Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

AuctionNet: A Novel Benchmark for Decision-Making in Large-Scale Games

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AuctionNet constructs a large-scale ad-auction benchmark from a latent-diffusion generator, 48 auto-bidding agents, and more than 500 million auction records, giving the research community a shared testbed for auto-bidding.

desk verdict A substantial, genuinely useful auto-bidding benchmark whose main realism claim is stronger than the validation supports; worth reviewing and citing, but needs honest re-scoping. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10798 v2 pith:F4F6IXPA submitted 2024-12-14 cs.AI cs.LG

Kefan Su , Yusen Huo , Zhilin Zhang , Shuai Dou , Chuan Yu , Jian Xu , Zongqing Lu , Bo Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords auto-biddingadauctionsbenchmarklatentdiffusionmodellarge-scalegamesgeneralizedsecond-priceauctionofflinereinforcementlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

AuctionNet is a benchmark for the auto-bidding problem: an advertiser's agent repeatedly bids on arriving ad opportunities to maximize acquired value under a budget. The paper's central claim is that a realistic large-scale ad-auction environment can be reproduced from production advertising data without releasing raw user information, by generating synthetic ad opportunities with a latent diffusion model, pitting 48 diverse auto-bidding agents against each other, and clearing bids through a generalized second-price auction (the winner pays just above the second-highest bid). The authors pre-generated a dataset of 10 million ad opportunities and more than 500 million auction records, and report baselines from online linear programming, reinforcement learning, and imitation or sequence-modeling agents. If the generative module is faithful, AuctionNet gives the research community a common, realistic testbed for comparing auto-bidding algorithms and for studying decision-making in large-scale games more broadly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ad-opportunity generation module. It is a Latent Diffusion Model (LDM): an encoder compresses real ad-opportunity feature vectors into a low-dimensional latent space, a denoising network learns to generate latent vectors from Gaussian noise, and a decoder maps those latents back to synthetic user features; a multi-head attention value predictor then attaches advertiser category and time-of-day information to each generated feature. This two-stage design is what lets the environment mimic real user distributions—identity fields, consumption behavior, and their correlations—while avoiding exposure of sensitive raw records. Around this core, the bidding module supplies the 48 competing agents and the auction module applies generalized second-price rules with three exposure-ranked slots, turning generated impressions into a competitive game that respects budget constraints.

What would settle it

Train a fixed set of bidding agents on AuctionNet and evaluate them on held-out real auction logs (or a live traffic slice) for the same categories and budgets; if the relative ranking of the agents, or their absolute reward, changes materially compared with agents trained on real data, the benchmark's claim to faithfully replicate real-world ad auctions is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery AuctionNet offers is that the full loop of a production-style ad auction—synthetic opportunity arrival, multi-agent bidding, auction clearing, budget update, and performance feedback—can be packaged as an open benchmark with realistic statistical texture. In the paper's own framing, the environment effectively replicates the integrity and complexity of real-world ad auctions through the interaction of its opportunity-generation, bidding, and auction modules: the first uses a latent diffusion model plus a value predictor to synthesize user-ad features and values; the second provides 48 agents, some controllable and some not; the third implements generalized second-price clearing with multiple display slots. The pre-generated dataset (10 million opportunities, more than 500 million records across 21 episodes and 48 time steps) is offered both as offline training material and as a source of insight into how impression values vary by category and time. The baseline experiments show online LP outperforming the included learning-based agents on the basic task, with all agents dropping under a target-CPA penalty.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the latent-diffusion generator produces ad opportunities that are statistically representative enough of real production traffic that algorithms tuned on AuctionNet behave the same way in practice; this premise is validated only by density plots, PCA overlap, and an MSE-versus-standard-deviation comparison, with specific biases in rare VIP levels acknowledged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers get a shared large-scale testbed in which auto-bidding agents face 48 competitors, budget constraints, and multi-slot GSP auctions, making results across papers directly comparable.
  • The 500-million-record dataset supports offline reinforcement learning and sequence-modeling research without any interaction with a live advertising platform.
  • Because the auction module is customizable and only a subset of agents need be controllable, mechanism-design, multi-agent, and budget-pacing questions can be studied within one environment.
  • The baseline results provide reference points: online LP is strongest among the included methods on the basic task, and all methods lose value under the target-CPA penalty.
  • The benchmark's POSG formulation and standard environment-style interface extend its use beyond ads to decision-making in large-scale games generally.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transfer assumption holds, AuctionNet could become the default offline benchmark for auto-bidding, letting groups without production traffic compete on equal footing with industry labs.
  • The acknowledged biases in rare user strata (VIP levels 7 and 8) suggest the generator should be stress-tested on long-tail segments; conditioning generation on those strata or reweighting them would be a natural extension.
  • Because the environment defines value as the product of predicted CTR and CVR and assumes these predictions are accurate, benchmark results also probe how robustly agents handle calibrated value estimates, not only auction strategy.
  • The multi-slot exposure discount and the observed category-time value patterns imply that budget pacing across the day is as important as per-auction bidding, a dimension that could be isolated as its own benchmark task.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AuctionNet, a benchmark for auto-bidding in large-scale ad auctions. It consists of an ad auction environment (with an ad opportunity generation module based on latent diffusion and value prediction, a bidding module with multiple baseline agents, and a GSP-based auction module), a pre-generated dataset containing 10 million ad opportunities, 48 agents, and over 500 million auction records, and performance evaluations of baseline algorithms such as PID, Online LP, IQL, Behavior Cloning, and Decision Transformer. The authors claim the environment effectively replicates the integrity and complexity of real-world ad auctions, and report that AuctionNet powered the NeurIPS 2024 Auto-Bidding in Large-Scale Auctions competition with more than 1,500 participating teams.

Significance. If validated, AuctionNet fills a genuine gap: it provides a publicly described, large-scale, realistic ad auction environment with an offline dataset and baseline implementations, useful to researchers in reinforcement learning, mechanism design, and generative modeling. The scale (48 agents, over 500 million records) and the demonstrated deployment in a large competition are concrete strengths. The paper also ships code, a dataset datasheet, and baseline agent models, which are valuable community resources. However, the central realism claim currently rests on limited validation, and the quantitative evidence as presented is not yet convincing; with additional auction-level validation and proper uncertainty reporting, this could become a strong benchmark contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The central claim that AuctionNet 'effectively replicates the integrity and complexity of real-world ad auctions' is not supported by the validation in §4.1. The reported evidence is limited to marginal user-feature density plots (Figures 4–5), a PCA overlap visualization (Figure 3), and mean squared errors of value predictions aggregated over categories and time (Table 1). Figures 8–9 show joint value structure only for the generated dataset, with no real-world comparison, and there is no validation of auction-level quantities—winning prices, win rates, slot allocation, cost distributions, or ROI—that determine what an auto-bidding policy actually experiences. Without such a comparison, or a downstream transfer test from AuctionNet to a held-out real auction log, the realism premise that policies trained on AuctionNet transfer to production remains unverified.
  2. [§4.1, Table 1] Table 1's criterion for accuracy is not valid as stated. The table compares MSE, which is in squared units, to the standard deviation, which is in linear units; the appropriate check is RMSE versus standard deviation or MSE versus variance. For row pCVR_category, original_std = 0.0685 and MSE = 0.0341, so RMSE ≈ 0.185, which is larger than the standard deviation. Please specify the exact quantity over which the MSE is computed (per-instance, per-category means, or per-time means) and report RMSE or a calibration curve; as reported, the table does not support the claim in §4.1 that the prediction model 'is accurate.'
  3. [§5, Figure 10, Checklist 3(c)] Baseline comparisons in §5, Figure 10 lack any measure of uncertainty, and checklist item 3(c) references a nonexistent 'Section ??'. Appendix A states that seven rounds with permuted agent order were run and that the best agent per algorithm was selected as the representative; this selection procedure can bias means, and without error bars the reader cannot assess whether the reported ordering (e.g., Online LP best) is stable. Please report the mean and standard deviation (or confidence intervals) across the seven rounds, state the selection rule explicitly, and fix the checklist reference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D] Fields (c21) and (c22) are both named 'vstItmCnt' with the same dimension [158,159); this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 7] The caption states that shaded areas are 'related to the standard deviation' but does not indicate whether these are original or predicted standard deviations; please specify.
  3. [References] References [5] and [6] appear to be duplicates (both are the OpenAI Gym citation); the in-text citation [6] should be corrected or merged.
  4. [§3.1 / §4.1] The assumption value = pCTR · pCVR with accurate estimates is introduced in §4.1 but determines the value matrix v_{ij} defined in §2; please state this assumption in the problem formulation and note it as a modeling simplification in the limitations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AuctionNet's realism claim is checked against external real-world data, and self-citations appear only as baselines or related work.

full rationale

AuctionNet is a resource and benchmark paper rather than a derivation chain, so the circularity tests for derived predictions do not directly apply. The central claim that the environment replicates real-world ad auctions is supported by the ad opportunity generation module trained on real online advertising data and then compared with real-world data through PCA visualization, marginal distribution plots, and MSE-versus-standard-deviation comparisons. These checks are external to the benchmark's own outputs, not an internal consistency argument. The value definition value = pCTR * pCVR is an explicitly stated modeling assumption used inside the environment, and the value prediction model is validated against real-world ground truth; this is a supervised accuracy evaluation, not a conclusion that reduces to its own input. Self-citations to Alibaba-affiliated works such as AIGB, TIRL, and prior constrained-bidding formulations appear as baseline algorithms or background references, and none of them is invoked to justify the benchmark's validity or to forbid alternative designs. The acknowledged generation biases and the absence of auction-level validation (e.g., win rates, prices, or transfer tests) are substantive evidence-quality limitations, but they are not circularity: the paper does not define realism in terms of its own generated data. Therefore, no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

AuctionNet introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; it is a benchmark environment and dataset. The central assumptions are domain simplifications (linear bid multiplier, accurate value predictions, representativeness of generated data, GSP with three slots). The main free parameters are design choices for the two tasks and the scale of the simulation.

free parameters (3)
  • CPA penalty exponent beta = 3
    Chosen by hand in Appendix E.2, p(cpai; di) = min((di/cpai)^beta, 1). This shapes the penalty for exceeding the CPA constraint and directly affects the Target CPA task rewards and agent behavior.
  • Number of auction slots l = 3
    Set to 3 in Appendix G.2. Multi-slot allocation with exposure rates changes optimal bidding strategies, as the exposure rate discounts both value and cost.
  • Number of competing agents = 48
    Footnote 4 asserts 'Real-world data show that 48 agents can ensure competitive pressure for auto-bidding agent training' without providing an ablation or external citation. This number sets the scale of the dataset and affects the multi-agent dynamics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The optimal bid is proportional to the ad opportunity value, so the action space reduces to a single multiplier alpha_i per agent per step.
    Invoked in Section 2, citing Balseiro et al. This restricts the policy class and is a standard convention in auto-bidding, but it is an assumption about the optimality structure.
  • domain assumption Predictions of pCTR and pCVR are accurate, and value equals pCTR times pCVR.
    Section 4.1 states 'for simplicity, we assume that the estimations are accurate'. The environment feeds model predictions as the true values, which may mask calibration errors and simplify the bidding problem.
  • domain assumption Generated ad opportunity features and predicted values are representative of real-world data.
    This is the core premise of the benchmark, asserted in Sections 3.1 and 4.1. The paper's own verification admits biases (VIP level 7, level 8 trends), so the assumption is only partially satisfied.
  • domain assumption The generalized second price auction with three slots and exposure-rate discounting captures real-world auction mechanics.
    Sections 3.3 and G.2 default to GSP, whereas real platforms use a mix of first-price, second-price, and other mechanisms. This simplification is acknowledged but not validated against a real auction distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AuctionNet: A Novel Benchmark for Decision-Making in Large-Scale Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4F6IXPA

@misc{pith2026241210798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AuctionNet: A Novel Benchmark for Decision-Making in Large-Scale Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4F6IXPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10798}
}
read the original abstract

