arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 15 Apr 2014

Transcription

1 Generalzed Second Prce Aucton wth Probablstc Broad Match We Chen, Mcrosoft Research Asa, Bejng, Chna D He, Pekng Unversty, Bejng, Chna Te-Yan Lu, Mcrosoft Research Asa, Bejng, Chna Tao Qn, Mcrosoft Research Asa, Bejng, Chna Yxn Tao, Shangha Jao Tong Unversty, Shangha, Chna Lwe Wang, Pekng Unversty, Bejng, Chna arxv: v1 [cs.gt] 15 Apr 2014 Generalzed Second Prce (GSP) auctons are wdely used by search engnes today to sell ther ad slots. Most search engnes have supported broad match between queres and bd keywords when executng GSP auctons, however, t has been revealed that GSP aucton wth standard broad-match mechansm they are currently usng (denoted as SBM-GSP) has several theoretcal drawbacks (e.g., ts theoretcal propertes are known only for the sngle-slot case and full-nformaton settng, and even n ths smple settng, the correspondng worst-case socal welfare can be rather bad). To address ths ssue, we propose a novel broadmatch mechansm, whch we call the Probablstc Broad-Match (PBM) mechansm. Dfferent from SBM that puts together the ads bddng on all the keywords matched to a gven query for the GSP aucton, the GSP wth PBM (denoted as PBM-GSP) randomly samples a keyword accordng to a predefned probablty dstrbuton and only runs the GSP aucton for the ads bddng on ths sampled keyword. We perform a comprehensve study on the theoretcal propertes of the PBM-GSP. Specfcally, we study ts socal welfare n the worst equlbrum, n both full-nformaton and Bayesan settngs. The results show that PBM-GSP can generate larger welfare than SBM-GSP under mld condtons. Furthermore, we also study the revenue guarantee for PBM-GSP n Bayesan settng. To the best of our knowledge, ths s the frst work on broadmatch mechansms for GSP that goes beyond the sngle-slot case and the full-nformaton settng. Categores and Subject Descrptors: J.4 [Computer Applcatons]: Socal and Behavoral Scences Economcs General Terms: Economcs, Theory Addtonal Key Words and Phrases: Aucton Theory, Mechansm Desgn, Prce of Anarchy, Sponsored Search 1. INTRODUCTION Onlne advertsng has become a key revenue source for many busnesses on the Internet. Sponsored search s a major type of onlne advertsng, whch dsplays pad advertsements (ads) along wth organc search results. Generalzed Second Prce (GSP) aucton s one of the most commonly used aucton mechansms n sponsored search, whch works as follows. When a query s ssued by a web user, the search engne ranks all the ads bddng on ths query (or keywords related to the query) accordng to ther bd prces, and charges the owner of a clcked ad by the mnmum bd prce for hm/her to mantan the current rank poston. 1 If only the ads that exactly bd on the query are ncluded n the aucton, we call the correspondng mechansm an exact-match mechansm. The GSP aucton n ths specfc settng has been well studed n the lterature [Babaoff and Roughgarden 2010; Lahae and Pennock 2007; Goel and Munagala 2009; Varan 2007; Aggarwal et al. 2006; Caraganns et al. 2011; Edelman et al. 2007], and has been shown to have a number of nce theoretcal propertes: (1) It possesses an effcent (welfare-maxmzng) Nash equlbrum; (2) Its socal welfare n equlbrum s farly good even n the worst case : the pure prce of anarchy (PoA) s bounded by and the Bayes-Nash PoA s bounded by 2.927; (3) In the Bayesan settng, the GSP aucton pared wth the Myer- 1 In practce, the predcted clck-through rate s also used n the rankng and prcng rules. However, t can be safely absorbed nto the weghted bd prces wthout nfluencng the theoretcal analyss on the GSP auctons.

2 2 son reserve prce generates at least a constant fracton (.e., 1/6) of the optmal revenue n ts Bayes-Nash equlbra for MHR dstrbuton. Despte the frutful and postve results, the exact-match mechansm s not suffcent when we are faced wth practcal requrements n commercal search engnes. Frst, the query space s extremely large (bllons of queres are ssued by web users every day), so t s practcally mpossble for advertsers to bd on every query related to ther ads. Second, even f advertsers are capable enough to bd on the huge number of related queres, the search engne mght not be able to afford t due to the scalablty and latency constrants. Due to these reasons, commercal search engnes usually use a broad-match mechansm to enhance the GSP aucton. A broad-match mechansm requres advertsers to bd on at most κ keywords nstead of an arbtrary number of queres, and matches the keywords to queres usng a query-keyword bpartte graph (n whch the number of keywords s sgnfcantly smaller than the number of queres). The broad-match mechansm s frendly to advertsers snce they only need to consder a relatvely small number of keywords n order to reach a large number of related queres. The mechansm s also frendly to the search engne snce t restrcts the complexty of the bddng language and therefore that of the aucton system. Today, most search engnes mplement the broad-match mechansm n a straghtforward manner. That s, when a query s ssued, all the ads bddng on the keywords that can be matched to the query on the query-keyword bpartte graph wll be put together for the GSP aucton. And for every advertser, the bds on the matched keywords wll be transformed to the bd on the query usng some pre-defned heurstcs (e.g., the maxmum bd on the matched keywords). For ease of reference, we call the broad-match mechansm descrbed above as the Standard Broad-Match GSP mechansm, or SBM-GSP for short. Although ths mechansm effectvely addresses the problems wth the exact-match mechansm, as far as we know, t has several theoretcal drawbacks. The socal welfare of the SBM-GSP mechansm was studed n [Dhangwatnota 2011], for the sngle-slot case and full-nformaton settng only. By usng the noton of homogenety (denoted as c) to measure the dversty of an advertser s valuatons over dfferent queres that can be matched to a keyword, an almost-tght pure PoA bound was derved, whose order s Θ(c 2 ). Consderng that c s usually large n practce, t can be concluded that the socal welfare of the SBM-GSP mechansm can be rather bad n ts worst equlbrum. One has not obtaned a complete pcture about the theoretcal propertes of the SBM- GSP mechansm: no results are avalable regardng the mult-slot case (whch s, however, more practcally mportant snce most search engnes sell multple ad slots per query), and even for the sngle-slot case, the socal welfare and revenue n the Bayesan settng are not clear. Gven the aforementoned lmtatons of the SBM-GSP mechansm, a natural queston to ask s whether we can desgn a broad-match mechansm wth better guarantees on ts performance, n terms of both socal welfare and revenue, for both sngle-slot and mult-slot cases, and n both full-nformaton and Bayesan settngs. Ths s exactly the focus of our work. In ths paper, we propose a new broad-match mechansm, whch we call Probablstc Broad-Match mechansm. Its basc dea s as follows. For each query, our mechansm assgns a matchng probablty to every keyword that can be matched to ths query on the query-keyword bpartte graph. When the query s ssued by a user, the mechansm randomly chooses a keyword accordng to the matchng probablty dstrbuton and runs the GSP aucton only upon those ads that bd on the chosen keyword. For smplcty, we also use PBM-GSP to refer to the above mechansm.

