton, the number of edges n the update graph s reduced by one. Snce STABLEMATCH must stop when there are no more edges left, ths bounds the total number of teratons. Consder an teratont of STABLEMATCH. We clam that n the alternatng pathp = ( 0, 1, 1,..., l, l, l+1 ), the last edge (,) = ( l, l+1 ) wll not appear n the update graph G (t+1). Ths s easly verfed by consderng three cases: Case 1: If (,) s a termnal edge, then w (t) (P) = d (t) ( 0,) + u (t) and hence u (t+1) d (t) ( 0,)) = 0. = u (t) (w (t) (P) Case 2: If(,) s a maxmum-prce edge, thenw (t) (P) = d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +m, v, ) and henceu (t+1) +m, = u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,))+m, = v,. Case 3: If (,) s a reserve-prce edge, then w (t) (P) = d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +r, v, ) and hence u (t+1) +r, = u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,))+r, = v,. The utltes never ncrease and the prces never decrease throughout the algorthm, thus the edge ( l, l+1 ) does not appear n any update graph G (t ) for anyt > t. A.3 Proof of Lemma 14 Wthout loss of generalty assume that (u,p,µ) s such that there does not exst a par (,) µ such that p = m,. If there was such a par, then we can decrease prces of some of the tems and ncrease utltes of some of the bdders such that p < m,. Ths s possble because of the general poston assumpton. See full verson of the paper. We prove Lemma 14 by nducton on t. The base case, t = 0, trvally holds true, snce by feasblty of (u,p,µ ), p 0 for all J and u B for all I. In the nductve case, assume that u(t) u and p (t) p. We frst prove that Proposton 18. u (t+1) u and p (t+) p. We look contnuously at updates (6) and (7). For that purpose we defne for each I a contnuous non-ncreasng functon u (x), ( ) u (x) = u (t) max x d (t) ( 0,), 0, 14

15 and for each J a contnuous non-decreasng functon p (x), ( ) p (x) = p (t) +max x d (t) ( 0,), 0. Clearly, u (t+1) = u(w (t) (P)) and p (t+) = p(w (t) (P)). To prove that u (t+1) u and p (t+) p, suppose by contracton that there exsts y [0,w (t) (P)] such that ether u (y) < u for some I or p (y) > p for some J. We choose nfmal such y. Clearly, u(y) u, p(y) p and y < w (t) (P). Consder the sets I = { I u (y) = u and d (t) ( 0,) y}, J = { J p (y) = p and d(t) ( 0,) y}. Clam 19. Each slot J s matched nµ (t) to some I. Proof of the Clam. Let J. If was unmatched, then ether d (t) ( 0,) = w (t) (P) or d (t) ( 0,) = ; however both optons contradct the choce of y and that J. Thus s matched to some I, hence n G (t) there s a backward edge from toand thus d (t) ( 0,) = d (t) ( 0,) and therefore u (y)+p (y) = v,. Further, nvarants (A2) and (B1) mply that p (t) [r,,m, ). Consequently, there s a maxmum-prce edge from to, w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +m, v, ), and hencep = p (y) < p (t+) = p (t) +(w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)) m,. Therefore p [r,,m, ), and snce (u,p,µ ) s stable, u + p v, and hence u (y) = v, p (y) = v, p u. On the other hand, by nfmalty of y,u (y) u. Thus I. Clam 20. Each bdder I s matched nµ to some J. Proof of the Clam. Snce ng (t) there s a termnal edge from to the dummy slot, w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)+u (t). Hence u = u (y) = u (t) (y d (t) ( 0,)) > u (t) (w (t) (P) d (t) ( 0,)) 0, and thus bdder s matched n µ to some slot J. By feasblty of (u,p,µ ), p [r,,m, ]. By the assumpton made at the begnnng p m,. Therefore ng (t) there s a forward edge from to and thus Clearly, snce I, By the prce update rule We add (21) to (22) and subtract from that (20) and we obtan d (t) ( 0,) d (t) ( 0,)+(u (t) +p (t) v, ). (20) u (y) = u (t) (y d (t) ( 0,)). (21) p (y) p (t) +(y d (t) ( 0,)). (22) p (y) v, u (y). Hence, snce by feasblty of (u,p,µ ), u +p = v,, we have Recallng that p(y) p we see that p (y) = p. p (y) v, u (y) = v, u = p. 15

16 Subtractng (21) from (20) and cancellng common terms we have d (t) ( 0,) y +(u (y)+p (t) v, ). We upper-bound the rght sde of the nequalty usng that u (y) = u, p(t) p (y) and u +p = v, and we have d (t) ( 0,) y +(u +p v,) = y. Thus J. From the two clams t follows that I = J and that µ (t) bectvely matches I wth J. In partcular 0 I. Choose J wth smallest d (t) ( 0,). Consder the mnmum-weght path n G (t) from 0 to whch uses only forward and backward edges. The vertex on the path ust before s a bdder I. Clearly, y d (t) ( 0,) > d (t) ( 0,) and hence u (y) < u. There s a forward edge from to, thus p(t) [r,,m, ) and also u (y)+p (y) = v,, and hence (*) u +p < v,. Snce n G (t) there s a maxmum-prce edge from to, p = p (y) < m,, whch together wth (*) contradcts stablty of (u,p,µ ). Ths proves Proposton 18. To