  Recent empirical work demonstrates that online advertisement can exhibit bias
in the delivery of ads across users even when all advertisers bid in a
non-discriminatory manner. We study the design of ad auctions that, given fair
bids, are guaranteed to produce fair outcomes. Following the works of Dwork and
Ilvento (2019) and Chawla et al. (2020), our goal is to design a truthful
auction that satisfies ``individual fairness'' in its outcomes: informally
speaking, users that are similar to each other should obtain similar
allocations of ads. Within this framework we quantify the tradeoff between
social welfare maximization and fairness.
  This work makes two conceptual contributions. First, we express the fairness
constraint as a kind of stability condition: any two users that are assigned
multiplicatively similar values by all the advertisers must receive additively
similar allocations for each advertiser. This value stability constraint is
expressed as a function that maps the multiplicative distance between value
vectors to the maximum allowable $\ell_{\infty}$ distance between the
corresponding allocations. Standard auctions do not satisfy this kind of value
stability.
  Second, we introduce a new class of allocation algorithms called Inverse
Proportional Allocation that achieve a near optimal tradeoff between fairness
and social welfare for a broad and expressive class of value stability
conditions. These allocation algorithms are truthful and prior-free, and
achieve a constant factor approximation to the optimal (unconstrained) social
welfare. In particular, the approximation ratio is independent of the number of
advertisers in the system. In this respect, these allocation algorithms greatly
surpass the guarantees achieved in previous work. We also extend our results to
broader notions of fairness that we call subset fairness.