3 We perform a comprehensve study on the socal welfare n equlbrum of the PBM- GSP mechansm, for both sngle-slot and mult-slot cases, and n both full-nformaton and Bayesan settngs. We also derve a revenue bound for the PBM-GSP mechansm for both sngle-slot and mult-slot cases n the Bayesan settng. To the best of our knowledge, ths s the frst work on broad-match mechansms that goes far beyond the sngle-slot case and the full-nformaton settng. 3 Our Results. The contrbutons of our work can be summarzed as follows. (Secton 3) We propose a novel broad-match mechansm (.e., the PBM mechansm) for mult-slot sponsored search auctons. (Secton 4) We analyze the socal welfare n equlbrum of the PBM-GSP mechansm n both full-nformaton and Bayesan settngs. We defne a new concept, called keyword-level expressveness (denoted as β), whch can better characterze the expressveness of the bddng language n the PBM-GSP mechansm than the concept of expressveness proposed n prevous work [Dhangwatnota 2011]. (Secton 4.1) We extend the concept of homogenety c defned n [Dhangwatnota 2011] to the Bayesan settng, and prove that the Bayes-Nash PoA of PBM-GSP s at most ec(1+β) (e 1)β n the sngle-slot case. n the mult-slot case. The bound can be further optmzed to c(1+β) β (Secton 4.2) We prove that n the full-nformaton settng, the pure PoA of PBM- GSP s at most c(1+β) β when there are multple slots to dsplay ads. And the bound can be mproved to c β n the sngle-slot case (whch s tght wth respect to each factor). Furthermore, we show that the pure PoA bound of PBM-GSP s better than that of SBM-GSP n the same settng under mld condtons. (Secton 5) We analyze the revenue bound of PBM-GSP n the Bayesan settng. We prove that by usng the Myerson reserve prce to each keyword, PBM-GSP can β 1+β 1 2η(ce) 2 of the optmal socal welfare wth MHR dstr- acheve a revenue at least buton, where η s the maxmum dervatve of the vrtual value functon. 2. PRELIMINARIES In ths secton, we ntroduce the bascs about broad-match auctons, and some prelmnary concepts that wll be used n our theoretcal analyss Broad-Match Auctons Accordng to [Feldman et al. 2007; Broder et al. 2009; Even Dar et al. 2009; Dhangwatnota 2011], a broad-match mechansm can be defned on a query-keyword bpartte graph. Denote Q as the query space, and denote P as a probablty dstrbuton over Q, whch ndcates the probablty that query q s ssued by users. Denote S as the keyword space. In practce, the sze of Q s much larger than the sze of S. Denote G = (Q,S,E) as a (undrected) bpartte graph between queres and keywords, n whch an edge(q,s) E f and only f queryq can be matched to keywords (or equvalently, s can be matched to q). Denote N G (v) as the neghborhood of vertex v Q S,.e., for any query q, N G (q) = {s : (q,s) E} represents the set of keywords that can be matched to the query, and for any keywords, N G (s) = {q : (q,s) E} represents the set of queres that can be matched to the keyword. Wthout loss of generalty, we assume N G (s), for all s and N G (q), for all q.

4 4 Assume there are n advertsers and n slots. Denote w k as the clck probablty assocated wth the k-th ad slot 2, whch satsfes w w j.f.f < j. We assume advertser has a prvate valuaton v q for query q Q f hs/her ad s clcked by the users, denote v = (v 1,v 2,...,v n ) as the valuaton profle of advertsers n whch v R Q + s the vector ndcatng the -th advertser s valuaton for all the queres, and v as the valuatons of the other advertsers. We assume for any query q, there s at least one advertser that postvely valuates t. DefneQ = {q Q : v q > 0} as the query set that advertser has postve values on. For ease of reference, n the rest of the paper, we wll call the queres (keywords) that an advertser postvely valuates postve queres (keywords). Denote b = (b 1,b 2,...,b n ) as the advertsers bd profle, where b R S + s a vector ndcatng the -th advertser s bd prces on all the keywords n S, and denote b as the bds of advertsers excludng. Accordng to the ndustry practce, we assume that each advertser can only bd on up to κ keywords. As a result, for each b, there are at most κ postve values. Denote b s as the bd prce of advertser on keyword s and bs as all the advertsers bds on keyword s. Based on the notatons above, SBM-GSP can be descrbed as follows. When a query q s ssued, the SBM-GSP mechansm frst fnds all the keywords that can be matched to the query. Second, t ncludes all the ads that bd on these keywords nto the aucton and uses the followng formula to transform the bd prces on keywords of advertser to hs/her bd prce on the query: b q = max s N G(q)b s. In the end, the GSP aucton s run upon the ads wth ther query-level bds,.e., all the ads are ranked by ther bds, and the payment of a clcked ad equals the bd of the ad ranked rght below t Soluton Concepts In ths paper, we consder ratonal behavors under varous assumptons on the nformaton avalablty to the advertsers. In general, the advertsers are engaged as players n a game defned by the aucton mechansm (n the remanng of the paper, we use advertser and player nterchangeably). Every advertser ams at selectng a bddng strategy that maxmzes hs/her utlty. Accordng to the avalablty of the nformaton, we can categorze the settngs nto the Bayesan settng (partal nformaton settng) and the full-nformaton settng respectvely. In the Bayesan settng, we assume that the valuaton (type) profle v s drawn from a publcly known dstrbuton F. A strategy for player s a (possbly randomzed) mappng b : R Q + R S +, mappng hs/her type v to a bd vector b (v ). We use b(v) = (b 1 (v 1 ),b 2 (v 2 ),...,b n (v n )) to denote the correspondng bd profle when b( ) s appled to v. Denote u (b) as the utlty functon of advertser. We say a strategy b( ) s a Bayes-Nash equlbrum for dstrbuton F, f for all, all v, and all alternatve strateges b ( ), E v,b[u (b (v ),b (v )) v ] E v,b[u (b (v ),b (v )) v ]. In other words, n a Bayes-Nash equlbrum, each player maxmzes hs/her expected utlty usng strategy b ( ), assumng that the others bd accordng to strateges b ( ). In the full-nformaton settng, the valuaton profle v s known and fxed. In ths settng, a pure strategy of any advertser corresponds to a bd vector b. we say that a bd profle b s a (pure) Nash equlbrum f there s no devaton from whch the players can be better off,.e., for all advertser, for all b, u (b,b ) u (b,b ). 2 In real world, the slot number s usually bounded by a constantk. In ths case, we can defnew k = 0,k > K wthout loss of any generalty.

