1: \begin{abstract}

2: 	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. 

3: 	One key factor that is often ignored 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. 

4: 	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).  

5: 	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.  

6: 	Apart from their learning behavior, the objectives reported in the literature extend payoff maximization, often focusing on return-on-investment or return-on-spend.  

7: 	We derive equilibrium bid functions for such utility models, revealing that revenue equivalence doesn't hold. 

8: 	In low-competition scenarios, the first-price auction often yields lower revenue than the second-price counterpart.  

9: 	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.

10: \end{abstract}

11: