logbook.json (verbatim titles)
Browse files- logbook.json +63 -0
logbook.json
ADDED
|
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
+
{
|
| 2 |
+
"schema_version": 1,
|
| 3 |
+
"title": "Repro: The (Marginal) Value of a Search Ad — Repeated Second-price Auctions",
|
| 4 |
+
"emoji": "chart",
|
| 5 |
+
"space_id": "snaykey/repro-spa-binary-feedback",
|
| 6 |
+
"paper": {
|
| 7 |
+
"openreview_id": "UflglraWRa"
|
| 8 |
+
},
|
| 9 |
+
"tags": [
|
| 10 |
+
"icml2026-repro",
|
| 11 |
+
"paper-UflglraWRa"
|
| 12 |
+
],
|
| 13 |
+
"updated_at": "2026-07-25T22:40:00+00:00",
|
| 14 |
+
"root": {
|
| 15 |
+
"slug": "index",
|
| 16 |
+
"title": "Repro: The (Marginal) Value of a Search Ad — Repeated Second-price Auctions",
|
| 17 |
+
"file": "pages/index.md",
|
| 18 |
+
"children": [
|
| 19 |
+
{
|
| 20 |
+
"slug": "executive-summary",
|
| 21 |
+
"title": "Executive summary",
|
| 22 |
+
"file": "pages/executive-summary/page.md",
|
| 23 |
+
"children": []
|
| 24 |
+
},
|
| 25 |
+
{
|
| 26 |
+
"slug": "claim-1-thm1-spa-binary-regret",
|
| 27 |
+
"title": "Under binary feedback, the proposed algorithm for repeated second-price auctions achieves regret O(√(dT) log³T + d log⁵T), where d is the feature dimension and T the horizon (Theorem 1).",
|
| 28 |
+
"file": "pages/claim-1-thm1-spa-binary-regret/page.md",
|
| 29 |
+
"children": []
|
| 30 |
+
},
|
| 31 |
+
{
|
| 32 |
+
"slug": "claim-2-thm2-lower-bound",
|
| 33 |
+
"title": "A matching minimax lower bound of Ω(√(dT)) holds for T ≥ d², even when the bidder has perfect knowledge of the competing-bid CDF (Theorem 2).",
|
| 34 |
+
"file": "pages/claim-2-thm2-lower-bound/page.md",
|
| 35 |
+
"children": []
|
| 36 |
+
},
|
| 37 |
+
{
|
| 38 |
+
"slug": "claim-3-spa-vs-fpa-binary",
|
| 39 |
+
"title": "Under binary feedback, second-price auctions admit Õ(√(dT)) regret while first-price auctions are limited to Õ(T^(2/3)) regret, showing the payment rule strictly improves achievable regret (Section on regret comparison).",
|
| 40 |
+
"file": "pages/claim-3-spa-vs-fpa-binary/page.md",
|
| 41 |
+
"children": []
|
| 42 |
+
},
|
| 43 |
+
{
|
| 44 |
+
"slug": "claim-4-full-info-both-sqrt",
|
| 45 |
+
"title": "Under full-information feedback, both second-price and first-price auctions achieve the same Õ(√(dT)) regret rate, so the SPA advantage is specific to the binary-feedback setting (Section on regret comparison).",
|
| 46 |
+
"file": "pages/claim-4-full-info-both-sqrt/page.md",
|
| 47 |
+
"children": []
|
| 48 |
+
},
|
| 49 |
+
{
|
| 50 |
+
"slug": "claim-5-interval-splitting-hob",
|
| 51 |
+
"title": "Section 3 introduces an interval-splitting technique to estimate the highest-other-bid (HOB) directly from the observed payment in a won second-price auction (Section 3).",
|
| 52 |
+
"file": "pages/claim-5-interval-splitting-hob/page.md",
|
| 53 |
+
"children": []
|
| 54 |
+
},
|
| 55 |
+
{
|
| 56 |
+
"slug": "conclusion",
|
| 57 |
+
"title": "Conclusion",
|
| 58 |
+
"file": "pages/conclusion/page.md",
|
| 59 |
+
"children": []
|
| 60 |
+
}
|
| 61 |
+
]
|
| 62 |
+
}
|
| 63 |
+
}
|