arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 23 Jan 2009

Transcription

1 Bid Optimization fo Boad Match Ad Auction Eyal Even Da Yihay Manou Vahab S. Miokni S. Muthukihnan Ui Nadav aiv: v1 [c.gt] 23 Jan 2009 ABSTRACT Ad auction in ponoed each uppot boad match that allow an advetie to taget a lage numbe of queie while bidding only on a limited numbe. While giving moe expeivene to advetie, thi featue make it challenging to optimize bid to maximize thei etun: chooing to bid on a quey a a boad match becaue it povide high pofit eult in one bidding fo elated queie which may yield low o even negative pofit. We abtact and tudy the complexity of the bid optimization poblem which i to detemine an advetie bid on a ubet of keywod (poibly uing boad match) o that he pofit i maximized. In the quey language model when the advetie i allowed to bid on all queie a boad match, we peent an linea pogamming (LP)-baed polynomialtime algoithm that get the optimal pofit. In the model in which an advetie can only bid on keywod, ie., a ubet of keywod a an exact o boad match, we how that thi poblem i not appoximable within any eaonable appoximation facto unle P=NP. To deal with thi hadne eult, we peent a contant-facto appoximation when the optimal pofit ignificantly exceed the cot. Thi algoithm i baed on ounding a natual LP fomulation of the poblem. Finally, we tudy a budgeted vaiant of the poblem, and how that in the quey language model, one can find two budget contained ad campaign in polynomial time that implement the optimal bidding tategy. Ou eult ae the fit to adde bid optimization unde the boad match featue which i common in ad auction. Categoie and Subject Decipto F.2 [Theoy of Computation]: Analyi of Algoithm and Poblem Complexity; J.4 [Compute Application]: Social and Behavioal Science Economic; H.4 [Infomation Sytem Application]: Micellaneou Geneal Tem Algoithm, Theoy, Economic Google Reeach, 76 9th Ave, New Yok, NY 10011, {evenda,miokni,muthu}@google.com Google Reeach and Tel-aviv Univeity, 76 9th Ave, New Yok, NY 10011, manou@google.com Tel-aviv Univeity, Tel-Aviv, 69978, uinadav@gmail.com Copyight i held by the autho/owne(). WWW2009, Apil 20-24, 2009, Madid, Spain.. Keywod Sponoed Seach, Ad Auction, Optimal bidding, Bid Optimization 1. INTRODUCTION Sponoed each i a lage and thiving maket with thee ditinct playe. Ue go to each engine uch a Yahoo! o Google and poe queie; in the poce, they expe thei intention and pefeence. Advetie eek to place advetiement and taget them to ue intention a expeed by thei queie. Finally, each engine povide a uitable mechanim fo doing thi. Cuently, the mechanim elie on having advetie bid on the each iued by the ue, and the each engine to un an auction at the time the ue poe the quey to detemine the advetiement that will be hown to the ue. A i tandad, the advetie only pay if the ue click on thei ad (the paype-click model), and the amount they pay i detemined by the auction mechanim, but will be no lage than thei bid. In thi pape, we aume the pepective of the advetie. The advetie need to taget thei ad campaign to ue queie. Thu, they need to detemine the et S of queie of thei inteet. Once that i detemined, they need to tategize in the auction that take place fo each of the queie in S. A lot of eeach ha focued on the game theoy and optimization behind thee auction, both fom the each engine [2, 20, 7, 1, 13, 5] and advetie [4, 9, 6, 14] point of view. Thee ha been elatively little pio eeach on how advetie taget thei campaign, i.e., how they detemine the et S. The citeion fo chooing S i fo the advetie to pick a et of keyphae that eache may ue in thei quey when looking fo thei poduct. The cental challenge then i to match the advetie keyphae with the potential queie iued by the ue. It i difficult if not impoible fo the advetie to identify all poible vaiation of keyphae that a ue looking fo thei poduct may ue in thei quey. A an example, conide a vendo who chooe the keyphae tenni hoe. Ue eaching fo them may ue ingula o plual, ynonym and othe vaiation ( clay cout footwea ), may mipell ( teni hoe ), ue extenion ( white tenni hoe ) o eode the wod ( hoe lawn tenni ). In fact, ue may even each uing wod not found in the keyphae ( Wimbledon gea, US Open Shoe, had cout ole ), and may till be of inteet to the advetie. Thee atifact uch a plual, ynonym, mipelling, extenion, and eodeing ae vey common,

2 and the poblem get compounded ince typical ad campaign compie eveal keyphae, each with it own et of atifact. Majo each engine help advetie adde thi challenge by poviding a tuctued bidding language. While the pecific detail diffe fom each engine to each engine [21, 22, 23], at the highet level, the bidding language uppot two match type: exact and boad. In exact matchtype (called exact in MSN AdCente and Google, and tandad in Yahoo), ad would be eligible to appea when a ue eache fo the pecific keyphae without any othe tem in the quey, and wod in the keyphae need to appea in that ode. In boad matchtype (called boad in MSN, elated to phae and boad in Google, and advanced match type in Yahoo), the ytem automatically make advetie eligible on elevant vaiation of thei keyphae including fo the vaiou atifact lited ealie, even if the each tem ae not in the keyphae lit. Thu, the each engine automate the apect of detecting atifact and matching the quey to keyphae of inteet to advetie. 