  The transition of display ad exchanges from second-price to first-price
auctions has raised questions about its impact on revenue. Evaluating this
shift empirically proves challenging. One key factor is the behavior of
automated bidding agents, who are unlikely to use static game-theoretical
equilibrium strategies instead of favoring dynamic realms that continuously
adapt and learn independently through the process of exploration and
exploitation. Thus revenue equivalence between first- and second-price auctions
might not hold. Research on algorithmic collusion in display ad auctions found
revenue differences between second-price and first-price auctions. First-price
auctions can induce Q-learning agents to tacitly collude below the Nash
equilibrium in repeated complete-information auctions with payoff-maximizing
agents (i.e., agents maximizing value minus price). Our analysis explores
wide-spread online learning algorithms' convergence behavior in both complete
and incomplete information models, but does not find a systematic deviance from
equilibrium behavior. Convergence for Q-learning depends on hyperparameters and
initializations, and algorithmic collusion vanishes when competing against
other learning algorithms. Apart from their learning behavior, the objectives
reported in the literature extend payoff maximization, often focusing on
return-on-investment or return-on-spend. We derive equilibrium bid functions
for such utility models, revealing that revenue equivalence doesn't hold. In
low-competition scenarios, the first-price auction often yields lower revenue
than the second-price counterpart. These insights offer an alternative
rationale for the potential revenue decrease in first-price auctions.
Understanding the intricate interplay of auction rules, learning algorithms,
and utility models is crucial in maximizing revenue in the ever-evolving world
of display ad exchanges.
