IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v270y2018i2p775-783.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Truthfulness in advertising? Approximation mechanisms for knapsack bidders

Author

Listed:
  • Bichler, Martin
  • Merting, Sören

Abstract

Quasilinear utility functions are a standard assumption in auction theory allowing for truthful and welfare-maximizing auction mechanisms. However, the literature on advertising markets suggests that the utility model of bidders rather resembles a knapsack problem, where advertisers try to maximize the sum of item values subject to a budget for a marketing campaign. Non-quasilinear environments rarely allow for truthful mechanisms. Nonetheless, some characteristics of the market environment might allow for positive results. In particular, markets are large and bidders typically consider prices as exogenous. We introduce a model of advertising markets, and study whether truthful and prior-free approximation mechanisms with good approximation ratios of the maximal welfare are possible. We analyze the offline mechanism design problem and find a truthful and randomized mechanism with an approximation ratio of only 4. This mechanism draws on a fractional deferred acceptance algorithm and randomized rounding, and it illustrates how the relax-and-round principle can be implemented in this non-quasilinear environment. The article highlights the types of assumptions necessary for truthful mechanisms with good approximation ratios in an important class of non-quasilinear utility functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bichler, Martin & Merting, Sören, 2018. "Truthfulness in advertising? Approximation mechanisms for knapsack bidders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 775-783.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:270:y:2018:i:2:p:775-783
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718302728
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Ehlers & Bettina Klaus, 2003. "Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 265-280, October.
    2. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721, October.
    3. repec:bla:jpbect:v:3:y:2001:i:3:p:257-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Nisan,Noam & Roughgarden,Tim & Tardos,Eva & Vazirani,Vijay V. (ed.), 2007. "Algorithmic Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521872829, October.
    5. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 1999. "Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 557-567.
    6. Jackson, Matthew O. & Manelli, Alejandro M., 1997. "Approximately Competitive Equilibria in Large Finite Economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 354-376, December.
    7. Tomoya Kazumura & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2016. "Efficiency and strategy-proofness in object assignment problems with multi-demand preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 633-663, October.
    8. Roberts, Donald John & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1976. "The Incentives for Price-Taking Behavior in Large Exchange Economies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(1), pages 115-127, January.
    9. Baisa, Brian, 2017. "Auction design without quasilinear preferences," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    10. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    11. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-681, April.
    12. Jonathan Levin & Paul Milgrom, 2010. "Online Advertising: Heterogeneity and Conflation in Market Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 603-607, May.
    13. Borgers, Tilman & Krahmer, Daniel & Strausz, Roland, 2015. "An Introduction to the Theory of Mechanism Design," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199734023.
    14. Andor Goetzendorff & Martin Bichler & Pasha Shabalin & Robert W. Day, 2015. "Compact Bid Languages and Core Pricing in Large Multi-item Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1684-1703, July.
    15. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    16. R. McAfee, 2011. "The Design of Advertising Exchanges," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(3), pages 169-185, November.
    17. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Bonatti, 2011. "Targeting in advertising markets: implications for offline versus online media," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 417-443, September.
    18. John Hatfield, 2009. "Strategy-proof, efficient, and nonbossy quota allocations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 505-515, September.
    19. Fadaei, Salman & Bichler, Martin, 2017. "Truthfulness with value-maximizing bidders: On the limits of approximation in combinatorial markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 767-777.
    20. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    21. Ashlagi Itai & Braverman Mark & Hassidim Avinatan & Lavi Ron & Tennenholtz Moshe, 2010. "Position Auctions with Budgets: Existence and Uniqueness," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-32, May.
    22. Dobzinski, Shahar & Lavi, Ron & Nisan, Noam, 2012. "Multi-unit auctions with budget limits," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 486-503.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2015. "Centralized allocation in multiple markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-85.
    2. Eduardo M Azevedo & Eric Budish, 2019. "Strategy-proofness in the Large," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 81-116.
    3. Marek Pycia & M. Utku Ünver, 2022. "Outside options in neutral allocation of discrete resources," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 581-604, December.
    4. Fadaei, Salman & Bichler, Martin, 2017. "Truthfulness with value-maximizing bidders: On the limits of approximation in combinatorial markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 767-777.
    5. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Mechanism design without quasilinearity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    6. Debasis Mishra & Abdul Quadir, 2012. "Deterministic single object auctions with private values," Discussion Papers 12-06, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    7. Tomoya Kazumura & Debasis Mishra & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2017. "Strategy-proof multi-object auction design: Ex-post revenue maximization with no wastage," ISER Discussion Paper 1001, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    8. Lavi, Ron & May, Marina, 2012. "A note on the incompatibility of strategy-proofness and Pareto-optimality in quasi-linear settings with public budgets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 100-103.
    9. Nhan-Tam Nguyen & Dorothea Baumeister & Jörg Rothe, 2018. "Strategy-proofness of scoring allocation correspondences for indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 101-122, January.
    10. Harless, Patrick & Phan, William, 2022. "Efficient mixtures of priority rules for assigning objects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 73-89.
    11. Ehlers, Lars & Majumdar, Dipjyoti & Mishra, Debasis & Sen, Arunava, 2020. "Continuity and incentive compatibility in cardinal mechanisms," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 31-41.
    12. Yi, Jianxin & Li, Yong, 2016. "A general impossibility theorem and its application to individual rights," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 79-86.
    13. Miralles, Antonio, 2012. "Cardinal Bayesian allocation mechanisms without transfers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 179-206.
    14. Tomoya Kazumura & Debasis Mishra & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2017. "Strategy-proof multi-object allocation: Ex-post revenue maximization with no wastage," Working Papers e116, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    15. Tomoya Kazumura & Debasis Mishra & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2017. "Strategy-proof multi-object auction design: Ex-post revenue maximization with no wastage," Discussion Papers 17-03, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    16. Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan, 2019. "A characterization of random min–max domains and its applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 887-906, November.
    17. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    18. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    19. Sean Horan & Vikram Manjunath, 2022. "Lexicographic Composition of Choice Functions," Papers 2209.09293, arXiv.org.
    20. Kolmar, Martin, 1997. "Zur Effizienz nationaler Sozialversicherungssysteme in der Europäischen Union," Discussion Papers, Series II 341, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:270:y:2018:i:2:p:775-783. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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