5 3. PROBABILISTIC BROAD-MATCH MECHANISM As dscussed n the ntroducton, the SBM-GSP mechansm has several drawbacks from a theoretcal perspectve. In ths paper, we develop a new broad-match mechansm wth better theoretcal guarantee, whch we call Probablstc Broad-Match (PBM-GSP) mechansm. The detal of the PBM-GSP mechansm s descrbed n Algorthm 1, and can be explaned as below. 5 ALGORITHM 1: Probablstc Broad-Match Mechansm wth GSP Aucton (PBM- GSP) Input: Advertser s bd profle b, matchng probablty π q (s) for any query q, keyword s. Output: The ads to show for each query and the prces to charge from advertsers. for each query q submtted to search engne do Sample keyword s accordng to dstrbuton π q (s); Set b q to be bs ; Run the GSP aucton on b q 1,,bq n; end Gven the query-keyword bpartte graph G, for each query q Q, we mpose a matchng probablty dstrbuton π q (s) whose support s N G (q),.e., π q (s) > 0 f and only f s N G (q), and s N π G(q) q(s) = 1. Wth ths matchng probablty dstrbuton, for any ssued query q, the mechansm randomly samples a keyword s N G (q), and selects the ads bddng on the keyword s nto the aucton. For each selected ad, the bd prce on keyword s wll be drectly used as the bd prce on query q durng ths round of aucton, 3.e., b q = bs, wheres π q, and then a GSP aucton s run to determne the ad allocatons and prces. For ease of descrpton, we defne σ s,b (k) as the advertser who s ranked at poston k and σ 1 s,b () as the rankng poston of advertser, for any keyword s and bd profle b. For sake of rgorousness, we defne σ s,b (k) = f there are fewer than k postve bds on keyword s, and defne b s = vq = 0, for any query q and keyword s. We also defne σ 1 s,b () = f advertser does not bd on keyword s, and defne w = 0. Defne p s,b () as the prce charged to player when keyword s s sampled and a user clcks on the ads,.e., for PBM-GSP, f advertser j s ranked rght below advertser, then p s,b () = b s j. Wth the aforementoned notatons, the expected utlty of advertsercan be defned as u (b) = π q(s)w 1 σ s,b ()(vq p s,b())dp q Q s N G (q) As a common way to rule out unnatural equlbra [Caraganns et al. 2012b; Lucer et al. 2012a; Caraganns et al. 2011; Dhangwatnota 2011], we only consder conservatve bdders n the theoretcal analyss. It s easy to show that for any advertser on any keywords, a bddng prceb s > vs s always weakly domnated by the bd 3 One may have notced that due to the probablstc samplng, an advertser can only get access to a fracton of the whole query volume f he remans bddng on the same set of keywords as he/she does wth SBM-GSP. Therefore, some advertsers may have to bd on more keywords so as to mantan the same vsblty of ther ads to the users. Fortunately, snce the number of keywords s always sgnfcantly smaller than the number of queres, the stuaton wll not be as serous as n exact-match mechansm.

6 6 b s = vs (see Lemma 3.1), n whch vs s the expected value of keyword s for advertser and defned as v s E[vq s] = πq(s)vq dp πq(s)dp. LEMMA 3.1. (Conservatve bdder) For any advertser, a bd prce b s > vs for keyword s s always weakly domnated by b s = vs, where vs E[vq s] = πq(s)vq dp πq(s)dp. PROOF. Note that wth the PBM-GSP mechansm, advertsers wll not compete across keywords. For advertser, denote u s (b) = q N π G(s) q(s)w σ 1 s,b ()(vq p s,b())dp as hs/her utlty obtaned from keyword s. It s easy to see that u (b) = s S us (b). For any bddng profle b, f advertser bds a value larger than v s on keyword s and get the same poston k as bddng v s, changng hs/her bd to vs wll not hurt hs/her total utlty. If he/she bds a larger value and obtans a better poston k, he/she wll suffer a payment larger than v s when hs/her ad s clcked, and therefore hs/her expected utlty on keyword s must be less than q N π G(s) q(s)w k [v q vs ]dp = w k [ q N π G(s) q(s)v q dp vs q N π G(s) q(s)dp] = 0, and the theorem follows. In PBM mechansm, bds for dfferent keywords wll not be mxed up n the same aucton, t s easer for advertsers to evaluate ther payoffs on each keyword. As a result, they could develop more accurate bddng strateges to reflect ther valuatons on each keyword. For example, t can be easly shown that n sngle-slot settng, the domnant strategy for an advertser s to truthfully report the expected valuaton on the keyword that he/she chooses to bd. COROLLARY 3.2. When there s only one slot to dsplay Ads, for any advertser, the weakly domnant strategy for keyword s s b s = vs. In the next sectons, we show ths probablstc matchng can eventually mprove the performances of the aucton system. 4. SOCIAL WELFARE ANALYSIS In ths secton, we present our theoretcal results on the socal welfare (effcency) of the proposed PBM-GSP mechansm. Specfcally, we study the rato between the optmal socal welfare and the worst-case welfare n equlbrum, whch s also known as the Prce of Anarchy (PoA) [Koutsoupas and Papadmtrou 1999; Gots and Karln 2008; Chrstodoulou et al. 2008; Bhawalkar and Roughgarden 2011]: Bayes-Nash PoA : In the Bayesan settng, we assume every advertser prvately knows hs/her own valuaton vector v for the queres, and only knows a pror dstrbuton of other advertsers valuaton vectors. Assume the valuaton profle v s drawn from a publc dstrbuton F and the Bayes-Nash PoA s defned as Bayes-Nash P oa = E v[sw(opt (v))] max F,b( ): a Bayes-Nash equlbrum E v,b(v) [SW(b(v))], where SW(OPT (v)) refers to the socal welfare of the optmal allocaton that allocates slot k of any query q to the player wth the k-th largest value,.e., SW(OPT (v)) = q Q k=1 n w k v q [k] dp, (1)

7 wherev q [k] s thek-th largest value among the valuatons of queryq. Smlarly,SW(b) refers to the socal welfare of the PBM-GSP mechansm wth bddng profle b,.e., n SW(b) = π q(s) w k v q σ s,b (k) dp. (2) q Q s N G (q) Pure PoA : In the full-nformaton settng, the valuaton of each advertser on each query s fxed and the pure PoA can be mathematcally defned as follows: pure P oa = k=1 max v,b: a pure Nash equlbrum SW(OPT (v)). SW(b) In order to characterze the nfluence of the maxmum number of bd keywords,.e., κ, we use expressveness to measure the capacty of the bddng language. The concept of expressveness has been wdely used n the lterature of aucton theory [Sandholm 2007; Cramton et al. 2006; Lahae et al. 2008; Boutler et al. 2008], and ts theoretcal foundaton has been establshed n [Bensch et al. 2008]. In ths paper, we use a new noton of expressveness, whch we call the keyword-level (KL) expressveness. As wll be seen n later sectons, the KL-expressveness wll affect both the socal welfare and search engne revenue for the PBM-GSP mechansm. The formal defnton of KL-expressveness s gven as below. Defnton 4.1. (Keyword-Level Expressveness) Gven a valuaton profle v, we call the aucton system β-kl-expressve, f for any advertser, κ keywords can cover at least β fracton of hs/her postve keywords,.e., κ β {s : N G (s) Q }. We call an aucton system β-kl-expressve (n the Bayesan settng), f for any valuaton profle sampled from F, the aucton system s β-kl-expressve. When β = 1, we say the aucton system s fully KL-expressve Bayes-Nash Prce of Anarchy In ths subsecton, we analyze the Bayes-Nash PoA for the PBM-GSP mechansm. We frst extend the concept of homogenety proposed n [Dhangwatnota 2011] to the Bayesan settng. We call the extended concept expected homogenety, whch measures the dversty of advertsers valuatons on the queres matched to the same keyword n an expectaton sense. For completeness, we lst the defntons for both homogenety and expected homogenety as follows (n the full-nformaton settng, expected homogenety wll trvally reduce to homogenety). Defnton 4.2. (Homogenety) [Dhangwatnota 2011] A keyword s s c- homogeneous f for every advertser and two arbtrary queres q 1,q 2 N G (s), v (q 1 ) cv (q 2 ). The aucton system s c-homogeneous f every keyword s S s c-homogeneous. Defnton 4.3. (Expected Homogenety) A keyword s s c-expected-homogeneous f for any advertser, two arbtrary queres q 1,q 2 N G (s), P(v q1 ce[v q2 ]) = 1. The aucton system s c-expected-homogeneous f every keyword s S s c-expectedhomogeneous. We leverage the technque developed n [Caraganns et al. 2012b], whch s used to analyze the PoA bound for the GSP aucton. 7 4 In real sponsored search systems, the number of keywords that an advertser can bd on s usually large enough to satsfy most of hs/her needs. For example, n Google Adwords, advertsers are allowed to bd up to 3 mllon keywords, whch can be regarded as qute a large number. In ths case, we can consder the system as fully KL-expressve.