1 Thu the tak of advetie become detemining the keyphae and chooing the match type on each. The quetion we adde hee i, how doe an advetie bid in peence of thee match type? Say each quey q ha a value v(q) pe click fo the advetie that i known to the advetie and i pivate. Futhe, we let c(q) be the expected pice pe click and let n(q) be the expected numbe of click. Thee ae tatitical etimate povided by the each engine [24, 25, 26]. Then, we conide two optimization poblem: (i) in one vaiant, we aume that the advetie wihe to maximize thei expected pofit, that i, P q (v(q) c(q))n(q), and (ii) in the othe vaiant, given a budget B fo the advetie, we aume that the advetie wihe to maximize thei expected value, that i, P q v(q)n(q) ubject to the condition that the expected pend P q c(q)n(q) doe not exceed the budget. The technical challenge aie due to quey dependencie. When one bid on a keyphae fo quey q, a a eult of a boad match, it may apply to quey q a well. The advetie ha diffeent value v(q) and v(q ) on thee becaue ue fo q and q diffe on thei intention and theefoe on thei epective value to the advetie. So, the advetie may make good pofit on q and may wih to bid on that quey, but i then foced to implicitly bid on q a well, and may even make negative pofit on q! Unde what cicumtance i it now deiable fo the advetie to bid fo q? Note that quey dependence i a fundamental apect of ponoed each ince advetie can ealitically only chooe and tategize on a mall et of keyphae becaue of the effot involved, and have to typically ely on the each engine to caefully apply thei tategy to vaiant of thei keyphae. But beyond that, even an ad campaign that i willing to exet a lot of effot and ue a lage numbe of keyphae o elie on a each engine to povide ich bidding language [11] will till find it impoible to include all each vaiation of the keyphae a exact matche, and mut neceaily ely on boad match fo the vaiation that 1 Thee match type may be futhe modified by enuing that the ad be not hown on occuence of cetain keywod in the quey; thi featue (called negative in MSN and Google o excluded by Yahoo) and othe tageting citeia aociated with keyphae campaign do not change the dicuion and the eult hee. each ue develop and pefe ove time. Thu, the advetie bid implicitly on queie on which they can not diectly contol the tadeoff between the cot and the value. Quey dependence intoduce a complex optimization poblem of tading off the benefit of bidding on a keyphae againt the impact of bidding on it dependent queie. In the ponoed each wold, thee i a keen awaene of thi complexity of bidding, and mot each engine and thidpaty bidding agent povide detailed tip and guideline fo advetie [27, 28]. Beyond thee guideline, what i miing i a clea theoetical undetanding of the tadeoff and the complexity of the bidding poblem that advetie face. We initiate pincipled tudy of bidding in peence of boad matche. Specifically, ou contibution ae a follow. 1. We abtact two model quey and keywod language model to tudy bidding optimization poblem. In the quey language model, the advetie bid diectly on ue queie and wihe to detemine which quey if any to bid on, to maximize expected pofit. Thi model both the theoetical exteme whee an advetie can bid on any of the queie the each engine will ee, and the pactical eality whee the advetie ha a elect et of queie in mind and wihe only to optimize within that et. In the keywod language model, advetie may bid only on a ubet of queie, and boad match implicitly deive bid a needed. Thi diectly model the common eality. 2. We peent efficient, polynomial time algoithm fo the bid optimization poblem unde thee two model. In quey bidding, we get a polynomial-time algoithm that maximize the pofit, uing a eduction to the well-known Min-Cut poblem in gaph. Thi i in contat to the poo pefomance of natual geedy algoithm fo thi poblem. We alo tudy the budgeted vaiant of the poblem, and popoe a novel tategy uing two ditinct budgeted ad campaign that get the optimal pofit. We do o by tudying the tuctue of the baic feaible olution of a coeponding linea pogamming fomulation of the poblem. Fo keywod bidding, we how that even limited intance ae NP-Had to not only optimize, but even to appoximate; to deal with thi hadne eult, we peent a contant-facto appoximation when advetie pofit following an optimal bid i conideably geate than he cot. Thi eult i baed on applying a andomized ounding method on the optimal factional olution of the linea pogamming elaxation of the poblem. Thee epeent the fit known theoetical eult fo the poblem of bid optimization in peence of boad matche, a poblem advetie face now ince thi featue i offeed by the majo each engine. Pio eeach in bid optimization fo advetie [4, 6, 16] pimaily focued on detemining uitable bid fo exact match type and doe not tudy the quey dependence and implicit bid; [9, 14] tudied the poblem of maximizing the numbe of click, and not the pofit which i the moe tandad metic. At the technical coe, ou challenge i to tadeoff poitive pofit fom

3 bidding on a keyphae that applie to one quey q againt poibly a negative pofit fom the implied bid of boad match on queie q. Thi quey dependence i a novel featue in ponoed each auction, not explicitly tudied in pio liteatue, and ou eult fo thi poblem may have application beyond, in the geneal auction theoy aea. Finally, we epot expeimental eult on a mall family of intance of the bid optimization poblem, and compute the optimal bidding uing the intege linea pogamming fomulation. Ou main obevation in thee expeiment i that by conideing only the boad match, we do not loe much in the maximum pofit of the olution. Thi uppot ou hope that unde eaonable cicumtance (imila to the one in ou expeiment), conideing only boad match i effective, and in tun, that would enable advetie to focu on campaign with mall lit of keyphae. 2. MODEL We conide the optimization poblem that an advetie face while bidding in an auction fo queie with a boad match featue. The Advetie. We conide a ingle advetie who i inteeted in howing he ad to ue afte they each fo queie fom a et Q. The advetie ha ome utility fom having a ue click on he ad. In eality, click aociated with diffeent queie may bing have utility to the advetie; The advetie ha a value of v(q) unit of monetay value aociated with a click that follow a quey q Q. We aume a poted pice model whee pice ae poted and the each volume of evey quey a well a it click though ate (i.e., the pobability that ue would click he ad) ae known to the advetie. Namely, evey quey q i aociated with a pai of paamete, known to the advetie, (c(q), n(q)), whee c(q) i the pe click cot of q, and n(q) i the expected numbe of click that would eult fom winning q (the expected numbe of click can be detemined fom the each volume of q and the advetie pecific click though ate fo q). Thu, when an advetie win a quey q, he oveall pofit 2 fom winning, denoted w(q) i w(q) = (v(q) c(q))n(q). Note that although each quey ha a poitive value, winning it may eult an oveall negative pofit. Bidding language. A bidding language i a way fo an advetie to pecify he value o willingne to pay fo queie. Eventually, the auctionee need to have a bid fo evey poible quey 3. The choice of a bidding language i citical fo the auction mechanim. At the one exteme, it may be infeaible to allow an advetie to pecify explicitly he value fo evey poible quey. On the othe hand, a language that i too etictive would not allow an advetie to communicate he pefeence popely. In ode to tudy the complexity of the optimal bidding in the boad match famewok while taking into account the 2 In thi pape, we ue tem utility and pofit intechangably. 