Information Economics in the Age of e-Commerce: Models and Mechanisms for Information-Rich Markets

In this thesis I focus on two simple yet fundamental observations which require further investigation as the field of algorithmic game theory progresses in the context of information economics. Specifically: 1) Access to information widens an agent's strategy space, and 2) the generation and exchange of information between agents is itself a game. Informed Valuations: Increasingly sophisticated consumer tracking technology gives advertisers a wealth of information which they use to reach narrowly targeted consumer demographics. With targeting, advertisers are able to bid differently depending on the age, location, computer, or even browsing history of the person viewing a website. Using historical bidding data from a large premium advertising exchange, we show that the bidding distributions are unfavorable to the standard mechanisms. This motivates our new BIN-TAC mechanism, which is simple and effective in extracting revenue in the presence of targeting information. Bidders can "buy-it-now", or alternatively "take-a-chance" in an auction, where the top d > 1 bidders are equally likely to win. The randomized take-a-chance allocation incentivizes high valuation bidders to buy-it-now. We show that for a large class of distributions, this mechanism outperforms the second-price auction, and achieves revenue performance close to Myerson's optimal mechanism. We apply structural methods to our data to estimate counterfactual revenues, and find that our BIN-TAC mechanism improves revenue by 4.5% relative to a second-price auction with optimal reserve. Information Acquisition: A prevalent assumption in traditional mechanism design is that the buyers know their precise value for an item; however, this assumption is rarely accurate in practice. Judging the value of a good is difficult since it may depend on many unknown parameters such as the intrinsic quality of the good, the saving it will yield in the future, or the buyer's emotional state. Additionally, the estimated value for a good is not static; buyers can "deliberate", i.e. spend money or time, in order to refine their estimates by acquiring additional information. This information, however, comes at some cost, either financial, computational or emotional. It is known that when deliberative agents participate in traditional auctions, surprising and often undesirable outcomes can occur. We consider optimal dominant strategy mechanisms for one-step deliberative setting where each user can determine their exact value for a fixed cost. We show that for single-item auctions under mild assumptions these are equivalent to a sequential posted price mechanism. Additionally, we propose a new approach that allows us to leverage classical revenue-maximization results in deliberative environments. In particular, we use Myerson (1981) to construct the first non-trivial (i.e., dependent on deliberation costs) upper bound on revenue in deliberative auctions. This bound allows us to apply existing results in the classical environment to a deliberative environment; specifically, for single-parameter matroid settings, sequential posted pricing is a 2-approximation or better. Exchange Networks: Information is constantly being exchanged in many forms; i.e. communication among friends, company mergers and partnerships, and more recently, selling of user information by companies such as BlueKai. Exchange markets capture the trade of information between agents for profit, and we wish to understand how these trades are agreed upon. Understanding information markets helps us determine the power and influence structure of the network. To do this, we consider a very general network model where nodes are people or companies, and weighted edges represent profitable “potential” exchanges of information, or any other good. Each node is capable of finalizing an exactly one of its possible transactions; this models the situation where some form of exclusivity is involved in the transaction. This model is in fact very general, and can capture everything from targeting information exchange to the marriage market. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

[1]  Rakesh V. Vohra,et al.  Optimal auctions with financially constrained buyers , 2008, J. Econ. Theory.

[2]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 2013, Am. Math. Mon..

[3]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Dominant-Strategy Auction Design for Agents with Uncertain, Private Values , 2011, AAAI.

[4]  R. McAfee,et al.  The Design of Advertising Exchanges , 2011 .

[5]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[6]  Alan T. Sorensen,et al.  Bundle-Size Pricing as an Approximation to Mixed Bundling , 2011 .

[7]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Yashodhan Kanoria,et al.  Fast convergence of natural bargaining dynamics in exchange networks , 2010, SODA '11.

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

[10]  Christian Borgs,et al.  Belief Propagation for Weighted b-Matchings on Arbitrary Graphs and its Relation to Linear Programs with Integer Solutions , 2007, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[11]  Anna R. Karlin,et al.  Profit maximization in mechanism design: beyond the bayesian approach , 2011 .

[12]  S. Athey,et al.  A Structural Model of Sponsored Search Advertising Auctions , 2011 .

[13]  Yashodhan Kanoria,et al.  An FPTAS for Bargaining Networks with Unequal Bargaining Powers , 2010, WINE.

[14]  Tanmoy Chakraborty,et al.  A behavioral study of bargaining in social networks , 2010, EC '10.

[15]  Shuchi Chawla,et al.  Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing , 2010, BQGT.

[16]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Online Advertising: Heterogeneity and Conflation in Market Design , 2010 .

[17]  D. Bergemann,et al.  TARGETING IN ADVERTISING MARKETS: IMPLICATIONS FOR OFFLINE VS. ONLINE MEDIA By , 2010 .

[18]  D. Bergemann,et al.  Dynamic Auctions: A Survey , 2010 .

[19]  Sushil Bikhchandani Information acquisition and full surplus extraction , 2010, J. Econ. Theory.

[20]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  Monotonicity in bargaining networks , 2010, SODA '10.

[21]  S. Muthukrishnan,et al.  Ad Exchanges: Research Issues , 2009, WINE.

[22]  Yuval Peres,et al.  Convergence of Local Dynamics to Balanced Outcomes in Exchange Networks , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[23]  Shuchi Chawla,et al.  Sequential Posted Pricing and Multi-parameter Mechanism Design , 2010, ArXiv.