8 8 LEMMA 4.4. [Caraganns et al. 2012b] We say that a game s (λ, µ)-sem-smooth f for each player there exsts some (possbly randomzed) strategy b ( ) (dependng only on the type of the player) such that E b (v) [u (b (v ),b ] λ SW(OPT (v)) µ SW(b) holds for every pure strategy profle b and every (fxed) type vector v (The expectaton s taken over the random bts of b (v )). If a game s (λ,µ)-sem-smooth and ts socal welfare s at least the sum of the players utltes, then the prce of anarchy wth uncertanty s at most (µ + 1)/λ. Wth the above defntons and lemmas, we gve an upper bound for the Bayes-Nash PoA of the PBM-GSP mechansm. THEOREM 4.5. If the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-expectedhomogeneous, and the GSP aucton s a (λ, µ)-sem-smooth game, the Bayes-Nash PoA for the PBM-GSP mechansm s at most c( βµ+1 βλ ). To prove the theorem, we use the welfare generated from a truthfull bddng proflevto connect the optmal welfare and the welfare n any Bayes-Nash equlbrum. Here the truthfull bddng profle v denotes the stuaton when all advertsers bd ther expected values on any keyword and there s no κ constant,.e., v s = v s. In ths stuaton, SW(v) equals q Q s N π G(q) q(s) n k=1 w kv[k] s dp, where vs [k] s the k-th largest value among all the expected valuatons on keyword s. PROOF. We prove the theorem n two steps. Frst, we bound the rato between E v,b(v) [SW(b(v))] and E v [SW(v)], and then bound the rato between E v [SW(v)] and E v [SW(OPT (v))]. The proof detals of the two steps are gven below. For the frst step, we show f the GSP aucton s a (λ, µ)-sem-smooth game, for any Bayes-Nash equlbrum b( ) of the PBM-GSP mechansm, the followng bound holds, E v[sw(v)] E v,b(v) [SW(b(v))] < βµ+1 βλ. (3) Note that wth the PBM-GSP mechansm, advertsers wll not compete across key- For each advertser, defne the utlty on any postve keyword s as u s (bs ) = words. q N π G(s) q(s)w σ 1 s,b ()(vq p s,b())dp. By the defnnton of v s, ths utlty functon can be rewrtten as u s (b) = q N π G(s) q(s)w σ 1 s,b ()(vs p s,b())dp. Thus for ths partcular keyword, theadvertser s utlty s exactly that for the GSP aucton wth true value defned as v s q N π G(s) q(s)dp. Denote S as the set of postve keywords for advertser. Consderng that the game wthn a gven keyword s(λ, µ)-sem-smooth, there must exst a (randomzed) strategy h s ( ) on keyword s satsfyng, for every pure strategy b, :s S E h s (v s ) [u s (h s (v s ),b s ))] λsw(v,s) µsw(b,s), (4) where SW(b, s) s the welfare generated from keyword s,.e., SW(b, s) = q N π G(s) q(s) n k=1 w kvσ s s,b (k) dp, and SW(b) = s S SW(b,s). On ths bass, we desgn a randomzed strategy b ( ) for advertser as follows. The randomzed strategy b ( ) frst randomly samples κ keywords from S, and plays the strategy h s ( ) f keyword s s sampled. Consderng that the aucton system s β-klexpressve, the probablty of any keywords S sampled by the strategyb ( ) s larger than β.

9 9 Then t s straghtforward to attan E b (v)[ n n u (b (v ),b (v )))] β E h s (v s) [u s (h s (v),b s s (v )))] =1 =1 s S = β E h s (v s) [u s (h s (v),b s s (v ))))] s S :s S β s S(λSW(v,s) µsw(b,s)) = βλsw(v) βµsw(b). (5) Gven the fact that the socal welfare s at least the total utlty of all the players, for any Bayes-Nash equlbrum b( ),we have n n E v,b(v) [SW(b(v))] E v,b(v) [ u (b(v))] E v,b(v),b (v)[ E b (v )[u (b (v ),b (v))]] =1 =1 βλe v[sw(v)] βµe v,b(v) [SW(b(v))]. Then nequalty (3) follows. For the second step, we show that Ev[SW(OPT(v))] E v[sw(v)] c. Consderng n n E v[sw(opt (v))] ce v[sw(v)] = π q(s)( E v[w k v q [k] ] c E v[w k v[k]])dp, s (6) q Q s N G (q) t suffces to prove for any keyword s and any query q N G (s), n k=1 E v[w k v q [k] ] c n k=1 E v[w k v[k] s ] 0. Snce the aucton system s c-expected-homogeneous, the followng result holds wth probablty one, ce v[v s ] = E v[ q N G (s) cvq π q (s)dp q N G (s) π q (s)dp ] = k=1 k=1 q N G (s) cev[vq ]π q (s)dp q N G (s) π q (s)dp q N G (s) vq π q (s)dp q N G (s) π q (s)dp = vq. (7) Wthout loss of generalty, we assume that E v [v1 s] E v[v2 s] E v[vn s ] for keyword s. Then we have n n E v[w k v q [k] ] c n n E v[w k v[k]] s c E v[w k E v[vk]] c s E v[w k v[k]] s k=1 k=1 k=1 k=1 Applyng (8) to (6), we can prove Ev[SW(OPT(v))] E v[sw(v)] combnng the two steps. k=1 n n = ce v[ w k vk s w k v[k]] s 0. (8) k=1 c. Then the theorem follows by In [Caraganns et al. 2012b], t s shown that the GSP aucton s (1 1 e,1)-semsmooth. Furthermore, t s trval to obtan that the GSP aucton n the sngle-slot case s a (1,1)-sem-smooth game. Therefore, we can obtan the followng two corollares. COROLLARY 4.6. If the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-expectedhomogeneous, the Bayes-Nash PoA for the PBM-GSP mechansm s at most e e 1 β+1 β c.

10 10 COROLLARY 4.7. If the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-expectedhomogeneous and there s only one slot to dsplay ads, the Bayes-Nash PoA for the PBM-GSP mechansm s at most β+1 β c Pure Prce of Anarchy n Full-Informaton Settng In ths subsecton, we analyze the pure PoA for the PBM-GSP mechansm. In partcular, based on the notons of KL-expressveness and homogenety, we derve the followng pure PoA bound. THEOREM 4.8. If the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-homogeneous, the pure PoA of PBM-GSP mechansm for the mult-slot case s at most β+1 β c. PROOF. Smlar to Theorem 4.5, the proof of Theorem 4.8 contans two steps. For SW(v) the frst step, we prove max v,b:a pure Nash equlbrum SW(b) < 1 β +1. Denote O as the set of (keyword, poston) par that advertser wns when all advertsers truthfully bd,.e.,o = {(s,k) : σ s,v (k) =,w k > 0}, denotes as the keyword set n O. Gven any bd profle b, denote O as the (keyword, poston) set that advertser actually bds and wns,.e., O = {(s,k) : σ s,b(k) =,w k > 0}, denote S as the set of keywords n O, whose sze s no larger than κ. We dvde advertsers nto three categores, I 1,I 2,I 3 : (1) advertsers n I 1 bd on κ keywords and S \ S ; (2) advertsers n I 2 bd on κ keywords and S \ S = ; (3) advertsers n I 3 bd on fewer than κ keywords. We apply the equlbrum condtons to the three categores respectvely. 1. For any advertser n category I 1, by defnton, advertser wns a poston n any keyword n S. So, frst, advertser wll not ncrease hs/her payoff by changng hs/her strategy from bddng a keyword wth poston (s,k ) O to any keyword s S \ S wth poston k, where (s,k) O. Consderng all advertsers are conservatve, we have π q(s )w k v q dp π q(s )w k (v q p s,b())dp q N G (s ) q N G (s ) π q(s)w k v q dp π q(s)w k v q dp π q(s)w k b s σ s,b (k)dp π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (9) Summng up both sdes over all advertsers I 1, (s,k) O where s S \ S and (s,k ) O, we have κ π q(s)w k v q dp I 1 (s,k):s S \S,(s,k) O π q(s )w k v q dp I 1 (s,k):s S \S,(s,k) O (s,k ):(s,k ) O + κ I 1 (s,k):s S \S,(s,k) O q N G (s ) π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (10) Second, advertser wll not ncrease hs/her payoff by changng hs/her strategy from bddng on keyword s wth poston k to bddng the same keyword wth poston k, where (s,k ) O, (s,k) O, and s S S. Smlar to (9), we have π q(s)w k v q dp π q(s)w k v q dp + π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (11)