Decision-making in large-scale games is an essential research area in artificial intelligence (AI) with significant real-world impact. However, the limited access to realistic large-scale game environments has hindered research progress in this area. In this paper, we present AuctionNet, a benchmark for bid decision-making in large-scale ad auctions derived from a real-world online advertising platform. AuctionNet is composed of three parts: an ad auction environment, a pre-generated dataset based on the environment, and performance evaluations of several baseline bid decision-making algorithms. More specifically, the environment effectively replicates the integrity and complexity of real-world ad auctions through the interaction of several modules: the ad opportunity generation module employs deep generative networks to bridge the gap between simulated and real-world data while mitigating the risk of sensitive data exposure; the bidding module implements diverse auto-bidding agents trained with different decision-making algorithms; and the auction module is anchored in the classic Generalized Second Price (GSP) auction but also allows for customization of auction mechanisms as needed. To facilitate research and provide insights into the environment, we have also pre-generated a substantial dataset based on the environment. The dataset contains 10 million ad opportunities, 48 diverse auto-bidding agents, and over 500 million auction records. Performance evaluations of baseline algorithms such as linear programming, reinforcement learning, and generative models for bid decision-making are also presented as a part of AuctionNet. We believe that AuctionNet is applicable not only to research on bid decision-making in ad auctions but also to the general area of decision-making in large-scale games.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of typical large-scale online advertising platform. Numbers 1 through 5 illustrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the pipeline of the ad opportunity generation network. The generation process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 3D PCA results of 100K generated data and 100K real-world data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of identity information including the Taobao VIP level, the preferred phone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of consumption behavior information including the number of collected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mean values of consumption behavior information including the number of cart items, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The means of the predicted pCTR, pCVR, and value in different categories and time steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The joint value distribution between different categories and time in the dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The joint value distribution between Category 1 and other categories in the dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The empirical results of baseline algorithms on the basic task and Target CPA task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JD-BP: A Joint-Decision Generative Framework for Auto-Bidding and Pricing

    cs.GT 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    JD-BP jointly generates bids and pricing corrections via generative models, memory-less return-to-go, trajectory augmentation, and energy-based DPO to improve auto-bidding performance despite prediction errors and latency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    https://tianchi

    NeurIPS 2024 Competition: Auto-Bidding in Large-Scale Auctions. https://tianchi. aliyun.com/specials/promotion/neurips2024_alimama#/?lang=en_us. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Thompson sampling for contextual bandits with linear payoffs

    Shipra Agrawal and Navin Goyal. Thompson sampling for contextual bandits with linear payoffs. In International conference on machine learning, pages 127–135. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Repeated auctions with budgets in ad exchanges: Approximations and design

    Santiago R Balseiro, Omar Besbes, and Gabriel Y Weintraub. Repeated auctions with budgets in ad exchanges: Approximations and design. Management Science, 61(4):864–884, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    S. Bennett. Development of the pid controller. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 13(6):58–62, 1993

    work page 1993

  5. [6]

    Openai gym, 2016

    Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. Openai gym, 2016

    2016

  6. [7]

    On the efficiency of equilibria in generalized second price auctions

    Ioannis Caragiannis, Christos Kaklamanis, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, and Maria Kyropoulou. On the efficiency of equilibria in generalized second price auctions. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 81–90, 2011

    2011

  7. [8]

    Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling

    Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Misha Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:15084–15097, 2021

    2021

  8. [9]

    Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords

    Benjamin Edelman, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz. Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. American economic review, 97(1):242–259, 2007

    2007

Show all 45 references
  1. [10]

    Datasheets for datasets

    Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé Iii, and Kate Crawford. Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12):86–92, 2021

    2021

  2. [11]

    Adcraft: An advanced reinforcement learning benchmark environment for search engine marketing optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11971, 2023

    Maziar Gomrokchi, Owen Levin, Jeffrey Roach, and Jonah White. Adcraft: An advanced reinforcement learning benchmark environment for search engine marketing optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Aigb: Generative auto-bidding via conditional diffusion modeling