3 A bid of 0 fo a quey may be egaded a the default in a cae whee the advetie i not explicitly inteeted in a quey q and no in queie that q match boadly. inteection among boad matche fo diffeent keywod, we fit conide a bidding language in which an advetie can pecify a bid fo evey quey q but only a a boadmatch. We efe to thi language a the quey language. To allow the mot accuate deciption of an advetie value pe quey, the ultimate way i to let the advetie pecify all poible queie with exact o boad match, and a monetay bid fo each of them. If an advetie i allowed to bid on each type of quey a an exact match a well a boad match, he can decide fo each quey independent of the othe queie, and the complexity of the bidding poblem i not captued in uch bidding language. To captue the complexity of the optimal bidding poblem and the fact that advetie may only bid on a ubet of queie, we tudy the keywod language that allow advetie to place a bid only on (ingle) keywod o hot phae. Moe peciely, in the keywod language, we aume that advetie ae allowed to bid only on a ubet S Q of queie. A futhe impovement of thi language would allow the advetie to pecify, beide a value bid fo S, whethe i to be matched exactly o boadly. in ome bidding language i aociated with a et of winning queie denoted by ϕ(b) = {q Q b(q) c(q)}. A ubet T of queie which i a winning et of ome bid b i efeed to a a feaible winning et. The utility aociated with a winning et T i A bid b R Q + u(t) = q T (v(q) c(q)) n(q), whee v( ) and n( ) ae advetie pecific. A feaible winning et with optimal utility i efeed to a an optimal winning et. The Auction. Fo evey quey, the auctionee hould decide the bid of evey advetie. Thi deciion i eay fo queie on which the advetie bid explicitly (a an exact match). Howeve, fo the queie that the advetie ha not bid diectly, but only though a boad match famewok, the auctionee hould compute an appopiate bid fo the advetie to paticipate in the auction. A natual way fo etting uch a value i to aggegate the bid value of all the phae matched by the quey. While thee ae eveal choice fo the aggegation method, in thi pape, we conide the max aggegation opeato when a quey q matche phae w 1,..., w k fom the advetie lit of phae, it bid i intepeted a b(q) = max i b(w i). We can now tate fomally the bid optimization poblem. Given advetie pecific data (A et Q, value fo queie v, each volume and click though ate n( ) ) and a bidding language L, an optimal bid b, i a feaible bid in the language L that maximize the advetie utility fom winning a et ϕ(b) of queie. Fomally, b agmax b L {u(ϕ(b))}. (2.1) Quey dependencie. We ay that a quey q depend on a quey q if winning quey q implie winning quey q. In the boad match auction in which the bid intepetation tategy i done uing the max opeato, thi happen if q matche q boadly, and it cot c(q) i le than that of c(q ). In othe wod, if a bid b win q, it mut be that b(q ) c(q ), but

4 the intepeted bid fo q i then at leat b(q ) c(q) ince c(q ) c(q), hence the bid b mut be winning q a well. A a eult, the cot tuctue incu a et of pai (q, q) whee the fit enty of each pai q S i a valid phae in the bidding language and the econd enty i a valid quey in the et of queie Q uch that winning quey q implie winning quey q. Thi et of pai i denoted by C and fomally: C = {(q, q) q S, q Q, q matche q boadly, c(q ) c(q)}. Moeove, we define D(q) = {q (q, q) C}, and N(q) = {q (q, q ) C}. Budget-contained Ad Campaign. A vaiant of the optimal bidding poblem in the boad match famewok i to find a et of queie to bid on that maximize the total value of the queie won by the advetie ubject to a budget containt, i.e, ou goal i to bid on a ubet T of queie to maximize P q T v(q)n(q) ubject to the budget containt P q T c(q)n(q) B. To handle uch a budget containt, we aume that one can un a budget-contained ad campaign by bidding on a ubet T of keywod and etting a budget B. Auming B = P q T c(q)n(q), thee ae two poibilitie in thi budget-contained ad campaign: (i) If B B, the auction i un in a nomal way and the value fom thi ad campaign fo the advetie i P q T v(q)n(q), (ii) On the othe hand, if B > B, we aume that the queie aive at the ame ate and a a eult, fo each quey, we get B B faction of the value of an ad campaign without the budget containt. In othe wod, the value that the advetie get i P B q T v(q)n(q). We can alo intepet the above B aumption by a thottling method in which, in ode to cope with the budget containt, at each tep, we let the advetie paticipate in the auction with pobability B. B 3. BIDDING IN THE QUERY LANGUAGE In thi ection, we tudy the quey language that allow placing a bid on evey quey. We obeve that in the quey language, the tak of computing an optimal bid i equivalent to that of computing an optimal winning et: Given an optimal feaible et T et a bid b(q) = c(q) fo evey quey q T with poitive weight and b(q) = 0 othewie. Lemma 3.1. A bid b deived fom an optimal winning et T, a decibed above, i an optimal bid. Poof. By contuction, the bid b win all the queie with poitive weight fom T, and evey othe quey mut belong to T (othewie T would not be feaible). We theefoe conide algoithm fo computing an optimal feaible winning et. Fit, we conide a