MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212399093 · doi:10.1145/3491049

Real-time Bidding for Time Constrained Impression Contracts in First and Second Price Auctions - Theory and Algorithms

2021· article· en· W3212399093 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan J. Kinnear, Ravi R. Mazumdar, Peter Marbach

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiddingMathematical optimizationPiecewiseCommon value auctionComputer scienceFunction (biology)Duality (order theory)Simple (philosophy)Optimization problemConstant (computer programming)Mathematical economicsMathematicsEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the optimal bids and allocations in a real-time auction for heterogeneous items subject to the requirement that specified collections of items of given types be acquired within given time constraints. The problem is cast as a continuous time optimization problem that can, under certain weak assumptions, be reduced to a convex optimization problem. Focusing on the standard first and second price auctions, we first show, using convex duality, that the optimal (infinite dimensional) bidding policy can be represented by a single finite vector of so-called ''pseudo-bids''. Using this result we are able to show that the optimal solution in the second price case turns out to be a very simple piecewise constant function of time. This contrasts with the first price case that is more complicated. Despite the fact that the optimal solution for the first price auction is genuinely dynamic, we show that there remains a close connection between the two cases and that, empirically, there is almost no difference between optimal behavior in either setting. This suggests that it is adequate to bid in a first price auction as if it were in fact second price. Finally, we detail methods for implementing our bidding policies in practice with further numerical simulations illustrating the performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing SystemsSame topicAuction Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207