[24]  Sanjeev Khanna,et al.  Network bargaining: algorithms and structural results , 2009, EC '09.

[25]  Vahab S. Mirrokni,et al.  Uncoordinated two-sided matching markets , 2009, SECO.

[26]  Yifeng Yu Maximal and minimal solutions of an Aronsson equation: L∞ variational problems versus the game theory , 2009, 0906.0625.

[27]  The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium , 2009, CACM.

[28]  Tanmoy Chakraborty,et al.  Bargaining Solutions in a Social Network , 2008, WINE.

[29]  David H. Reiley,et al.  Does Retail Advertising Work? Measuring the Effects of Advertising on Sales Via a Controlled Experiment on Yahoo! , 2008 .

[30]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Efficient Metadeliberation Auctions , 2008, AAAI.

[31]  Yossi Azar,et al.  Fast convergence to nearly optimal solutions in potential games , 2008, EC '08.

[32]  Liad Blumrosen,et al.  Posted prices vs. negotiations: an asymptotic analysis , 2008, EC '08.

[33]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Balanced outcomes in social exchange networks , 2008, STOC.

[34]  Arpita Ghosh,et al.  Computing Optimal Bundles for Sponsored Search , 2007, WINE.

[35]  Jennifer Wortman Vaughan,et al.  Sponsored Search with Contexts , 2007, WINE.

[36]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Valuation Uncertainty and Imperfect Introspection in Second-Price Auctions , 2007, AAAI.

[37]  Fernando Charro,et al.  A mixed problem for the infinity Laplacian via Tug-of-War games , 2007, 0706.4267.

[38]  Yuval Peres,et al.  Random-Turn Hex and Other Selection Games , 2005, Am. Math. Mon..

[39]  Dirk Bergemann,et al.  Information Structures in Optimal Auctions , 2001, J. Econ. Theory.

[40]  Xiaotie Deng,et al.  Settling the Complexity of Two-Player Nash Equilibrium , 2006, 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'06).

[41]  Y. Peres,et al.  Tug-of-war with noise: A game-theoretic view of the $p$-Laplacian , 2006, math/0607761.

[42]  Kate Larson,et al.  Reducing costly information acquisition in auctions , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[43]  Y. Peres,et al.  Tug-of-war and the infinity Laplacian , 2006, math/0605002.

[44]  Jason D. Hartline Lectures on Optimal Mechanism Design , 2006 .

[45]  P. Jehiel,et al.  Auctions and Information acquisition: Sealed-bid or Dynamic Formats? , 2007 .

[46]  Kamal Jain,et al.  A polynomial time algorithm for computing an Arrow-Debreu market equilibrium for linear utilities , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[47]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Strategic deliberation and truthful revelation: an impossibility result , 2004, EC '04.

[48]  Margarida Corominas-Bosch,et al.  Bargaining in a network of buyers and sellers , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[49]  J. Crémer,et al.  Optimal Selling Mechanisms wth Costly Information Acquisition , 2003 .

[50]  Daniël Paulusma,et al.  Complexity aspects of cooperative games , 2001 .

[51]  Dirk Bergemann,et al.  Information Acquisition and Efficient Mechanism Design , 2000 .

[52]  J. Propp,et al.  Combinatorial Games under Auction Play , 1999 .

[53]  J. Rochet,et al.  Ironing, Sweeping, and Multidimensional Screening , 1998 .

[54]  Theo S. H. Driessen A note on the inclusion of the kernel in the core of the bilateral assignment game , 1998, Int. J. Game Theory.

[55]  P. Courty,et al.  Sequential Screening , 1998 .

[56]  U. Faigle,et al.  An efficient algorithm for nucleolus and prekernel computation in some classes of TU-games , 1998 .

[57]  Jean-Jacques Laffont,et al.  Structural Analysis of Auction Data , 1996 .

[58]  T. Raghavan,et al.  An algorithm for finding the nucleolus of assignment games , 1994 .

[59]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Monotone Comparative Statics , 1994 .

[60]  Karen S. Cook,et al.  Power in exchange networks: a power-dependence formulation , 1992 .

[61]  M. Maschler The bargaining set, kernel, and nucleolus , 1992 .

[62]  David Williams,et al.  Probability with Martingales , 1991, Cambridge mathematical textbooks.

[63]  M. Whinston,et al.  Multiproduct Monopoly, Commodity Bundling, and Correlation of Values , 1989 .

[64]  Sharon C. Rochford,et al.  Symmetrically pairwise-bargained allocations in an assignment market , 1984 .

[65]  Kalyan Chatterjee,et al.  Bargaining under Incomplete Information , 1983, Oper. Res..

[66]  K. Cook,et al.  The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[67]  E. Berlekamp,et al.  Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays , 1983 .

[68]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[69]  Bengt Aspvall,et al.  A polynomial time algorithm for solving systems of linear inequalities with two variables per inequality , 1979, 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).

[70]  E. Maskin,et al.  The Implementation of Social Choice Rules: Some General Results on Incentive Compatibility , 1979 .

[71]  R. Myerson Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem , 1979 .

[72]  B. Holmström,et al.  On incentives and control in organizations , 1977 .

[73]  Janet L. Yellen,et al.  Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly , 1976 .

[74]  R. Rosenthal A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria , 1973 .

[75]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[76]  L. Shapley,et al.  The assignment game I: The core , 1971 .