geedy algoithm, denoted by Max-Magin Geedy. Initially, Max- Magin Geedy et the winning et to be empty. Then, iteatively, it add a bid on a quey with the highet maginal benefit to the winning et utility. Unfotunately, Max-Magin Geedy fail to compute an optimal winning et due to the following example. Example. Conide a et Q of queie which contain n keywod and anothe `n 2 queie, each of which i a pai of keywod. The cot of each quey i et to $1. Hence, the quey dependencie i uch that winning a keywod implie winning the et of n 1 queie made of pai of keywod in which thi keywod appea. The value of a keywod i et to $2; The value of a each pai i et to 1 1.5/n. So, evey keywod attain a poitive utility of $1, and evey pai caue a lo of $1.5/n. Initially, Max-Magin Geedy bid i empty. At thi point Max-Magin Geedy i tuck evey ingle quey it add to the winning et eult in a negative oveall utility. Thu, thi intance, Max-Magin Geedy would yield 0 utility. An optimal olution win all the 1.5 n 3 queie and ha a utility of n (2 1) `n (1 1) =. 2 n 4 One can exploe othe vaiant of geedy algoithm fo thi poblem. Fo example, a natual geedy algoithm i Max-Rate Geedy algoithm: Initially et the winning et to the empty et, and then iteatively, add a bid on a quey with the highet atio of maginal pofit ove the maginal cot, o the quey with the highet atio of maginal value ove maginal cot. We note that all thee iteative geedy algoithm pefom pooly fo the above example. Even a ignificant look-ahead will not eolve thi bad example. We tun to the next algoithm OptBid1 fo computing an optimal winning et. OptBid1 i a olution to the following intege linea pogam: ILP : max qi w(q i) q i Q Fo evey pai (q j, q i) C : qi qj 0 q i Q : qi {0, 1} (3.1) Fo evey quey q, an integal vaiable q i a 0-1 vaiable which i equal to 1 if and only if q belong to the winning et of queie. In ode to olve the above ILP, we elax it to a linea pogam whee intead of intege 0-1 vaiable, we have factional q vaiable with value between 0 and 1 (0 q 1). Hee, we obeve that the integality gap of thi linea pogamming elaxation i 1, i.e., fo any intance of thi linea pogam, thee exit an optimal olution in which all the value ae intege q {0, 1} fo all q Q. Lemma 3.2. The integality gap of the linea pogamming elaxation of the ILP 3.1 i one. Poof. The lemma follow fom the fact the the containt matix of the LP elaxation of ILP 3.1 i totally unimodula 4. A ufficient condition fo a matix to be totally uni-modula i that evey ow ha eithe two non-zeo entie, one i 1 and the othe 1, o a ingle non zeo enty with value 1 o 1. An intege pogam whoe containt matix i totally uni-modula and whoe ight hand ide i intege can be olved by linea pogamming ince all it baic feaible olution ae intege (ee [15] pp. 316). The above lemma implie the following polynomial-time algoithm OptBid1 fo optimal bidding in the quey language: compute a baic feaible olution of the LP elaxation of ILP 3.1, and find a bidding tategy coeponding to the winning et of, i.e., {q Q q = 1}. The unning time of Algoithm OptBid1 i that of olving a linea pogam with Ω( Q 2 ) containt, which although polynomial in Q, might be inefficient. Next, we peent a fate algoithm, OptBid2. 4 A matix A i totally uni-modula if evey quae ubmatix of it i uni-modula, i.e., evey ubmatix ha a deteminant of 0, -1 o +1.

5 8 a b a b c e f g e f h Q - a b e f Figue 1: An example of unning algoithm Opt- Bid2 on the et of queie (with the following pofit: {(a,11), (b,8),(ab, 8),(abc, 9),(ef,7),(efg, 5),(efh, 4)}), and dependency gaph a illutated. ObtBid2 will chooe the winning et {a, b, ab, abc}. The optimal bid i {(a,11),(b,8)}. Fo the pupoe of peenting Algoithm OptBid2, we define a weighted flow gaph G = (V, E), deived fom the input. The vetex et of G i V = {, t} Q + Q, whee i a ouce node, t i a taget node and Q + and Q ae the et of queie with poitive/non-poitive weight epectively, i.e., Q + {q w(q) > 0}. The ouce vetex i connected to each vetex q Q with an edge of weight w(q) = (v(q) c(q))n(q). The taget vetex t i connected with each vetex p Q + with an edge of weight w(p). Two vetice q Q, p Q + ae connected with an edge of weight if and only if (p, q) C. Algoithm OptBid2 1. Compute a min-cut of G. Let S, T be the two ide of the cut. 2. Aume, without lo of geneality, that t T. Retun T \ {t}, that i, the et of queie that ae on the ame ide of the cut a t i an optimal winning et. The unning time of Algoithm OptBid2 i that of mincut, i.e., O( Q 3 ) [18]. Theoem 3.3. Algoithm OptBid2 find an optimal winning et. Poof. We how T i an optimal winning et uing the dual pogam of ILP. DUAL : min q Q + : q Q : q Q + Z q q :(q,q ) C q:(q,q ) C (q, q ) C : Y q,q 0 q Q + : Z q 0 Q + Y q,q + Z q w(q) 7 11 Y q,q w q (Notice that w q 0) Let f = (f e) e E be a maximum flow in G, with value c. Fo evey (q, q ) C, et Y q,q := f q,q and fo evey q Q +, 8 t et Z q := w(q) P q (q,q ) C Y q,q. It i taightfowad to veify P that thi i a feaible olution of DUAL with value q Q w(q) c. + Now, obeve that T i a feaible et in the quey language. Fo evey pai (q, q ) C, we have that if q T then alo q T. Othewie, the edge (q, q ), with weight, would be pat of the cut. Thu, the value of the min cut i c = w(q) + w(q). and theefoe, u(t) = q T = q Q T w(q) = q Q + w q c. q Q + w q q Q + \T q Q + \T w(q) + q Q T w(q) We aleady found a feaible olution fo the dual of ILP, with the ame value. We theefoe conclude, uing the weak duality theoem, that T i an optimal olution of ILP. 4. BIDDING IN THE KEYWORD LANGUAGE In thi ection, we tudy optimal bidding fo the keywod language, whee the advetie i eticted to bid on a ubet of (poibly hot) queie S Q. Note that in the cae that all queie have poitive utility, the optimal bid i tivial by imply placing a high bid fo evey quey in S. In addition, finding the optimal bid when all queie ae aociated with a negative utility i tivial (a bid of $0 fo evey phae in S i optimal). Moeove, in the cae of unifom value fom evey quey, the optimal bid i eay a unifom bid equal to the unifom value guaantee winning evey quey with poitive weight and loing evey