11 Summng up both sdes over all advertsers I 1, (s,k) O and (s,k ) T where s S S, we have π q(s)w k v q dp π q(s )w k v q dp I 1 (s,k):s S S,(s,k) O I 1 (s,k ):s S S,(s,k ) O + I 1 Summng up (10) and κ tmes (12), we have κ π q(s)w k v q dp κ I 1 (s,k) O I 1 + I 1 (s,k):s S S,(s,k) O (s,k ):s S S,(s,k ) O q N G (s ) (s,k):s S \S,(s,k) O (s,k ):(s,k ) O + κ I 1 (s,k) O q N G (s ) 11 π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (12) π q(s )w k v q dp q N G (s ) π q(s )w k v q dp π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (13) Consderng that S \S κ β κ, and {(s,k ) : s S S,(s,k ) O } {(s,k ) : (s,k ) O }, we obtan κ π q(s)w k v q dp κ π q(s )w k v q I 1 (s,k) O β dp I 1 (s,k ) O q N G (s ) + κ π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (14) I 1 (s,k) O 2. For advertser n category I 2 and I 3, snce b s a Nash equlbrum, t s clear that S S, and for s S, (s,k) O, (s,k ) O, the followng holds, π q(s)w k v q dp π q(s)w k v q dp + π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (15) By summng over all advertsers I 2 I 3, (s,k) O and (s,k ) O, we have κ π q(s)w k v q dp κ π q(s )w k v q dp I 2 I 3 (s,k) O (s,k) O I 2 I 3 (s,k ):(s,k ) O + κ I 2 I 3 (s,k) O q N G (s ) π q(s)w k v s σ s,b (k)dp. (16) Snce SW(v) = q N π G(s) q(s)w k v q dp, by summng (14) and (16) together, we obtan the followng nequalty and thus complete the frst step. κsw(v) κ SW(b)+κSW(b). (17) β SW(OPT (v)) SW(v) For the second step, t s easy to show c stll holds n the full-nformaton settng. Then by combnng the two steps, we prove the theorem. Note that the pure PoA bound gven by the above theorem s for the general mult-slot case. The result can be further optmzed f we are only nterested n the sngle-slot case (see the followng theorem). We leave the proof of the theorem to the Appendx. THEOREM 4.9. If the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-homogeneous, and there s only one slot to dsplay ad, the pure PoA for the PBM-GSP mechansm s at most c β, and the bound s tght wth respect to the factors.

12 12 PROOF. It s easy to see for any advertser, bddng the expected value v s on s s the domnant strategy f he/she bds s n sngle-slot settng, thus t suffces to consder the equlbra n whch each wnner of each keyword bd the true value. Smlar to Theorem 4.8, our proof contans two steps. For the frst step, we prove that for an arbtrarly gven valuaton profle v, SW(v) max b:a pure Nash equlbrum SW(b) < 1 β. (18) Denote S as the keyword set that advertser wns when all advertsers truthfully bd,.e., S = {s : σ s,v (1) = }. Gven any bd profle b, denote S as the keyword set that advertser actually bds on,.e., S = {s : bs > 0}, whose sze s no larger than κ. We dvde advertsers nto three categores, I 1,I 2,I 3 : (1) advertsers n I 1 bd on κ keywords and S \ S ; (2) advertsers n I 2 bd on κ keywords and S \ S = ; (3) advertsers n I 3 bd on fewer than κ keywords. We apply the equlbrum condtons to the three categores respectvely. 1. For any advertser n category I 1, snce S \ S, t s easy to show that advertser wns all keywords n S (otherwse, alternatvely bddng on a keyword n S \S wll lead to a better payoff), whch yelds σ s,b(1) =,b s = v s. s S, I 1. (19) Moreover, advertser wll not ncrease hs/her payoff by changng hs/her strategy from bddng on s S to any s S \S, that s, π q(s)(v q bs σ s,b (1))dP π q(s )(v q p s,b())dp. (20) q N G (s ) By droppngp s,b () from the RHS of (20) whch s non-negatve and usng the fact that b s σ s,b (1) vs σ s,b (1), we have π q(s)v q dp π q(s )v q dp + π q(s)v q σ s,b (1) dp. q N G (s ) Summng up both sdes over all advertsers I 1, s S \S and s S, we have, κ π q(s)v q dp π q(s )v q dp I 1 s S \S I 1 s S \S s S q N G (s ) + κ π q(s)v q σ s,b (1) dp. (21) I 1 s S \S Consderng that S \S κ β κ, we apply (19) to the frst term n the RHS of (21), whch yelds, κ π q(s)v q dp (κ I 1 s S \S β κ) π q(s )v q I 1 s S q N G (s σ s,b (1) dp ) + κ π q(s)v q σ s,b (1) dp. (22) I 1 Snce κ I 1 s S S κ I 1 s S s S \S I 1 s S q N G(s ) π q(s )v q σ s,b (1) dp SW(b), by addng q N π G(s) q(s)v q dp to both sdes of (22), we have π q(s)v q dp (κ β κ)sw(b)+κ π q(s)v q σ s,b (1) dp. (23) I 1 s S

