Nonparametric Estimation of Sponsored Search Auctions and Impact of Ad Quality on Search Revenue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an empirical model of sponsored search auctions where advertisers are ranked by bid and ad quality. Our model is developed under the “incomplete information” setting with a general quality scoring rule. We establish nonparametric identification of the advertiser’s valuation and its distribution given observed bids and introduce novel nonparametric estimators. Using Yahoo! search auction data, we estimate value distributions and study the bidding behavior across product categories. We also conduct a counterfactual analysis to evaluate the impact of different quality scoring rules on the auctioneer’s revenue. Product-specific scoring rules can enhance auctioneer revenue by at most 24.3% at the expense of advertiser profit (−28.3%) and consumer welfare (−30.2%). The revenue-maximizing scoring rule depends on market competitiveness. This paper was accepted by Jean-Pierre Dube, marketing. Funding: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under the Insight Development Grant [Grant 430-2022-00841] to D. Kim. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.02052 .
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 | 0.019 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".