quey with negative weight, which i of coue optimal. In ealitic etting, ome queie have poitive utility and ome have negative utility. In thi cae the poblem of finding the optimal bid become intactable. Moe peciely, a we how now, even when the et of queie Q i made up fom ingle keywod and pai of keywod, thi poblem become had to appoximate within a facto of S 1 ǫ, fo evey ǫ > 0: Theoem 4.1. In the keywod language boad match famewok, it i NP-had to appoximate the optimal value of the optimal bidding poblem within a facto of S 1 ǫ, fo any ǫ > 0. Poof. We give a facto-peeving eduction to the independent et poblem. Given a gaph G with n node, and m edge, we contuct the following intance of ou poblem: put a ingleton keywod fo each node v of G with weight w v = (deg(v) 1), and put a quey coniting of a pai of keywod coeponding to each edge e of G with weight 1. The maximum value we can get fom picking a keywod i 1, and we get thi value if all of it neighbo do not appea in the output. It can be een that the optimum olution i an independent et of node (ince othewie, we get zeo o negative fom a picked node), and a a eult, the maximum value i the ame a the ize of the independent et. 4.1 A Contant-Facto Appoximation In thi ection, in light of the above hadne eult, we deign a contant-facto appoximation algoithm fo a pecial cae of the optimal bidding poblem in the keywod language

6 in which the cot pat of the optimal olution i le than 1 c of the value pat of the optimal olution, fo ome contant c > 1. Recall that D(q) = {q q S,(q, q) C}. Ou algoithm i contant-facto appoximation if fo any quey q Q \ S, D(q) i le than a contant c. We peent ou eult fo the cae that each quey q Q can be in the boad-match et of at mot two queie q 1, q 2 S, i.e., D(q) 2. Howeve, ou eult can be extended to moe geneal etting in which quey q Q can be the boad match fo a contant numbe of queie q 1,..., q c S (fo a contant c ). Baed on the above dicuion, we aume that D(q) 2 fo any quey q Q. Note that the hadne eult of the keywod language hold even fo intance in which D(q) 2 fo all queie q Q. Alo, let E = {c(q) q Q}. Ou algoithm i baed on a linea pogamming elaxation of the optimal bidding poblem fo the keywod language. The intege linea pogam i a follow: ILP-Appox max P S (Zc() q Q \ S,(, q) C,(, q) C q Q \ S,(, q) C + R )w + P q Q\S Yqwq Y q Z c(q) Y q Z c(q) S, p, p E Z p = P t E,t p W t S, p E Z p + R 1 q Q \ S Y q {0, 1} S R {0, 1} S, p E W p, Z p {0, 1} Whee the vaiable coepond to the following: (4.1) W p fo any S i the indicato vaiable coeponding to the bid of p on quey (a a boad match), Z p fo any S i the indicato vaiable coeponding to the bid of at mot p on quey (a a boad match), R fo any S i the indicato vaiable coeponding to the exact match bid on quey, Y q fo any q Q \ S i the indicato vaiable coeponding to winning quey q (a a eult of bidding on queie in S). We elax the intege 0-1 vaiable in thi intege linea pogam to factional vaiable between zeo and one, and then compute an optimal factional olution fo thi LP elaxation. Then we ound thi factional olution to contuct a feaible (integal) bidding tategy. Rounding to an Integal Solution. Given a factional olution (V, Z, W,Y ) to the LP, we ound it to an integal olution (V, W, Z, Y ) a follow: fo evey quey S, we et V = 1 with pobability 1, and V = 0 othewie. If V = 1, we et W p = 0 fo all p E. Othewie, fo each S, fo all p E, we chooe p with pobability popotional to W p (1 ǫ) (fo an appopiate mall contant ǫ that will be detemined late) and et W p = 1, and fo any p p, we et W p = 0. Afte etting all W vaiable, fo each p E and S, we et Z p = P t E,t p W t. Finally, fo any q Q \ S, Y q = 1 if and only if Z c(q) = 1 fo ome S, uch that D(p) (o equivalently (, q) C). It i not had to ee that the above ounded integal olution coepond to a feaible bidding tategy. In paticula, we can implement thi bidding tategy by putting an exact match bid of b() = c() fo any S if R = 1 (i.e., with pobability R ) and then by putting a boad match bid of = 1 (i.e., with pobability W p (1 ǫ)). A quey S i elected if bid b() fo thi quey i at leat c(). A a eult, a quey S i elected with b() = p fo quey S if W p pobability (1 ǫ)z c() +R. Moeove, fo a quey q Q\S fo which (, q) C and (,q) C, quey q i elected if the bid fo eithe of the queie o i at leat c(q), i.e., with pobability P[ quey q i elected ] = 1 (1 (1 ǫ)z c(q) )(1 (1 ǫ)z c(q) ) = ) (1 ǫ) 2 Z c(q) Z c(q). Theefoe, the expected utility of the olution afte implementing the integal olution (V, W, Z, Y ) (o bidding a deibed above) i: ((1 ǫ)z c() + R )w + q Q\S;, D(q) S ) (1 ǫ) 2 Z c(q) Z c(q) w q Next, we deive a lowe bound and an uppe bound on the pobability that the bid geneated a above, win quey q. We will how that Y q(1 ǫ)(1 1 (1 ǫ)) P[q i elected ] (1 ǫ)2yq. 2 (4.2) Conide the following et of inequalitie that hold fo evey quey q that depend on queie, D(q): Z c(q) q Z c(q) Z c(q) Z c(q) Z c(q) (4.3) 2 Y q Z c(q), The fit inequality follow the containt 0 Z c(q), Z c(q) 1 and the econd inequality i the aithmetic geometic mean inequality. The thid inequality follow the ummation of the inequalitie Z c(q) Y q and Z c(q) Y q and the lat inequality appea a a containt in the LP. The left hand ide in Inequality 4.2 follow ince ) (1 ǫ)z c(q) (1 ǫ)z c(q) (1 ǫ)2y q (1 ǫ) 2 Z c(q) Z c(q) (1 ǫ)2y q And the ight hand ide follow ) (1 ǫ) 2 Z c(q) Z c(q) ) (1 ǫ) (Zc(q) ) + Z c(q) )(1 1 (1 ǫ)) 2 Y q(1 ǫ)(1 1 (1 ǫ)). 2