13 2. For advertsern categoryi 2 andi 3, sncebs a Nash equlbrum, t s clear that S S, and for s S, σ s,b (1) =. Therefore κ π q(s)v q dp = κ π q(s)v q σ s,b (1) dp. (24) I 2 I 3 s S I 2 I 3 s S Accordng to the defntons of SW(v) and SW(b), we can prove SW(v) max b:a pure Nash equlbrum SW(b) < 1 β by summng up (23) (24) together. For the second step, we have prove the theorem. SW(OPT (v)) SW(v) 13 c. Then by combnng the two steps, we 4.3. Comparson between PBM-GSP and SBM-GSP In ths subsecton, we make comparsons between PBM-GSP and SBM-GSP. The overall concluson s that the PBM-GSP mechansm has a better socal welfare n equlbrum than the SBM-GSP mechansm. The detaled analyss s gven as follows. To the best of our knowledge, the theoretcal analyss on SBM-GSP [Dhangwatnota 2011] only covers the welfare n the full-nformaton settng and the sngle-slot case. Therefore, we wll compare PBM-GSP wth SBM-GSP n ths settng. Furthermore, n [Dhangwatnota 2011], the same defnton of homogenety but a dfferent defnton of expressveness s used. To avod confusons, we refer to the expressveness defned n [Dhangwatnota 2011] as Query-Level (QL) Expressveness, whose defnton s coped as follows. Defnton [Dhangwatnota 2011] (QL-Expressveness) We call an aucton system α-ql-expressve, f for any advertser, and any query set Q satsfyng Q Q, Q α Q, there always exstκkeywords that can coverq through the query-keyword bpartte graph G. When α = 1, we say the aucton system s fully QL-expressve. Based on the above concepts, an almost-tght pure PoA bound for the SBM-GSP mechansm n the sngle-slot case s derved n [Dhangwatnota 2011], as shown below. THEOREM [Dhangwatnota 2011] If the aucton system s α-ql-expressve and c-homogeneous, the pure PoA of the SBM-GSP mechansm s at most c2 +c α. If we compare ths PoA bound wth the correspondng PoA bound of the PBM-GSP mechansm, we wll have the followng dscussons. Frst, snce dfferent notons of expressveness are used, f we want to compare the bounds, we need to characterze the relatonshp between KL-expressveness and QL-expressveness. Actually, a natural queston s why not also usng the QLexpressveness to analyze the theoretcal propertes of PBM-GSP. The followng example, whch shows that the pure PoA of the PBM-GSP mechansm could be rrelevant to QL-expressveness, justfes the necessty to ntroduce the concept of KLexpressveness. Example Suppose there s only one advertser who s allowed to bd on at most one keyword. Consder there s a fxed set of postve queres, and each query s matched to a shared keyword and other N dfferent keywords. We consder a PBM- GSP mechansm that matches a query to keywords wth unform probablty. In ths case, the aucton system s always fully QL-expressve snce the advertser can use the shared keyword to reach all queres, but the welfare n equlbrum can be arbtrarly bad n PBM-GSP as N approaches nfnty. Furthermore, accordng to our theoretcal and emprcal studes (detals are gven n the Appendx), gven the query-keyword bpartte graph, the QL-expressveness α and

14 14 KL-expressveness β are actually comparable n ther values (.e., they only dffer by a small constant). Therefore the dfference n these two notons of expressveness should not affect the comparson between the two PoA bounds by much. Second, the two PoA bounds have dfferent orders wth respect to the homogenety c. As aforementoned, homogenety descrbes the dversty of advertser s valuatons on dfferent queres matched to the same keyword. Take the keyword spder as an example. It can be matched to multple queres, such as spder move, get rd of spder, and crystal spder, whch have qute dfferent semantc meanngs. If each advertser s only nterested n one type of these semantc meanngs, the homogenety quantty c wll be very large due to the hgh valuatons on some queres and the low valuatons on the other queres. In ths case, dfferent orders of c wll lead to sgnfcant dfference n the overall PoA bounds. In partcular, the pure PoA bound of PBM-GSP s much better than that of SBM-GSP, snce the former s lnear to c but the latter s quadratc. 5. REVENUE ANALYSIS In ths secton, we study the Bayes-Nash revenue wth reserve prce [Myerson 1981; Dhangwatnota et al. 2010; Hartlne and Lucer 2010] for the PBM-GSP mechansm. We show that wth a naturally-defned reserve prce r s on each keyword s, the worstcase rato between the optmal socal welfare and the revenue of PBM-GSP, defned as below, can be upper bounded. E v [SW(OPT (v))] max v,b( ): a Bayes-Nash equlbrum E v,b(v) [R r (b(v))], where R r (b) presents the revenue wth bd b and reserve prce vector r,.e.,r r (b) = q Q s N π G(q) q(s) n k=1 w kmax{r s,b s σ s,b (k+1) }I[bs σ s,b (k) r s]dp. In ths paper, we assume that the auctoneer (search engne) has a publc pror dstrbuton F on any advertser s valuaton vector, and any advertser s valuaton vector v s..d. sampled from ths dstrbuton,.e., F = F n. Consderng that for any advertser, the valuaton on keywords are the weghted averages of the valuatons on the queres that the keyword can be matched to, t could be easly proved that an advertser s expected valuaton vector on keywords can also be consdered as..d. sampled. Thus we defne, for any advertser, the keyword valuaton vector s..d sampled from a dstrbuton T (nduced from F and the mechansm), and defne the (margnal) cumulate dstrbuton functon of valuaton on keyword s as T s and the probablty densty functon on keyword s as t s. As n common practce, we consder a partcular class of dstrbutons for T, whch s called monotone hazard rate (MHR) dstrbuton [Dhangwatnota et al. 2010; Hartlne and Roughgarden 2009; Lucer et al. 2012b]. For the reserve prce, we employ a naturally-defned reserve prce vector r, whch s a drect extenson of the Myerson reserve prce [Lucer et al. 2012b; Chawla et al. 2007; Myerson 1981] : For any keyword s, the reserve prce r s s the Myerson reserve prce, whch satsfes φ s (r s ) = 0, whereφ s (v) s defned as the vrtual value of any type v on keyword s,.e., φ s (v) v 1 Ts(v) t s(v). Dfferent from the GSP aucton wth the Myerson reserve prce, t s easy to construct an example to show that, even n a sngle-slot case, when there s a constrant on the total number of bd keywords (.e., κ), the rato between the revenue of PBM-GSP wth the Myerson reserve prce and optmal socal welfare can become arbtrarly bad. Example 5.1. The hgh-level dea of the example s to construct a case n whch there are only two keywords, a sngle slot, and one advertser, and the advertser can only bd on one keyword. We assume that one of the keywords guarantees hgh welfare

