Revenue-Maximizing Rankings for Online Platforms with Quality-Sensitive Consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a keyword-based search query is received by a search engine, a classified ads website, or an online retailer site, the platform has exponentially many choices in how to sort the search results. Two extreme rules are (a) to use a ranking based on estimated relevance only, which improves customer experience in the long run because of perceived quality and (b) to use a ranking based only on the expected revenue to be generated immediately, which maximizes short-term revenue. Typically, these two objectives and the corresponding rankings differ. A key question then is what middle ground between them should be chosen. We introduce stochastic models that yield elegant solutions for this situation, and we propose effective solution methods to compute a ranking strategy that optimizes long-term revenues. This strategy has a very simple form and is easy to implement if the necessary data is available. It consists of ordering the output items by decreasing order of a score attributed to each, similarly to value models used in practice by e-commerce platforms. This score results from evaluating a simple function of the estimated relevance, the expected revenue of the link, and a real-valued parameter. We find the latter via simulation-based optimization, and its optimal value is related to the endogeneity of user activity in the platform as a function of the relevance offered to them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".