7 In the ummation that decibe the oveall utility fom the queie, the pobability fo electing quey q, i multiplied by both the value and the cot of q. Uing Inequality 4.3, we get a lowe bound on the expected value fom q and an uppe bound on the expected cot of q. Let u denote the optimal utility any bidding tategy can achieve by U = V C, whee V and C ae the value and cot pat of the objective utility function, epectively. Let U = U E +U B whee U E i the utility eulting fom the exact match bidding, and U B i the utility fom the boad match bidding. Similaly we define U E = V E C E, and U B = V B C B (whee V and C coepond to the value and the cot of each pat of the olution). Knowing that fo each quey w(q) = v(q)n(q) c(q)n(q), the expected utility of the above algoithm baed on andomized ounding of the LP i at leat: (1 ǫ)(1 1 2 (1 ǫ))v B (2 2ǫ)C B + V E C E (1 ǫ)(1 1 2 (1 ǫ))v max(1,2 2ǫ)C. Lemma 4.2. By etting ǫ = 0 o ǫ = 1/2 in the above algoithm, we get that U ALG 1 2 V 2C o U ALG 3 8 V C, epectively. Given the above lemma, we conclude the following: Theoem 4.3. Fo intance of the optimal bidding poblem in which C V and each quey depend on at mot 2 4 othe queie (i.e., D(q) 2 fo each q Q \S), the above andomized algoithm i a 1 -appoximation algoithm. 6 In ode to extend the above eult fo the moe geneal cae in which D(q) c fo a contant c, we hould add the inequality Y q P D(q) Zc(q), and then one can genealize the above eult to the following: Fo any contant c, thee exit two contant c and c uch that fo intance of the optimal bidding poblem in which C V and D(q) c fo c each q Q \ S, thee exit a contant-facto appoximation algoithm. 5. BUDGET CONSTRAINTS In thi ection, we tudy the poblem with an additional budget containt, i.e, we have a budget limit B and the total cot of ou bidding tategy hould not exceed thi limit(b). Ou goal i to maximize the total value ubject to thi budget containt. Moe fomally, the poblem i a follow: Budgeted IPmax max qi v(q i)n(q i) q i Q (q j, q i) C : qi qj 0 qi c(q i)n(q i) B q i Q q i Q : qi {0, 1} (5.1) Simila to IP 3.1, fo evey quey q, an integal vaiable q indicate whethe q belong to the et of queie won by an the optimal olution o not. Thee ae two diffeence between the above IP and the IP fo quey language without the budget containt: One diffeence i in the objective function in which intead of w(q i), we have v(q i), and the (c,m) L (c`,1) (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) R Figue 2: An illutation of a bidding poblem with a lage integality gap (k = 3). moe impotant diffeence i the exta budget containt. Becaue of thi exta linea containt, the following linea pogamming elaxation of thi IP i not totally unimodula anymoe. Budgeted LP : max qi v(q i)n(q i) n q i Q Fo evey pai (q j, q i) C : qi qj 0 qi c(q i)n(q i) B q i Q T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 q i Q : 0 qi 1 (5.2) In fact, we can how that the integality gap of thi LP can be vey lage, and thu one cannot ound the factional olution of thi linea pogamming elaxation to a good integal olution (a we did fo IP 3.1). Lemma 5.1. The integality gap of linea pogamming elaxation 5.2 can be abitaily lage. Poof. Conide the following intance of the bidding poblem with a budget containt in the quey language: Let the et of queie Q = R L T whee R = { 1, 2,..., k+1 }, L = {l 1, l 2,..., l k+1 }, and T = T 1 T 2 T k+1, whee T i = {t i1, t i2,..., t in}. Fo any quey q L, we have c(q) = c and v(q) = M, and fo q R, c(q) = c and v(q) = 1. We aume that c >> c >> n >> 1. Fo any q T, v(q) = 0, and c(q) = 1. Alo, let the quey dependency tuctue be: C = {( i, l j) 1 i, j k + 1, i j} {( i, t i1 1 i k + 1} {(t ij, t i(j+1) 1 i k + 1, 1 j n 1}. It i eay to check that C matche the cot and quey definition. We alo et the budget B = c + kc + n. In thi intance of the bidding poblem, the optimal intege olution can pick at mot one node fom the et L (given the budget containt of B and the fact that c >> c >> n >> 1), and thu the optimal intege olution i M + k. On the othe hand, a a factional olution, we can et x = (c+kc +n) ((k+1)c+(k+1)c +n). The value of thi factional olution (c+kc +n) i [(k+1)m +k+1] which i appoximately ((k+1)c+(k+1)c +n) (k + 1)M. A a eult, the atio between the optimal faction olution and the integal olution can be a lage a k. Thi pove that the integality gap of the LP i abitaily lage.

8 In fact, not only the LP fo the budgeted poblem i not integal, but alo the optimal bidding poblem with a budget containt i an NP-had poblem even in the quey language. The NP-hadne follow fom the fact that thi poblem i hade than the knapack poblem. In fact, the knapack poblem i a pecial cae of thi poblem in which the et of queie ae only the keywod and C =. Depite the lage integality gap of the above LP and NP-hadne of the poblem, in the following we how how one can ue a cetain et of optimal olution of thi LP to implement two budget contained ad campaign fo an ad auction with boad-match that achieve the optimal factional olution of the above LP. We how thi fact by poving the exitence of optimal olution fo the LP with cetain tuctual popetie. The key tuctual lemma i the following: Lemma 5.2. The Linea Pogam 5.2 ha at leat one optimal olution fo which thee exit a value uch that: fo each quey q, q {0, 1, }. Moeove, thi optimal olution can be found in polynomial time. Poof. We pove thi fact by howing that an optimal baic feaible olution of the LP atifie the deied popetie. Fom tandad linea pogamming theoy, we know that uch a baic olution exit, and can be found in polynomial time. Conide an optimal baic feaible olution of the LP 5.2. Since the LP ha Q vaiable, a baic feaible olution can be uniquely chaacteized by Q tight inequalitie. In othe wod, thee i a et P of Q independent linea equation among the linea containt that chaacteize. Let P 1 P be a et of thee Q linea equation of the fom q i = 0 o q i = 1. Each linea equation in P 1 coepond to an integal vaiable q i. Let S 1 be the et of queie q i coeponding to thee integal vaiable q i. Alo let P 2 P be a et of thee Q linea equation of the fom q i = q j. We contuct a gaph G(, P 2) whoe vetex et V (G) i the et of vaiable q i fo all queie q i Q a follow: we put an edge between a vetex q i to a vetex q j if and only if q i = q j i a linea equation in P 2. Thu, if thee i path between two node q i and q j in G, we have q i = q j. Let the connected component of G be G 1, G 2,..., G t. A a eult, fo any two vaiable q i and q j in the ame connected component G p fo 1 p t, we have q i = q j (ince thee i a path between any two node in the ame connected component.) We ay that a connected component G p i a bad component if none of the node in G p ae in S 1. Othewie, we ay that G p i a good component. In the following, we how that the numbe of bad component i at mot one, and thi will pove the lemma. In ode to pove thi claim, we need to pove the following lemma: Lemma 5.3. Gaph G a defined above doe not have any cycle. Poof. Fo contadiction, aume that thee exit a cycle 1, 2,, v in gaph G. Thu, all linea equation i = i+1 fo 1 i v 1, and v = 1 ae in P. But thee v equation ae not independent, and thi cycle contadict the fact that P i a et of independent linea equation. Lemma 5.3 pove that gaph G i a foet, and thu connected component G i fo 1 i p ae all tee, and each ha V (G i) 1 edge. Now, we obeve that fo any good component G i, thee exit exactly one equation in P 1. Fo any good component G i, thee ae V (G i) 1 equation coeponding to edge of G i, and at leat one equation in P 1. If thee two uch equation in P 1 fo node of G i, then the union of thee two equation and equation coeponding to edge of G i fom V (G i) + 1 equation in P all defined on only vaiable on V (G i). A a eult, thee equation cannot be independent, which contadict with the fact that P i a et of independent equation. A a eult, each good component G i coepond to exactly V (G i) equation in P. Let Y be the et of vaiable q i in good connected component of G(, P 2). Thu, Y coepond to a et of all integal vaiable q i. The above dicuion implie that thee ae exactly Y equation in P chaacteizing all vaiable in Y. A a eult, thee ae P Y equation uniquely identifying all the (factional) vaiable in Q\Y. Noting that P = Q, we conclude that Q\Y equation uniquely identify all the (factional) vaiable in Q\Y, and none of thee equation ae of the fom q i = 0 o q i = 1. At mot one of thee equation coepond to a tight budget containt ( P q i Q q i c(q i)n(q i) = B), and thu we have at leat Q\Y 1 equation of the fom q i = q j on vaiable Q\Y in bad component. Since thee i no cycle in gaph G and vetice in Q\Y have at leat Q\Y 1 edge amongt them, they hould all belong to the ame connected component (i.e, the only one bad connected component), and thu have the ame value q i =. Thi complete the poof of the lemma. Uing Lemma 5.2, we can how that in the quey language model, one can implement the optimal factional olution uing two budget-contained ad campaign. To fomally how thi, we aume that queie aive at the ame ate, and by putting a budget containt on an ad campaign (that include a et of queie), the budget on all queie i conumed at the ame ate until it get ued completely. Theoem 5.4. In the quey language model, thee exit a polynomial-time algoithm that compute two budgetcontained ad campaign that implement an optimal bidding tategy achieving the maximum value fo the advetie given a budget containt. Poof. The polynomial-time algoithm i a follow: 1. Solve LP 5.2 and compute an optimal olution uch that q i {0, 1, } fo all queie q i. 2. Let S 0 and S 1 be the et of queie with the coeponding integal vaiable q i = 0 and q i = 1, epectively. 3. Let B 1 = P q i S 1 q i c(q i)n(q i). 4. Run the following two ad campaign: (a) A campaign with budget B 1 on queie in S 1. (b) A campaign with budget B B 1 on queie in Q\(S 0 S 1). Lemma 5.2 how that the fit tep of thi algoithm can be done in polynomial time. To how the coectne of the algoithm, note that auming that queie aive at

9 the ame ate, and baed on the definition of the budgetcontained ad campaign, the value fom thee two ad campaign i: v(q)n(q) + B B1 B q S 1 q Q\(S 0 S 1 ) v(q)n(q), whee B = P q Q\(S 0 S 1 ) c(q)n(q). Note that q i = 1 fo q i S 1, we have B 1 = P q i S 1 q i c(q i)n(q i) = P q i S 1 c(q i)n(q i), and thu B 1 + P q Q\(S 0 S 1 ) c(q)n(q) = B, theefoe, = P B B 1 B B1 =. c(q)n(q) B q Q\(S 0 S 1 ) Thu, the value of the optimal olution i: v(q)n(q) + v(q)n(q) = q S 1 q Q\(S 0 S 1 ) v(q)n(q) + B B1 v(q)n(q). B q S 1 q Q\(S 0 S 1 ) Hence, the total value fom thee two campaign i the ame a the optimal factional olution, a deied. Finally, we obeve that the optimal bidding poblem with a budget containt i AP-had fo the keywod language. Theoem 5.5. The optimal bidding poblem with a budget containt i AP-had fo the keywod language. Moeove, thi poblem i not appoximable within a facto bette than a multiplicative facto 1 1 e. Poof. We give a imple eduction fom the maximum coveage poblem. In an intance of the maximum coveage poblem, we ae given a family of ubet S 1,..., S k V, and a value w(e) fo each element e V. The goal i to P find a family of k ubet S a1,..., S ak that maximize e i k S ai. Given an intance of the maximum coveage poblem, we define an intance of optimal bidding poblem a follow: fo each ubet S i (1 i k) in the maximum coveage poblem, we put a keywod Si in the et S of keywod in the optimal bidding poblem. The cot c() of each keywod in S i 1 and it value i zeo. We alo put a quey q e Q coeponding to each element e V of the maximum coveage poblem. The value of quey q e Q\S i one and the cot of each quey i zeo. Moeove, we ay that a quey q e coeponding to an element e can be boadly matched with any quey Si S coeponding to any ubet S i of the maximum coveage poblem that include the element e, i.e., e S i. Finally, we et the budget containt B to k. It i not had to ee that the maximum value bidding tategy on keywod in thi intance with the total cot at mot B coepond to the maximum value et-coveage of at mot k et in the oiginal poblem. Thi eduction implie that ou poblem i not appoximable within a facto bette than 1 1 unle P=NP, ince the maximum coveage e poblem i NP-had to appoximate within a facto bette than 1 1 [8]. e 6. AN EPERIMENTAL STUDY In thi ection, we epot eult fom an expeimental tudy to adde how much an ad campaign loe by uing olely boad match athe than a combination of exact and boad match type. Ou imulation i compoed of 30 keywod, whee we conide all pai of keywod a the et of poible queie. Theefoe, while thee ae only 30 keywod an advetie who i inteeted in managing all poible queie will have 435 keywod to conide, which i tediou fo mall advetie. Mot advetie will pefe a campaign with a mall et of keywod which they can eaily tack and evaluate, which in ou imulation i epeented by the coe 30 keywod. The etup i vey imple. All queie have the ame cot. The net value of a quey i detemined a follow. The value of a keywod i dawn fom a tandad nomal ditibution. The net value of a quey i eithe (1) the aveage net value of it keywod, o (2) the max value among it keywod, o (3) the min value among it keywod; the pecie net value of a quey i decided accoding to 1 3 unifomly at andom. Thi etting i looely motivated by the intuition that ome queie jut aveage the keywod in the quey (like Canon o Nikon ), ome ae valued a the bet among the keywod (like Canon DSLR ), and ome valued a the wot among the keywod (like Canon calculato ). Running the imulation 15 time, we obtain that the aveage value obtained by olving the intege linea pogam while allowing both exact match and boad match wa while allowing only boad match wa Futhemoe we obtain that the maximum atio between the two wa le than 4 pecent. Thi imple imulation uppot ou initial hope that not uing exact match may be a ealitic aumption fo ome advetie, in paticula, mall to medium advetie. We mut emak that a moe detailed expeimental tudy i needed to be moe concluive. Ou hope i that ou LP-baed algoithm can indeed be un with eaonably ized poblem fo thi pupoe. 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS Ou wok initiate the tudy of the bid optimization poblem fo advetie in peence of a common featue in ponoed each, ie., the boad match type. The cental technical iue i that chooing to bid on a keyphae may yield poitive pofit fom ome queie, but may commit one to implicitly bid on queie in which the pofit may be mall o even negative. We popoe LP-baed polynomial-time algoithm fo thi poblem which i optimal unde the quey language model, and i an appoximation in the keywod language model fo cetain cae while it i NP-Had to even appoximate the optimal olution to any facto, in geneal. Ou wok leave open eveal eeach poblem. A technical poblem i to extend the eult hee to the multi-lot cae. Moe peciely, given a landcape that i a function of bid and give etimated click and cot, obtain the pofit-maximizing bidding tategy. A conceptual poblem i to detemine a uitable appoach fo boad match auction whee each engine ae able to povide faithful etimate fo click and cot aociated with the boad matche, o advetie can bid accuately. Thi involve aveaging ove many elated queie. A pincipled appoach to fomulating thi notion will be of geat inteet. Finally, a pecific technical quetion that emain open in thi pape i the appoximability of the budget-contained veion of the optimal bidding poblem in the keywod language. An inteeting apect of thi poblem i the following elation to ubmodula optimization. Given a ubet T S of keywod on which we can bid, let u denote the total cot

10 and value of the queie that we win a a eult of bidding on keywod in T by C(T) and V (T). One can check that both the value and cot function V, C : 2 S R ae etcove-type et function, and thu they ae monotone and ubmodula. 5 The optimal bidding poblem with a budget containt in the quey language i, theefoe, to find a ubet T S of keywod that maximize the ubmodula function V (T) ubject to the ubmodula containt C(T) B. Contant-facto appoximation algoithm ae known fo maximizing a geneal monotone ubmodula function ubject to a knapack (modula) containt [19], but maximizing ubmodula function ubject to a ubmodula containt (a in ou cae) i an open quetion. 8. REFERENCES [1] Poition Auction with Conume Seach. Woking Pape, Sept [2] G. Aggawal, A. Goel, and R. Motwani. Tuthful auction fo picing each keywod. In ACM Confeence on Electonic Commece (EC), [3] G. Aggawal and J. D. Hatline, Knapack Auction, Poceeding of the Seventeenth Annual ACM-SIAM Sympoium on Dicete Algoithm (SODA), [4] C. Bog, J. Chaye, O. Eteami, N. Immolica, K. Jain, M. Mahdian: Dynamic of bid optimization in online advetiement auction. WWW 2007: [5] C. Bog, J. T. Chaye, N. Immolica, M. Mahdian, and A. Sabei. Multi-unit auction with budget-contained bidde. In ACM Confeence on Electonic Commece (EC), [6] D. Chakabaty, Y. Zhou, R. Lukoe. Budget Contained Bidding in Keywod Auction and Online Knapack Poblem. 3d Wokhop on Sponoed Seach Auction (SSA), [7] B. Edelman, M. Otovky, and M. Schwaz. Intenet advetiing and the genealized econd pice auction: Selling billion of dolla woth of keywod. In Second wokhop on ponoed each auction, [8] U. Feige. A Thehold of ln n fo Appoximating Set Cove. Jounal of ACM, 45(4): , 1998 [9] J. Feldman, S. Muthukihnan, M. Pál and C. Stein. Budget optimization in each-baed advetiing auction. ACM Confeence on Electonic Commece, [10] M. Gaey and D. Johnon. Compute and Intactability: A Guide to the Theoy of NP-Completene. WH Feeman & Co New Yok, [11] D. Matin, J. Gehke, and J. Halpein. Towad Expeive and Scalable Sponoed Seach Auction [12] M. Mahdian, H. Nazezadeh, and A. Sabei Allocating Online Advetiement Space with Uneliable Etimate Poceeding 8th ACM Confeence on Electonic Commece (EC), [13] A. Mehta, A. Sabei, U. Vaziani, and V. Vaziani. AdWod and Genealized Online Matching. Jounal of the ACM, Volume 54, Iue 5, A et function f : 2 S R i ubmodula if and only fo any two ubet A and B, f(a) + f(b) f(a B) + f(a B). [14] S. Muthukihnan, M. Pál, and Z. Svitkina. Stochatic model fo budget optimization in each-baed advetiing. In Poc. Wokhop on Intenet and Netwok Economic (WINE), [15] Chito H. Papadimitiou and Kenneth Steiglitz. Combinatoial Optimization. Pentice Hall [16] P. Rumevichientong and D. Williamon. An adaptive algoithm fo electing pofitable keywod fo each-baed advetiing evice. ACM Confeence on Electonic Commece 2006: [17] A. Schijve. Combinatoial Optimization. Spinge, [18] M. Stoe and F. Wagne. A imple min-cut algoithm. Jounal of the ACM, 44(4): , July [19] M. Sviidenko. A note on maximizing a ubmodula et function ubject to knapack containt. Opeation Reeach Lette 32 (2004), [20] H. Vaian. Poition auction. Intenational Jounal of Indutial Oganization, 25(6): , Decembe [21] [22] mat [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Yahoo! Seach Maketing Advetie Wokbook [28] boad matching.