mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Selling Joint Ads: A Regret Minimization Perspective

arXiv 2409.07819 ↗First posted 12 Sep 2024cs.GT cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Motivated by online retail, we consider the problem of selling one item (e.g., an ad slot) to two non-excludable buyers (say, a merchant and a brand). This problem captures, for example, situations where a merchant and a brand cooperatively bid in an auction to advertise a product, and both benefit from the ad being shown. A mechanism collects bids from the two and decides whether to allocate and which payments the two parties should make. This gives rise to intricate incentive compatibility constraints, e.g., on how to split payments between the two parties. We approach the problem of finding a revenue-maximizing incentive-compatible mechanism from an online learning perspective; this poses significant technical challenges. First, the action space (the class of all possible mechanisms) is huge; second, the function that maps mechanisms to revenue is highly irregular, ruling out standard discretization-based approaches. In the stochastic setting, we design an efficient learning algorithm achieving a regret bound of O(T3/4). Our approach is based on an adaptive discretization scheme of the space of mechanisms, as any non-adaptive discretization fails to achieve sublinear regret. In the adversarial setting, we exploit the non-Lipschitzness of the problem to prove a strong negative result, namely that no learning algorithm can achieve more than half of the revenue of the best fixed mechanism in hindsight. We then consider the σ-smooth adversary; we construct an efficient learning algorithm that achieves a regret bound of O(T2/3) and builds on a succinct encoding of exponentially many experts. Finally, we prove that no learning algorithm can achieve less than Omega(√ T) regret in both the stochastic and the smooth setting, thus narrowing the range where the minimax regret rates for these two problems lie.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Sep 2024.

Builds on

18 of 43 references.

References · 18

  1. 2019Introduction to Online Convex Optimizationcited by 803
  2. 2013Bandits and Experts in Metric Spacescited by 63
  3. 2021Smoothed Analysis with Adaptive Adversariescited by 57
  4. 2015The Sample Complexity of Revenue Maximizationcited by 48
  5. 2020Smoothed Analysis of Online and Differentially Private Learningcited by 47
  6. 2014Adaptive Contract Design for Crowdsourcing Markets: Bandit Algorithms for Repeated Principal-Agent Problemscited by 46
  7. 2022The Sample Complexity of Online Contract Designcited by 35
  8. 2017Learning to Bid Without Knowing your Valuecited by 34
  9. 2021Bilateral Trade: A Regret Minimization Perspectivecited by 29
  10. 2015Learning in Auctions: Regret is Hard, Envy is Easycited by 23
  11. 2019Generalizing Complex Hypotheses on Product Distributions: Auctions, Prophet Inequalities, and Pandora's Problemcited by 22
  12. 2023No-Regret Learning in Bilateral Trade via Global Budget Balancecited by 17
6 more
  1. 2022An α-regret analysis of Adversarial Bilateral Tradecited by 16
  2. 2023Repeated Bilateral Trade Against a Smoothed Adversarycited by 15
  3. 2023The Role of Transparency in Repeated First-Price Auctions with Unknown Valuationscited by 15
  4. 2022Bandit Algorithms for Prophet Inequality and Pandora's Boxcited by 13
  5. 2023An Online Learning Theory of Brokeragecited by 8
  6. 2024Learning to Maximize Gains From Trade in Small Marketscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

5 papers.