prove Lemma 14 t remans to show that p (t+1) p. Ths amounts to show that f (u (t+1),p (t+1),µ (t+1) ) was obtaned from (u (t),p (t),µ (t) ) by updatng along an alternatng path P of whch the last edge, (,) = ( l, l+1 ), was a reserve-prce edge and p (t+) < r,, then r, p. (23) Snce (u,p,µ ) s stable, ether u + p v, or p m,. In former case, (23) follows from that u (t+1) = v, r,, Proposton 18 and that (u,p,µ ) s stable. In latter case, (23) follows snce the presence of the reserve-prce edge from to guarantees that m, > r,. B Proofs of Incentve Compatblty Proof of Lemma 15. For the sake of contradcton, suppose that there s a feasble matchng (u, p, µ) such that u > u for all I. Note that every bdder must be matched nµ, snce u > u 0. For each bdder I, consder the slot = µ() matched to bdder n the matchng µ. Snce the par (,) s not blockng for the bdder-optmal matchng (u,p,µ ), t must be that p > p. In partcular, the exstence ofµmples that there must benslots wth postve prces n the bdder-optmal matchng µ, and that these slots are matched n µ as well. If a slot ever becomes matched to a bdder n the STABLEMATCH algorthm, t wll never become unmatched. Thus before the last teraton, at most n 1 slots have postve prces. Suppose the last teraton, teraton T 1, ncreases the sze of the matchng to n, and let be the last slot to be matched. Let = µ() be the bdder matched to n the hypothetcal matchng µ. Let P be the shortest alternatng path found n Step 1 of the last teraton of STABLEMATCH. Recall that the frst vertex of the path s denoted by 0 and w (T 1) (P) denotes ts length. If P ends wth the reserve-prce edge (,), t must be thatand are matched n bothµ andµ at the same reserve prce, contradctng our assumpton that u > u. On the other hand, f P does not end wth the reserve-prce edge (,), we show that there s a shorter alternatng path P that does nclude ths edge, whch agan leads to a contradcton. From Step 3 of the last teraton we have u (T 1) u = w(t 1) (P) d (T 1) ( 0,). Let s be the length of the reserve prce edge (,); recall from Defnton 7 that s = u (T 1) +r, v,. Now consder the alternatng path P that conssts of the shortest path from 0 tofollowed by the reserve prce (,) edge. We have w (T 1) (P) w (T 1) (P ) = u (T 1) u s = v, r, u. 16

17 Snceu < u v, r,, ths dfference s postve and hencep must be a shorter alternatng path thanp. Proof of Lemma 16. Wthout loss of generalty assume that(u,p,µ) s such that there does not exst a par(,) µ such that u + r, = v,. If there was such a par, then we can decrease prces of some of the tems and ncrease utltes of some of the bdders such thatu +r, > v,. (Ths s possble because of the general poston assumpton. See full verson of the paper.) The set I + would only grow by such operaton. Let us denote byµ(i + ),µ (I + ) the set of slots matched to bdders ni + n matchng respectvely µ,µ. We consder two cases: Case 1: µ(i + ) µ (I + ). For any I + we have u > u 0 and hence each bdder n I+ s matched n µ to some slot. There exsts a slot µ(i + ), µ (I + ). Let = µ(). Snce I +, u > u. We argue that p < p : By the general poston assumpton p m,, and hence by feasblty of (u,p,µ), p [r,,m, ) and u +p = v,. Hence u +p v,. Therefore p v, u > v, u = p. In partcular, s matched n µ to some, and by the choce of, I +. Thus u u. By feasblty of (u,p,µ ),p [r,,m,] andu +p = v,. By the assumpton on(u,p,µ) that we made at the begnnng of the proof, u v, r,. Now, t s not hard to see that (,) s blockng par for µ. Ths s because p < p m,, u u = v, p v, r, and u v, r,, u +p < u +p = v,. Case 2: µ(i + ) = µ (I + ) = J +. Snceu > u for I+, by stablty of(u,p,µ ) t follows thatp < p for J +. Consder a reduced aucton (v,m,r ) on the set of bdders I + and set of slots J +. We set the reserve prces to reflect the nfluence of bdders ni\i +. More specfcally, leti = { I\I + u v, r,}. For every I + and J +, we set r, = max ( r,,max I mn(m,,v, u ) ). We also set v, = v, and m, = m, except that f m, r, we set m, = 1. It s not hard to show that f v,m,r s n general poston, then so s (v,m,r ), usng the fact that each utlty u was at some pont set to be equal to the length of some alternatng walk n the aucton graph. Now consder the matchngs µ and µ restrcted to the sets I +, J +. If the restrcted µ s not feasble for (v,m,r ), t must be because p < r, for some poston = µ(). Ths can only happen f r, > r, and hence r, = max(m,,v, u ) for some bdder I \I +. On the other hand, t s easy to check that the restrcted matchng µ s feasble, stable and bdder-optmal for the aucton (v,m,r ). If the restrcted µ s feasble for ths aucton, by Lemma 15, there s a bdder I such that u u. Ths however contradcts the defnton of the set I+. C Modelng Advertsng Auctons In ths secton, we wll present examples of aucton mechansms commonly used n sponsored search. We wll show how to model these mechansms n our max-value model. In the next secton we gve examples of novel combned mechansms that can be mplemented n our model. C.1 Exstng Mechansms Translatng between mpressons and clcks. Typcally, an aucton s run to determne the placement of ads every tme a results page s rendered; however, the advertser only pays when a user actually clcks on the ad. 17