15 but low utlty for the advertser, and the other guarantees low welfare but hgh utlty. Thus n any Bayes-Nash equlbrum, the revenue wll be very low compared to the optmal welfare snce the advertser s lkely to bd on the low-welfare hgh-utlty keyword (thus low revenue to search engne) to be better off. Denote q 1 and q 2 as two queres, and denote s 1 and s 2 as two keywords. We assume that the two queres are equally lkely to be ssued, and assume that n the querykeyword bpartte graph s 1 s only matched to q 1 and s 2 s only matched to q 2. Assume there s only one advertser who s only allowed to bd on one keyword, and the advertser s valuaton on each query (keyword) s ndependent. Consderng the one-to-one mappng between queres and keywords, we use query and keyword nterchangeably n the followng descrptons. Let ǫ 1 > 0, ǫ 2 > 0, and M > 0 be some fxed values satsfyng ǫ 1 < 1 10, ǫ 2 < ǫ1 10, and M > 10. For keyword s 1, denote the valuaton densty functon as t 1 (x) whch s supported on [0,2ǫ 1 ǫ 2 1]; For keyword s 2, the valuaton densty functon t 2 (x) s supported on [0,2 M ]. We assume t 1 (x) has the followng propertes: (1) t 1 (x) s an ncreasng and dfferentable functon; (2) t 1 (x) = 1 ǫ 1 when x [ǫ 1,2ǫ 1 ǫ 2 1 ). We assume t 2 (x) has the followng propretes: (1) t 2 (x) s an ncreasng and dfferentable functon; (2) t 2 (2 M ǫ 2 ) = 1 2 ; (3) t M+1 2 (2 M ǫ2 2 ) = 1 2 ; (4) 2 M M 2 M ǫ 2 t 2 (x)dx = 1 ǫ 2. It s easy to check the exstence of such probablty densty functons. Frst, we show under the above condtons, the expected homogenety value c s smaller than a constant. For query q 1, snce ǫ 1 < 1 10, we have E[v q1 ] P(v q1 > ǫ 1)E[v q1 v q1 > ǫ 1] = For query s 2, consderng ǫ 2 < 1 10 and M > 10, we have E[v s2 ] 2 M 15 2ǫ1 ǫ xdx = (1 ǫ 1) ǫ1 +(2ǫ1 ǫ2 1) ǫ 1 1 ǫ 1 ǫ (2ǫ1 ǫ2 1). 2 M ǫ 2 t 2(x)xdx (1 ǫ 2)(2 M ǫ 2) 1 2 2M. (25) As a consequence, we come to the concluson that c s always bounded by 2. Second, we show that r s1 < ǫ 1 and 2 M ǫ 2 < r s2 < 2 M ǫ2 2. Consderng the value dstrbuton s a MHR dstrbuton, t suffces to proveφ 1 (ǫ 1 ) > 0 andφ 2 (2 M ǫ 2 ) < 0 < φ 2 (2 M ǫ2 2 ), whch can be drectly obtaned from below. φ 1(ǫ 1) = ǫ 1 1 T1(ǫ1) t 1(ǫ 1) φ 2(2 M ǫ 2) = 2 M ǫ 2 1 T2(2M ǫ 2) t 2(2 M ǫ 2) φ 2(2 M ǫ2 2 ) = 2M ǫ2 2 1 T2(2M ǫ 2 2 ) t 2(2 M ǫ 2 2 ) = ǫ 1 1 ǫ1 1 = ǫ 2 1 > 0 (26) ǫ 1 = 2 M ǫ 2 2 M+1 (1 ǫ 2) < 0 (27) > 2 M ǫ2 2 2M (1 ǫ 2) > 0 (28) Fnally, we gve a lower bound of welfare and an upper bound of revenue n Bayes- Nash equlbrum. Snce the reserve prce on keyword s 1 s smaller than ǫ 1 whle the reserve prce on keyword s 2 s larger than 2 M ǫ 2, f the valuaton v s1 s larger than ǫ 1 +ǫ 2, the utlty of advertser wll be larger than ǫ 2, and bddng keyword s 1 wll be the domnant strategy. As a consequence, we have E[R r(b(v))] 1 2 P(vs 1 > (ǫ 1 +ǫ 2))r s P(vs 1 (ǫ 1 +ǫ 2))r s2 (1 ǫ 1 ǫ2 ǫ 1 ) ǫ1 2 ǫ2 +(ǫ1 + )2 M 1 (29). ǫ 1

16 16 The frst nequalty holds snce r s1 < r s2. Smlarly, we can lower bound the expected optmal welfare by E[SW(OPT(v))] 1 2 P(vs 1 > r s1 )r s P(vs 2 > r s2 )r s2 (1 ǫ 2 ǫ2 1 ǫ M )2M. (30) 2 Fxng M and lettng ǫ 1 and ǫ2 ǫ 1 approach zero, we have lm ǫ 1 0, ǫ 2 ǫ1 0 E[R r(b(v))] E[SW(OPT)(v)] lm (1 ǫ 1 ǫ 2 ǫ 1 0, ǫ 2 ǫ1 0 ǫ1 ) ǫ 1 2 +(ǫ 1 + ǫ 2 (1 ǫ 2 ǫ ) 2M ǫ 2 2 M 2 ǫ1 )2 M 1 = 0 (31) To obtan meanngful results, we consder φ s (v) wth Lpchtz condton, whch s defned as below. Defnton 5.2. (MHR dstrbuton wth bounded dervatve) We say a dstrbuton T s an MHR dstrbuton wth bounded dervatve η, f for any keyword s, the followng condtons hold: (1) φ s (v) 1, for all v 0, (2) φ s (v) η, for all v r s. The followng theorem shows that when the dstrbuton s MHR wth bounded dervatve, we can obtan a bound for the rato between optmal socal welfare and worst-case revenue. THEOREM 5.3. If any advertser s keyword valuaton vector s..d. drawn from an MHR dstrbuton T wth bounded dervatve η, the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-expected-homogeneous, then the revenue obtaned by the PBM-GSP mechansm wth the Myerson reserve prce s at least β 1+β 1 2η(ce) 2 of the optmal socal welfare. The theorem can be proved n three steps. Frst, we use Lemma 5.4 to bound the rato between the revenue and the welfare of PBM-GSP wth the Myerson reserve prce. Second, we use Lemma 5.5 to bound the rato between the welfare of PBM-GSP and the revenue of PBM-VCG wth the Myerson reserve prce. Here PBM-VCG s defned as the VCG mechansm n whch bddng the expected value on any keyword s the domnant strategy and there s has no constrant on the total number of bd keywords. Fnally, we bound the rato between the revenue of PBM-VCG wth the Myerson reserve prce and the optmal welfare. For ease of reference, we usesw r (b) to denote the socal welfare of PBM-GSP, and use R PBM VCG r (v) to denote the revenue of PBM-VCG, when reserve prce vector r s assocated wth these mechansms. The basc dea of the proof can be explaned as follows. E v,b(v) [R r (b(v))] E v,b(v) [SW r (b(v))] E v [R PBM VCG r (v)] E v [SW(OPT (v))] LEMMA 5.4. If any advertser s keyword valuaton vector s..d. drawn from an MHR dstrbuton T wth bounded dervatve η, the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-expected-homogeneous, then for any Bayes-Nash equlbrum of PBM-GSP wth the Myerson reserve prce, the expected revenue s at least 1 ce of the expected welfare. PROOF. For any Bayes-Nash equlbrum b( ), the expected socal welfare of PBM- GSP wth reserve prce r can be reformulated as follows: E v,b(v) [SW r(b(v))] = E v,b(v) [ n π q(s)dp w k v s σ s,b(v) (k)i[b s σ s,b(v) (k) r s]]. (32) s Snce the aucton system s c-expected-homogeneous, the followng nequalty holds wth probablty one, ce v[v] s q N = E G (s) cvq πq(s)dp v[ q N πq(s)dp ] = cev[vq ]πq(s)dp q N G (s) q N πq(s)dp G (s) vq πq(s)dp G (s) q N πq(s)dp = vs. G (s) k=1

17 Consderng T s an MHR dstrbuton, we have E v [v s ] er s(1 T s (r s )), whch yelds, Applyng Eqn (33) to Eqn(32), we have E v,b(v) [SW r(b(v))] = E v,b(v) [ s Then the lemma follows. 17 P(v s r sce) = 1. (33) cee v,b(v) [ s cee v,b(v) [R r(b(v))]. π q(s)dp π q(s)dp n w k v s σ s,b(v) (k)i[b s σ s,b(v) (k) r s]] k=1 n w k r si[b s σ s,b(v) (k) r s]] LEMMA 5.5. If any advertser s keyword valuaton vector s..d. drawn from an MHR dstrbuton T wth bounded dervatve η, the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-expected-homogeneous, then the expected welfare n any Bayes-Nash equlbrum β 1 of PBM-GSP wth the Myerson reserve prce s at least 1+β 2η of the expected revenue of PBM-VCG wth the Myerson reserve prce. PROOF. The proof technque we use here can be regarded as a varaton of that n [Leme and Tardos 2010; Roughgarden 2009]. Wthout loss of generalty, we assume that f any advertser bds on any keyword s, hs/her bd prce s larger than r s. Gven the Myerson reserve prces on any keyword, denote S as the set of keywords that advertser can wn a slot when all advertsers truthfully bd. We consder advertser wth a specfc randomzed strategy b ( ) that randomly chooses κ keywords from S and bd b s (v ) = vs +rs 2 f keyword s s sampled by the strategy. Gven any pure bd profle b, any value profle v and any poston k, gven any sampled keyword s by the strategy b (v ), f advertser changes hs/her bd to b (v ) and the poston he/she gets s not lower than poston k, hs/her per-clck utlty must be larger than v s b s (v ); otherwse, the value of the advertser ranked at the poston k must be larger than b s (v ). Then we have u s (b s (v ),b s ) I[b s (v ) > b s σ s,b (k)]w k π q(s)(v s b s (v ))dp I[b s (v ) b s σ s,b (k)]w k w k k=1 π q(s)(v s b s (v ))dp w k π q(s)(v s σ s,b (k) b s (v ))dp. π q(s)v s σ s,b (k)dp. (34) Snce dstrbuton T s an MHR dstrbuton wth bounded dervatve η, we have v s b s (v ) = vs rs 2 φs(vs ) 2η, whch yelds, u s (b s (v ),b s ) w k π q(s) φs(vs ) dp w k π q(s)v s σ 2η s,b (k)dp. (35) Let k be the poston of advertser on keyword s when all advertser truthfully bd,.e., k = σs,v(). 1 By summng over all advertsers and all keywords, and takng expectaton over the valuaton profle v, bddng strategy b(v) and the strategy b ( ), we have

