Learning and Trust in Auction Markets

Pooya Jalaly; Denis Nekipelov; Eva Tardos

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1703.10672

Learning and Trust in Auction Markets

Pooya Jalaly·Denis Nekipelov·Eva Tardos

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we study behavior of bidders in an experimental launch of a new advertising auction platform by Zillow, as Zillow switched from negotiated contracts to using auctions in several geographically isolated markets. A unique feature of this experiment is that the bidders in this market are real estate agents that bid on their own behalf, not using third-party intermediaries. To help bidders, Zillow also provided a recommendation tool that suggested a bid for each bidder. Our main focus in this paper is on the decisions of bidders whether or not to adopt the platform-provided bid recommendation. We observe that a significant proportion of bidders do not use the recommended bid. Using the bid history of the agents we infer their value, and compare the agents' regret with their actual bidding history with results they would have obtained following the recommendation. We find that for half of the agents not following the recommendation, the increased effort of experimenting with alternate bids results in increased regret, i.e., they get decreased net value out of the system. The proportion of agents not following the recommendation slowly declines as markets mature, but it remains large in most markets that we observe. We argue that the main reason for this phenomenon is the lack of trust in the platform-provided tool. Our work provides an empirical insight into possible design choices for auction-based online advertising platforms. While search advertising platforms (such as Google or Bing) allow bidders to submit bids on their own, many display advertising platforms (such as Facebook) optimize bids on bidders' behalf and eliminate the need for bids. Our empirical analysis shows that the latter approach is preferred for markets where bidders are individuals, who don't have access to third party tools, and who may question the fairness of platform-provided suggestions.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Pooya Jalaly, Denis Nekipelov, Eva Tardos. 2017-03-30. Learning and Trust in Auction Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10672

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