    Jiayan Guo, Yusen Huo, Zhilin Zhang, Tianyu Wang, Chuan Yu, Jian Xu, Bo Zheng, and Yan Zhang. Aigb: Generative auto-bidding via conditional diffusion modeling. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 5038–5049, 2024

    2024

  4. [13]

    Recent advances in reinforcement learning in finance

    Ben Hambly, Renyuan Xu, and Huining Yang. Recent advances in reinforcement learning in finance. Mathematical Finance, 33(3):437–503, 2023

    2023

  5. [14]

    Dynamic programming for partially observable stochastic games

    Eric A Hansen, Daniel S Bernstein, and Shlomo Zilberstein. Dynamic programming for partially observable stochastic games. In AAAI, volume 4, pages 709–715, 2004

    2004

  6. [15]

    Dynamic knapsack optimization towards efficient multi- channel sequential advertising

    Xiaotian Hao, Zhaoqing Peng, Yi Ma, Guan Wang, Junqi Jin, Jianye Hao, Shan Chen, Rongquan Bai, Mingzhou Xie, Miao Xu, et al. Dynamic knapsack optimization towards efficient multi- channel sequential advertising. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4060–4070...

    2020

  7. [16]

    A unified solution to constrained bidding in online display advertising

    Yue He, Xiujun Chen, Di Wu, Junwei Pan, Qing Tan, Chuan Yu, Jian Xu, and Xiaoqiang Zhu. A unified solution to constrained bidding in online display advertising. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2993–3001, 2021

    2021

  8. [17]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 11

    2020

  9. [18]

    Off-policy learning-to-bid with auctiongym

    Olivier Jeunen, Sean Murphy, and Ben Allison. Off-policy learning-to-bid with auctiongym. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 4219–4228, 2023

    2023

  10. [19]

    Principal component analysis: a review and recent devel- opments

    Ian T Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima. Principal component analysis: a review and recent devel- opments. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065):20150202, 2016

    2016

  11. [20]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Offline reinforcement learning with implicit q-learning

    Ilya Kostrikov, Ashvin Nair, and Sergey Levine. Offline reinforcement learning with implicit q-learning. In Deep RL Workshop NeurIPS 2021, 2021

    2021

  13. [22]

    Trajectory-wise iterative reinforcement learning framework for auto-bidding

    Haoming Li, Yusen Huo, Shuai Dou, Zhenzhe Zheng, Zhilin Zhang, Chuan Yu, Jian Xu, and Fan Wu. Trajectory-wise iterative reinforcement learning framework for auto-bidding. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pages 4193–4203, 2024

    2024

  14. [23]

    On revenue in the generalized second price auction

    Brendan Lucier, Renato Paes Leme, and Éva Tardos. On revenue in the generalized second price auction. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, pages 361–370, 2012

    2012

  15. [24]

    Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning

    C Berner OpenAI, Greg Brockman, Brooke Chan, Vicki Cheung, P Debiak, Christy Dennison, David Farhi, Quirin Fischer, Shariq Hashme, Chris Hesse, et al. Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06680, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  16. [25]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  17. [26]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part ...

    2015

  18. [27]

    The starcraft multi-agent challenge

    Mikayel Samvelyan, Tabish Rashid, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Nan- tas Nardelli, Tim GJ Rudner, Chia-Man Hung, Philip HS Torr, Jakob Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. The starcraft multi-agent challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04043, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Spending programmed bidding: Privacy-friendly bid optimization with roi constraint in online advertising

    Yumin Su, Min Xiang, Yifei Chen, Yanbiao Li, Tian Qin, Hongyi Zhang, Yasong Li, and Xiaobing Liu. Spending programmed bidding: Privacy-friendly bid optimization with roi constraint in online advertising. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery a...

