Envy, Regret, and Social Welfare Loss

Incentive compatibility (IC) is a desirable property for any auction mechanism, including those used in online advertising. However, in real world applications practical constraints and complex environments often result in mechanisms that lack incentive compatibility. Recently, several papers investigated the problem of deploying black-box statistical tests to determine if an auction mechanism is incentive compatible by using the notion of IC-Regret that measures the regret of a truthful bidder. Unfortunately, most of those methods are computationally intensive, since they require the execution of many counterfactual experiments. In this work, we show that similar results can be obtained using the notion of IC-Envy. The advantage of IC-Envy is its efficiency: it can be computed using only the auction’s outcome. In particular, we focus on position auctions. For position auctions, we show that for a large class of pricing schemes (which includes e.g. VCG and GSP), IC-Envy ≥ IC-Regret (and IC-Envy = IC-Regret under mild supplementary conditions). Our theoretical results are completed showing that, in the position auction environment, IC-Envy can be used to bound the loss in social welfare due to the advertiser untruthful behavior. Finally, we show experimentally that IC-Envy can be used as a feature to predict IC-Regret in settings not covered by the theoretical results. In particular, using IC-Envy yields better results than training models using only price and value features.

[1]  Bodo Manthey,et al.  Note on VCG vs. Price Raising for Matching Markets , 2016, ArXiv.

[2]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  On approximately fair allocations of indivisible goods , 2004, EC '04.

[3]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Revenue maximizing envy-free multi-unit auctions with budgets , 2012, EC '12.

[4]  Yoav Freund,et al.  A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting , 1995, EuroCOLT.

[5]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Revenue Maximizing Envy-Free Pricing in Matching Markets with Budgets , 2016, WINE.

[6]  Simina Brânzei,et al.  Walrasian Pricing in Multi-Unit Auctions , 2016, MFCS.

[7]  Maxim Sviridenko,et al.  Matching Auctions for Search and Native Ads , 2018, EC.

[8]  Constantinos Daskalakis,et al.  Learning in Auctions: Regret is Hard, Envy is Easy , 2015, 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[9]  Edith Cohen,et al.  Envy-free makespan approximation: extended abstract , 2009, EC '10.

[10]  Amos Fiat,et al.  Envy, Multi Envy, and Revenue Maximization , 2009, WINE.

[11]  Piotr Sankowski,et al.  Revenue Maximizing Envy-Free Fixed-Price Auctions with Budgets , 2014, WINE.

[12]  Ruggiero Cavallo,et al.  GSP with General Independent Click-through-Rates , 2014, WINE.

[13]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  On profit-maximizing envy-free pricing , 2005, SODA '05.

[14]  Edith Cohen,et al.  Envy-Free Makespan Approximation , 2009, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  Jason D. Hartline,et al.  Envy, truth, and profit , 2011, EC '11.

[16]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[17]  Michael Schapira,et al.  Setting Lower Bounds on Truthfulness , 2015, SODA '07.

[18]  Michael Ostrovsky,et al.  Reserve Prices in Internet Advertising Auctions: A Field Experiment , 2009, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  A. Azzouz 2011 , 2020, City.

[20]  Michal Feldman,et al.  Mechanisms and Impossibilities for Truthful, Envy-Free Allocations , 2012, SAGT.

[21]  Renato Paes Leme,et al.  GSP auctions with correlated types , 2011, EC '11.

[22]  Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.  Envy-free auctions for digital goods , 2003, EC '03.

[23]  Paul W. Goldberg,et al.  The Complexity of Computing a Nash Equilibrium , 2009, SIAM J. Comput..

[24]  H. Varian Equity, Envy and Efficiency , 1974 .

[25]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  On Low-Envy Truthful Allocations , 2009, ADT.

[26]  D. Foley Resource allocation and the public sector , 1967 .

[27]  Edith Cohen,et al.  On the Interplay between Incentive Compatibility and Envy Freeness , 2010, ArXiv.

[28]  Christopher A. Wilkens,et al.  The Ad Types Problem , 2019, WINE.

[29]  Aviad Rubinstein Inapproximability of Nash Equilibrium , 2018, SIAM J. Comput..

[30]  Annamária Kovács,et al.  A Global Characterization of Envy-Free Truthful Scheduling of Two Tasks , 2011, WINE.

[31]  Zhe Feng,et al.  Online Learning for Measuring Incentive Compatibility in Ad Auctions? , 2019, WWW.

[32]  Yakov Babichenko,et al.  Communication complexity of approximate Nash equilibria , 2016, STOC.

[33]  Bo Tang,et al.  Envy-Free Sponsored Search Auctions with Budgets , 2015, IJCAI.

[34]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[35]  D. Parkes,et al.  Quantifying the Strategyproofness of Mechanisms via Metrics on Payoff Distributions , 2009, UAI.

[36]  Renato Paes Leme,et al.  Pure and Bayes-Nash Price of Anarchy for Generalized Second Price Auction , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[37]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The Price of Anarchy in Auctions , 2016, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[38]  Lisa Fleischer,et al.  Lower Bound for Envy-Free and Truthful Makespan Approximation on Related Machines , 2011, SAGT.

[39]  Sergei Vassilvitskii,et al.  Testing Incentive Compatibility in Display Ad Auctions , 2018, WWW.