18 It s straghtforward to translate between the pay-per-mpresson and the pay-per-clck model, provded that we know the probablty ctr that a user wll clck on the ad: payng p c per clck s the same n expectaton as payng p = ctr p c per mpresson. In the followng, letctr, be the probablty that a user clcks on adf t s dsplayed n poston (and that ths probablty does not vary dependng on the set of competng ads shown on the page). The clck separablty assumpton says that ctr, = q α s the product of a qualty score q of the advertser and a poston normalzer α specfc to the poston. Typcally the poston normalzers are assumed to be decreasng,.e. α 1 α 2 α k. GSP pay-per-mpresson. In a Generalzed Second Prce aucton, each advertsersubmts a sngle numberb as her bd, whch s the maxmum amount she s wllng to pay for dsplayng her ad. The auctoneer orders bdders n decreasng order of ther bds, and assgns the frst k advertsers to the k avalable slots n ths order. The -th allocated advertser pays amount equal to the(+1)-st bd for each mpresson. GSP pay-per-clck. An alternatve s to charge the advertser only n the event of a clck on her ad. The bd b s nterpreted as a maxmum the advertser s wllng to pay for a clck. Agan, the advertsers are ordered by ther per-clck bd, and each allocated advertser pays the next hghest bd n the event of a clck. In a qualty-weghted q varant, the ads are ordered by the product of ther qualty score q and bd b ; the -th advertser pays b q q n the event of a clck. Note that the expected cost per mpresson b q ctr, depends not only on the next hghest bd but also on the poston, as long as the probablty ctr, of clckng on the ad n poston depends on the poston. Thus, there s no drect way to translate a per-clck bd to a per-mpresson bd, wthout lookng at the compettor s bds. The VCG mechansm for proft-maxmzng bdders. In a varant of the VCG mechansm consdered e.g. n [2], each bdder states her value V for a clck. The auctoneer derves the expected value of each slot v, = V ctr, for that bdder by usng an estmate ctr, of the probablty that the ad would be clcked on f placed n poston. The auctoneer computes a maxmum-weght matchng n the bpartte graph on bdders and postons wth v, as edge weghts. The maxmum weght matchng µ gves the fnal allocaton. For prcng, the VCG formula sets the prce per mpresson of slot = µ () to be p = k I\{} v k,µ (k) v k,µ (k) where µ s a maxmum-weght matchng wth the set of bdders I \{}. Note that the per-mpresson prce p can be translated to a per-clck prce by chargng bdder prce p /ctr, for each clck. (Smlar translaton can be done for a generally defned user acton other than a clck, as long as the probablty of the acton can be estmated.) For each of the above mechansms, we defne a correspondng type of bdder n the max-value model. Max-per-mpresson bdder has a target cost per mpresson b. She prefers payng b or less per mpresson to any outcome where she pays more than b. Gven that her cost per mpresson s at most b, she prefers hgher (wth lower ndex) poston to lower poston. Gven a fxed poston, she prefers payng lower prce to hgher prce. A max-per-mpresson bdder can be translated nto the max-value model by settng her m, = b for all postons J, and settng her value v, = M(k +1 ) where M s a suffcently large number (M > b s enough). Max-per-clck bdder dffers from a max-per-mpresson bdder n that she s not wllng to pay more thanb per clck. We translate her per-clck bd nto our framework usng predcted clck probabltes: set m, = b ctr, for I and v, = M(k +1 ) where M > b max ctr,. Proft-maxmzng bdder seeks the poston and payment that maxmzes her expected proft (value from clcks mnus payment). If we assume that her value per clck s V, such bdder s modeled by settng v, = m, = V ctr,. We formalze the correspondence between the mechansms and correspondng bdder types n the followng theorem. Theorem 21. The outcome (allocaton and payments) of a (1) per-mpresson GSP, (2) per-clck GSP, (3) VCG aucton, respectvely s a bdder-optmal stable matchng for a set of (1) max-per-mpresson bdders, (2) maxper-clck bdders, (3) proft-maxmzng bdders, respectvely. Proof. Part (3) of the theorem has frst been shown by [19]. Chapter 7 of [23] as well as [6] dscuss the relaton- 18