    2024

  20. [29]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012

    2012

  21. [30]

    Behavioral cloning from observation

    Faraz Torabi, Garrett Warnell, and Peter Stone. Behavioral cloning from observation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2018

    2018

  22. [31]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  23. [32]

    Grandmaster level in starcraft ii using multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Oriol Vinyals, Igor Babuschkin, Wojciech M Czarnecki, Michaël Mathieu, Andrew Dudzik, Jun- young Chung, David H Choi, Richard Powell, Timo Ewalds, Petko Georgiev, et al. Grandmaster level in starcraft ii using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature, 575(7782):350–354, 2019

    2019

  24. [33]

    Budget constrained bidding by model-free reinforcement learning in display advertising

    Di Wu, Xiujun Chen, Xun Yang, Hao Wang, Qing Tan, Xiaoxun Zhang, Jian Xu, and Kun Gai. Budget constrained bidding by model-free reinforcement learning in display advertising. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages...

    2018

  25. [34]

    Hierarchical hybrid multi- agent deep reinforcement learning for peer-to-peer energy trading among multiple heterogeneous microgrids

    Yuxin Wu, Tianyang Zhao, Haoyuan Yan, Min Liu, and Nian Liu. Hierarchical hybrid multi- agent deep reinforcement learning for peer-to-peer energy trading among multiple heterogeneous microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    Leveraging the hints: Adaptive bidding in repeated first-price auctions

    Wei Zhang, Yanjun Han, Zhengyuan Zhou, Aaron Flores, and Tsachy Weissman. Leveraging the hints: Adaptive bidding in repeated first-price auctions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:21329–21341, 2022

    2022

  27. [36]

    Feedback control of real-time display advertising

    Weinan Zhang, Yifei Rong, Jun Wang, Tianchi Zhu, and Xiaofan Wang. Feedback control of real-time display advertising. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 407–416, 2016

    2016

  28. [37]

    Ofcourse: A multi-agent reinforcement learning environment for order fulfillment

    Yiheng Zhu, Yang Zhan, Xuankun Huang, Yuwei Chen, Jiangwen Wei, Wei Feng, Yinzhi Zhou, Haoyuan Hu, Jieping Ye, et al. Ofcourse: A multi-agent reinforcement learning environment for order fulfillment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 13 A Evaluation ...

    2024

  29. [38]

    This intern distribution is obtained from real-world online advertising statistics

    The ad opportunity generation module generates features u = ( u1, u2, · · ·, um) and values v = {vij} of m ad opportunities for n agents, where the number of ad opportunities m is sampled from an intern distribution within AuctionNet. This intern distribution is obtained from ...

  30. [39]

    Agents bid for all the ad opportunities considering the predicted values provided by the environ- ment and the historical auction logs

  31. [40]

    The auction module determines the winner of each auction, rewards, and costs by the auction mechanism

  32. [41]

    The budgets of all the agents are updated according to auction results

    Agents receive rewards, costs, and new auction logs. The budgets of all the agents are updated according to auction results. In the next time step, all the processes above will be repeated. Given this general process, we will introduce the three main modules in order. The ad o...

  33. [42]

    (a) Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? [Yes] See Section 1

    For all authors... (a) Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? [Yes] See Section 1. (b) Did you describe the limitations of your work? [Yes] See Section 8. (c) Did you discuss any potential negative socie...

  34. [43]

    (a) Did you state the full set of assumptions of all theoretical results? [N/A] (b) Did you include complete proofs of all theoretical results? [N/A]

    If you are including theoretical results... (a) Did you state the full set of assumptions of all theoretical results? [N/A] (b) Did you include complete proofs of all theoretical results? [N/A]

  35. [44]

    for benchmarks)

    If you ran experiments (e.g. for benchmarks)... (a) Did you include the code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the main experi- mental results (either in the supplemental material or as a URL)? [Yes] See Appendix B.5. (b) Did you specify all the training details (e.g...

  36. [45]

    (a) If your work uses existing assets, did you cite the creators? [N/A] (b) Did you mention the license of the assets? [Yes] See Appendix B.5

    If you are using existing assets (e.g., code, data, models) or curating/releasing new assets... (a) If your work uses existing assets, did you cite the creators? [N/A] (b) Did you mention the license of the assets? [Yes] See Appendix B.5. (c) Did you include any new assets eit...

  37. [46]

    If you used crowdsourcing or conducted research with human subjects... (a) Did you include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable? [N/A] (b) Did you describe any potential participant risks, with links to Institutional Review Board (...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.