18 18 E v,b(v),b (v)[ n n u (b (v ),b (v )] βe v,b(v) [ u s (b s (v ),b s (v )] =1 s S n βe v,b(v) [ =1 =1 n βe v,b(v) [ =1 n βe v,b(v) [ =1 s S n βe v,b(v) [ s S w σ 1 s,v () s S w σ 1 s,v () w k k=1 s S w σ 1 s,v () π q(s) φs(vs ) dp] 2η π q(s)v s σ s,b (σ 1 s,v ())dp] π q(s) φs(vs )I[φ s(v) s > 0] dp] 2η π q(s)v s σ s,b (k)dp] β 2η Ev[RPBM VCG r (v)] βe v,b(v) [SW r(b(v))] Smlar to the proof of Theorem 4.5, we have for any Bayes-Nash equlbrum b( ), E v,b(v) [SW r(b(v))] E v,b(v) [u (b(v))] E v,b(v),b (v)[ u (b (v ),b (v ))] Then the lemma follows. Now we gve the overall proof of Theorem 5.3. β 2η Ev[RPBM VCG r (v)] βe v,b(v) [SW r(b(v))]. (36) PROOF OF THEOREM 5.2. Combnng Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5, we have for any Bayes-Nash equlbrum b( ) of PBM-GSP wth the Myerson reserve prce, the followng holds: E v,b(v) [R r(b(v))] β 2ce(β +1)η Ev[RPBM VCG r (v)]. (37) Denote R PBM VCG r (v,s) as the revenue obtaned from keyword s of the VCG mechansm wth reserve prce vector r, and denote SW(v,s) as the welfare obtaned from keyword s of wth the VCG mechansm. For any gven keyword s, denote z s(x) = E v [w σ 1 s,v() vs = x]. Then t s easy to see that z s (x) s an ncreasng functon snce advertser wll obtan a better poston n a welfare-maxmzng allocaton wth a larger valuaton. Denote φ + s (x) = φ s(x)i[φ s (x) > 0]. Accordng to Lemma 5.1 n [Klenberg and Yuan 2013], we have E v[φ + s (v)w s σ 1 ()] s,v E v[v sw = σs,v 1 ()] E v[φ + s (v s )E v[w σ 1 s,v () vs ]] E v[v s Ev[w σ 1 s,v () vs ]] = Ev[φ + s (v)z s (v s )] s E v[v szs (vs )] Ev[φ+ s (v)] s E v[v s] 1 e That s, E v [φ + s (v s)w σs,v() 1 ] 1 e E[vs w σs,v() 1 ]. By summng over all advertsers and summng over all keywords, we have E v [R PBM VCG r (v)] 1 e E v[sw(v)]. Accordng to the second step of the proof for Theorem 4.5, we have E v [SW(v)] 1 c E v[sw(opt (v))]. By combnng wth (37), we prove the theorem. Theorem 5.3 can be further mproved f we are only nterested n the sngle-slot case. (38)

19 THEOREM 5.6. If any advertser s keyword valuaton profle s..d. drawn from an MHR dstrbuton T wth bounded dervatve η, the aucton system s β-kl-expressve and c-homogeneous, and there s only one ad slot to sell, then the revenue obtaned by the PBM-GSP mechansm wth the Myerson reserve prce s at least optmal socal welfare. β 1+β 19 1 η(ce) 2 of the PROOF. We only need to slghtly modfy the proof of Lemma 5.5 and get (β +1)E[SW r (b(v))] β η E[RPBM VCG r (v)]. n the sngle-slot case. Denote S as the set of keywords that advertser can wn when all advertsers truthfully bd, we consder advertser and a specfc randomzed strategy b ( ) that randomly chooses κ keyword among S and bd v s f keyword s s sampled. For any pure strategy b and any value profle v, t can be proven that for any gven sampled keyword s by the strategy b (vs ), u s (b s (v ),b s ) I[b s σ s,b (1) r s] π q(s)(v s b s σ s,b (1))dP (39) + I[b s σ s,b (1) < r s] π q(s)(v s r s)dp (40) π q(s)(v s r s v s σ s,b (1))dP. (41) Snce dstrbuton T s an MHR dstrbuton wth bounded dervatve η, we have u s (b s (v ),b s ) π q(s)( φs(vs ) v s σ η s,b (1))dP. (42) The proofs follows by proceedng other parts of the proof of Lemma RELATED WORKS In ths secton, for the sake of completeness, we gve an overvew of the related works to the paper. Overall, the related works can be categorzed nto three groups. Frst, there have been a rch lterature of theoretcal analyss on GSP auctons. For example, [Leme and Tardos 2010; Lucer and Paes Leme 2011; Caraganns et al. 2011] analyze the PoA when bdders are conservatve, they show that the pure PoA s at most 1.282, mxed-strategy PoA s at most and Bayes-Nash PoA s at most n GSP aucton. Some other works analyze the revenue of GSP. In [Edelman and Ostrovsky 2007; Varan 2007], t s shown that GSP s revenue s at least as good as VCG n envy-free equlbrum. In [Lucer et al. 2012b; Caraganns et al. 2012a], the revenue of GSP over all Bayes-Nash equlbrum s studed and a rato bound (4.72 for regular dstrbuton and 3.46 for MHR dstrbuton) s gven between the optmal aucton and GSP wth a proper reserve prce n the Bayesan settng. Second, there are a few works that pay attenton to the broad-match mechansm, and n partcular the SBM mechansm. There have been several peces of work that study the optmzaton problems regardng SBM. For example, n [Feldman et al. 2007], the budget optmzaton problem s consdered and a (1 1/e)-approxmaton algorthm s developed. In [Even Dar et al. 2009], t s shown that the bd optmzaton problem regardng SBM s NP-Hard and s napproxmable wth any reasonable approxmaton factor unless P = NP. Some other works perform PoA analyss on the SBM-GSP mechansm. In [Dhangwatnota 2011], by assumng advertsers to play undomnated strateges, the authors develop an almost-tght bound for the pure PoA of SBM-GSP n the sngle-slot case. Thrd, the desgn prncple of our proposed PBM mechansm s also related to the probablstc sngle-tem auctons wth mxed sgnals [Bro Mltersen and Sheffet 2012;